[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 87 (Tuesday, June 2, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H3700-H3755]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2016
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 287 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. 2578.
Will the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) kindly resume the
chair.
{time} 1900
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. 2578) making appropriations for the Departments of
Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Westmoreland (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
an amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) had been
disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 25, line 20.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
In addition, for reimbursement of expenses of the
Department of Justice associated with processing cases under
the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to
exceed $8,000,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury
Compensation Trust Fund.
salaries and expenses, antitrust division
For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and
kindred laws, $162,246,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, fees collected for premerger notification filings
under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of
1976 (15 U.S.C. 18a), regardless of the year of collection
(and estimated to be $124,000,000 in fiscal year 2016), shall
be retained and used for necessary expenses in this
appropriation, and shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the
general fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections
are received during fiscal year 2016, so as to result in a
final fiscal year 2016 appropriation from the general fund
estimated at $38,246,000.
salaries and expenses, united states attorneys
For necessary expenses of the Offices of the United States
Attorneys, including inter-governmental and cooperative
agreements, $1,995,000,000: Provided, That of the total
amount appropriated, not to exceed $7,200 shall be available
for official reception and representation expenses: Provided
further, That not to exceed $25,000,000 shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That each United
States Attorney shall establish or participate in a task
force on human trafficking.
united states trustee system fund
For necessary expenses of the United States Trustee
Program, as authorized, $225,908,000, to remain available
until expended and to be derived from the United States
Trustee System Fund: Provided, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, deposits to the Fund shall be
available in such amounts as may be necessary to pay refunds
due depositors: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, $162,000,000 of offsetting
collections pursuant to section 589a(b) of title 28, United
States Code, shall be retained and used for necessary
expenses in this appropriation and shall remain available
until expended: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated from the Fund shall be reduced as such
offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 2016,
so as to result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation
from the Fund estimated at $63,908,000.
salaries and expenses, foreign claims settlement commission
For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, including services as
authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
$2,326,000.
fees and expenses of witnesses
For fees and expenses of witnesses, for expenses of
contracts for the procurement and supervision of expert
witnesses, for private counsel expenses, including advances,
and for expenses of foreign counsel, $270,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which not to exceed $16,000,000
is for construction of buildings for protected witness
safesites; not to exceed $3,000,000 is for the purchase and
maintenance of armored and other vehicles for witness
security caravans; and not to exceed $13,000,000 is for the
purchase, installation, maintenance, and upgrade of secure
telecommunications equipment and a secure automated
information network to store and retrieve the identities and
locations of protected witnesses: Provided, That amounts made
available under this heading may not be transferred pursuant
to section 205 of this Act.
salaries and expenses, community relations service
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service,
$13,000,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section 205 of
this Act, upon a determination by the Attorney General that
emergent circumstances require additional funding for
conflict resolution and violence prevention activities of the
Community Relations Service, the Attorney General may
transfer such amounts to the Community Relations Service,
from available appropriations for the current fiscal year for
the Department of Justice, as may be necessary to respond to
such circumstances: Provided further, That any transfer
pursuant to the preceding proviso shall be treated as a
reprogramming under section 505 of this Act and shall not be
available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.
United States Marshals Service
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals
Service, $1,220,000,000, of which not to exceed $6,000 shall
be available
[[Page H3701]]
for official reception and representation expenses, and not
to exceed $15,000,000 shall remain available until expended.
construction
For construction in space controlled, occupied or utilized
by the United States Marshals Service for prisoner holding
and related support, $11,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
federal prisoner detention
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses related to United States prisoners
in the custody of the United States Marshals Service as
authorized by section 4013 of title 18, United States Code,
$1,058,081,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be considered ``funds
appropriated for State and local law enforcement assistance''
pursuant to section 4013(b) of title 18, United States Code:
Provided further, That the United States Marshals Service
shall be responsible for managing the Justice Prisoner and
Alien Transportation System: Provided further, That any
unobligated balances available from funds appropriated under
the heading ``General Administration, Detention Trustee''
shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation
under this heading.
National Security Division
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the
National Security Division, $95,000,000, of which not to
exceed $5,000,000 for information technology systems shall
remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding section 205 of this Act, upon a determination
by the Attorney General that emergent circumstances require
additional funding for the activities of the National
Security Division, the Attorney General may transfer such
amounts to this heading from available appropriations for the
current fiscal year for the Department of Justice, as may be
necessary to respond to such circumstances: Provided further,
That any transfer pursuant to the preceding proviso shall be
treated as a reprogramming under section 505 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
Interagency Law Enforcement
interagency crime and drug enforcement
For necessary expenses for the identification,
investigation, and prosecution of individuals associated with
the most significant drug trafficking and affiliated money
laundering organizations not otherwise provided for, to
include inter-governmental agreements with State and local
law enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and
prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug
trafficking, $510,000,000, of which $50,000,000 shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That any amounts
obligated from appropriations under this heading may be used
under authorities available to the organizations reimbursed
from this appropriation.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for detection, investigation, and prosecution
of crimes against the United States, $8,489,786,000, of which
not to exceed $216,900,000 shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That not to exceed $184,500 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses.
{time} 1900
Amendment Offered by Mr. Pittenger
Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 32, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
Page 72, line 7, after each of the dollar amounts, insert
``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership
and hard work on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple, it is fair, it is fiscally
responsible, and it strengthens our national security. My amendment
reduces Federal spending for the Legal Services Corporation by $25
million while leaving the program substantially intact. That money is
then used to increase funds for the FBI in their critical
counterterrorism efforts.
The underlying bill appropriates $300 million for the LSC, but
Congress has not authorized the LSC since 1980. Mr. Chairman, 35 years
is much too long to leave a Federal program on autopilot. Even the
nonpartisan CBO has recognized defunding the LSC is a way to rein in
our out-of-control spending, noting that programs receiving LSC grants
already receive funding from States, localities, and private entities,
as well as from private attorneys involved in pro bono work. Community
problems are best solved at the community level, not through the
Federal bureaucracy.
This amendment, however, does not suddenly end LSC and its programs.
It simply reduces funding in a responsible and modest way and applies
that money toward critical national security efforts. This amendment
prioritizes the spending of taxpayer money on our current needs.
Earlier this year, FBI Director James Comey said he has ``homegrown
violent extremist investigations in every single State.'' Just last
month, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Secretary
Johnson, said: ``We're very definitely in a new environment because of
ISIL's effective use of social media, the Internet, which has the
ability to reach into the homeland and possibly inspire others.'' He
continued, saying, ``Because of the use of the Internet, we could have
little or no notice in advance of an independent actor attempting to
strike.'' But in a congressionally mandated report released in March of
this year, the FBI Commissioner said, budget cuts ``severely hindered
the FBI's intelligence and national security programs.''
Mr. Chairman, given the constant, evolving, and new threats we face
today from terrorism, it is common sense to reduce spending for a
program which has other proven avenues of funding and prioritize the
funding we do have for those seeking to protect us from terrorism.
I encourage all my colleagues to support the amendment, and with
that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hudson). The gentleman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the committee, over the time that I have been on the
committee, each and every year has increased its appropriations to the
FBI, and this year is no exception. The chairman, in his wisdom,
working with a very tough allocation, has provided $8.5 billion--to be
exact, $8.489 billion, which is a $111 million increase.
I think that the gentleman, if his concern is about us providing
adequate funding for the Bureau, can rest assured that the committee
has taken every--they have taken that responsibility very seriously.
If his concern or effort is to suggest that somehow pro bono lawyers
are going to make up the difference for a cut at Legal Services, in a
big city like Philadelphia, it may be so that we have law firms who can
have pro bono partners who can spend their time helping people who are
not going to be able to pay them, but in large swaths of our country,
that is not the case.
Legal Services was created and it helps people, many of whom are
veterans, for instance, who are stationed far away from home, who have
to fight off efforts by people who are trying to repossess a car or do
something else nefarious. They need access to the courts. And so it was
President Nixon who created Legal Services, understanding that one of
the things about our country, it is a country of laws. People have to
have access to the courts, and they need representation.
So I think there is already a justice gap, that is the percentage of
people eligible to the numbers who are actually able to be helped, and
I think this would be unwise. I hope and I believe that this House will
not support this amendment because it would be taking from people who
need it the most when there is no definitive need for it in terms of
where it is being allocated.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee,
Congressman Cohen, my colleague who represents the city of Memphis.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Fattah. I join with him in
opposing this amendment.
Legal Services is funded at $375 million this year. This budget cuts
it $75 million to $300 million. That is a large cut. That is over 20
percent. It has been cut and cut and cut over the years.
Nationally, 50 percent of all eligible potential clients are turned
away from Legal Services because of a lack of funding. In my district
in Memphis,
[[Page H3702]]
they have lost $300,000, and the staff has been reduced from 50 to 38.
Mr. Chairman, when we travel overseas, one of the things that almost
every individual you meet up with tells us about America is, We envy
your justice system. They envy our justice system because people have
access to the courts to settle our differences.
But if you are poor and/or uneducated and you don't have a lawyer,
you don't have access, really, to the legal system; the other side
will. If you are a domestic violence victim and you need an attorney
and you don't have one, you are subject to further domestic violence.
If you are a tenant in an apartment building and you are being run out,
the apartment people are going to have attorneys and you won't, and you
will be on the street.
So we are talking about victims, domestic victims. We are talking
about people being homeless. We are talking about individuals, American
citizens, who won't have access to the courts, the envy of people
around the world when they look at America, and we will be taking it
away from them.
I would ask the gentleman to find moneys for the FBI from somewhere
else. The FBI helps bring about justice. But to take it away from an
area that gives poor people of America justice--even though it does
give money to the FBI to find criminals and hopefully bring justice to
them on the criminal side, which is important--this is not the right
place to take the money.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the spirit.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the time of both my
colleagues. I want to recognize the extraordinary commitment that my
colleague, Mr. Pittenger, has made to counterterrorism and trying to
protect the safety and security of the United States.
I will say, though, Mr. Chairman, I did work as a legal aid attorney,
a legal aid volunteer many years ago when I was a law student. We spent
countless hours trying to keep a roof over the head of tenants who were
being kicked out of their home through no fault of their own because a
landlord wasn't paying a mortgage. Now, you had people who were going
homeless because they did nothing wrong but couldn't avail themselves
of an attorney.
To try to find, now, ways to gut that funding when, with low interest
rates--one of the key methods of funding for Legal Services across this
country is from interest on lawyer's trust accounts. Because of low
interest rates, that funding has been basically nonexistent. In
Massachusetts, that went from about $34 million a year down to $4
million a year.
We are gutting a very basic tenet of what this country is all about.
We spend so much time in these Chambers, Mr. Chairman, talking about
how these laws are shaped to touch people's lives and very little time
speaking about the enforcement and protections that they provide. Mr.
Chairman, this is that moment, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``no''
on the amendment.
MR. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge the wonderful work of Mr. Kennedy and
what he has done with Legal Services. I would say that Legal Services,
frankly, has had a long and troubled history of using taxpayer money
for political purposes.
An LSC-affiliated agency once used Federal tax dollars to produce
pamphlets and political cartoons for political advocacy purposes. Tax
dollars were also used to train activists on how to lobby Congress for
additional funding. The LSC is marked by misuse of taxpayer money and
redundancy, as many of these programs are offered, as well, by the
States.
So I don't question that there is good work that is being done, but
at the same time, I think it is prudent and logical that we look and
see how this money is not being used wisely and, frankly, been
inappropriately used.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very modest cut in this agency. I
commend this amendment to the House and ask for their support, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
construction
For necessary expenses, to include the cost of equipment,
furniture, and information technology requirements, related
to construction or acquisition of buildings, facilities and
sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law;
conversion, modification and extension of Federally-owned
buildings; preliminary planning and design of projects; and
operation and maintenance of secure work environment
facilities and secure networking capabilities; $57,982,000,
to remain available until expended.
Drug Enforcement Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet
unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character pursuant
to section 530C of title 28, United States Code; and expenses
for conducting drug education and training programs,
including travel and related expenses for participants in
such programs and the distribution of items of token value
that promote the goals of such programs, $2,073,945,000; of
which not to exceed $75,000,000 shall remain available until
expended and not to exceed $90,000 shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk concerning
rape kits.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 33, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.
Page 49, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
{time} 1915
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would increase by $4 million the bill's funding for
grants to address the backlog of sexual assault kits at law enforcement
agencies.
DNA analysis has been revolutionary in helping to catch criminals and
prevent crimes from occurring because of DNA evidence. This evidence
does us no good if it remains untested and sitting on a shelf in a lab
somewhere.
Despite progress over the last few years, and much progress most
recently, there are still thousands of rape kits that remain untested--
potentially hundreds of thousands. That is potentially hundreds of
thousands of victims whose assailants are never brought to justice left
to prey on yet more women.
Last year, my hometown paper, the Memphis Commercial Appeal,
highlighted the tragic need to end this backlog once and for all. It
described a serial rapist who was finally caught by police in 2012. He
could have been stopped nearly a decade earlier if only his first
victim's rape kit had been tested, but that kit wasn't, and, instead,
he was able to attack five more women over the next 8 years.
Missed opportunities like this happen all across our country every
day. The trauma inflicted on victims of rape can be compounded when
they know that their assailants run free while critical evidence goes
untested.
Fortunately, efforts are underway to reduce the backlog, and they are
making a difference. In Memphis, our backlog reached more than 12,000,
but police have now opened 488 investigations and issued 90 requests
for indictment.
But testing rape kits cost money, more than local law enforcement can
afford. I appreciate the chairman's and the ranking member's commitment
to eliminating the backlog and the funding that the committee has
provided in the bill, but we need more.
This amendment would increase by not quite 10 percent, an additional
$4 million, and would take it from the
[[Page H3703]]
Drug Enforcement Administration, a $2 billion agency that receives a
$40 million increase in this bill. DEA would barely notice the
difference.
Moreover, DEA has been alarmingly irresponsible with money Congress
has given it previously. An inspector general report recently found
that DEA agents had ``sex parties'' with prostitutes funded by drug
cartels in government-leased living quarters. And this followed an
inspector general report that found the DEA paid hundreds of thousands
of dollars for information from Amtrak that they could have obtained
for free.
I think the choice is clear: we should stand with victims of sexual
assault.
I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment. It is so important that
these kits are tested, that the assailants are brought to justice, and
that additional women are not attacked by what are known to be serial
rapists who are out on the streets.
I would like to say a thank you to my partner on this amendment,
Representative Carolyn Maloney, who has been a tireless advocate on
this issue as well.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although
I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Westmoreland). Without objection, the gentleman
from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman is exactly
right. We, in the bill, have increased funding to reduce the rape kit
backlog. This is a vitally important tool that local police departments
are using to get these people off the streets as quickly as possible.
I accept the gentleman's amendment. There is no punishment severe
enough nor swift enough for these people. I think it is very, very
important that we get these rape kits handled as quickly as possible,
so I urge Members to support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, we made some significant progress, but more
needs to be done. I want to thank the gentleman for his amendment. The
committee has made this a very high priority. I thank the chairman for
his leadership in this regard. We are all in concurrence here.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the chairman,
particularly, and the ranking member as well, for their help and their
hard work on getting the moneys passed and for helping on this
amendment.
These rapists don't know State lines, and they cross State lines, so
it is most appropriate that the Federal Government help the locals in
finding people that perform these dastardly acts all over our country.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ted Lieu of California
Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 33, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.
Page 38, line 9, after the dollar amount insert
(``increased by $4,000,000'').
Page 38, line 24, after the dollar amount insert
(``increased by $4,000,000'').
Page 47, line 8, after the dollar amount insert
(``increased by $3,000,000'').
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment takes $9
million out of the DEA's $2 billion salaries and expense budget and
redirects it toward deficit reduction, as well as underfunded State and
local programs to help children who suffer through child abuse,
domestic abuse, and sexual assault.
This amendment has been scored by the CBO as reducing budget
authority by $2 million and reducing outlays by $6 million in fiscal
year 2016.
In the face of overwhelming support for lessening restrictions on
marijuana, the DEA still spends over $18 million a year on domestic
marijuana eradication programs. This simply takes some of that money
away because some States have legalized it, making some of these
eradication programs no longer necessary, and it redirects the money--
$2 million to lowering the deficit, $3 million to the Victims of Child
Abuse Act, which supports justice and support for victims of child
abuse, and $4 million to the Consolidated Youth Oriented program, which
helps victims and the services they need to pursue safe and healthy
lives.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although
I am not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has a good
amendment, and I would encourage Members to support it.
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I concur.
Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Castro of Texas
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 33, line 5, after the 1st dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
Page 49, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the
chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this bill.
My amendment would add $10 million to the Community Trust Initiative
account for police body-worn cameras, and would take those $10 million
from the DEA account for salaries and expenses.
Over the last several months, we have seen more and more encounters
between members of our communities and law enforcement that have been
too powerful to ignore. We have seen in those recordings instances of
police abuse. We have seen instances where police were justified in the
use of force. We have even seen instances where police went above and
beyond doing their job.
Mr. Chairman, over the last two decades or so, something changed--two
things, in fact.
First, we developed a technology so that basically each of us who
walks around with a cell phone camera is a social documentarian of the
things going on around us.
The second thing that changed is the advent of social media, which
allowed people not only to document their experiences, but also to
widely distribute what they have documented to this country and to the
world. Because of that, we have gotten a better indication of the
interaction between law enforcement and members of our community.
In this digital age, we have a responsibility to seek and to know the
truth about those encounters. Local police departments, many of them--
in fact, 25 percent of the 17,000 police agencies in this country--are
already using body cameras. Many more in States all over our Nation are
seeking the funds to do this.
The President of the United States asked for $50 million to allow
local grants and moneys for local agencies to afford these body cameras
and for the storage to make sure that they can keep that evidence.
[[Page H3704]]
As you all know, this is a very expensive thing, and many departments
have struggled with the funds to afford these things. So in the budget
that has been proposed, the amount proposed is not $50 million, but $15
million. This $10 million would simply bring us back up to half of what
the President has requested at $25 million.
I will also add that this is very popular among the American people:
86 percent of Americans--Republicans and Democrats, people of every
race and ethnicity, in every community across the country--support
increased use of body cameras for officers. Even the association of
police chiefs in our country supports this also.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although
I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage Members to support it.
The gentleman has a good amendment. I think the Community Trust
Initiative program that we have created in the bill will rebuild that
bond of trust between police officers and their community by making
sure that these body cameras are available. My good friend from Texas--
Texas was the first State in the Union to pass a State law that says
when, where, and how this data from the body cameras can be used. State
Senator Royce West from Dallas passed that legislation. I had a chance
to talk to him during the legislative session about a month and a half
ago, talk to him about this, and I said: If you will pass this law in
Texas and other States will pass it, my good friend, Mr. Fattah, and I,
we made sure that the language in our bill follows State law. The State
law in Georgia, the State law in Pennsylvania, in Texas, et cetera,
will decide when, where, and how this data can be accessed by
attorneys, by victims, and make sure it is not given to the media.
State law will control that. It is a good program and a good amendment,
and I encourage Members to support it.
I am happy to yield to my good friend from Philadelphia.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and I thank the
gentleman from Texas for offering this amendment. I also support it. We
have already put some dollars available for this purpose, but adding
another additional $10 million gets us closer to the goal that we want
to seek in this effort, so I thank the gentleman.
We have got a circumstance here where we are in total agreement and
on one accord.
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his
foresight and thank him for his work on this. I also want to thank a
few folks: Congressmen Cleaver, Clay; Dana Rohrabacher, who was with me
on this; Congressmen Schweikert, John Lewis, and Donald Norcross.
Congressman Norcross did a lot of work on this in New Jersey. So thank
you very much.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 33, line 5, after the first dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.
Page 72, line 7, after the first dollar amount insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We just had an amendment on the floor and the amendment took $25
million from Legal Services. I had several amendments to file, and they
went from $5 million for legal services up to $35 million. So what I
thought might be the equitable thing to do would be, instead of going
with the $35 million, which would have just been half of the cut, take
the $25 million that Mr. Pittenger wanted to take away from them, take
it away from the amendment that would have been best, the $35 million
increase, and go for a $10 million increase, which would, in essence,
be Mr. Pittenger's amendment against the amendment which would be a
best practices that I would have recommended increasing $35 million.
{time} 1930
This amendment would restore $10 million to the devastating cuts to
Legal Services. Legal Services in 1995 was funded at $400 million. Just
on inflationary dollars, today, that $400 million would be $600
million; yet, in this budget, Legal Services would be funded at $300
million, half of what it would be based on 1995 figures adjusted for
inflation.
We are proud of our legal system, and we are known for it all around
the globe, but it can be complex. With all of the problems we have with
the legal language, let alone just languages that we have in this
Nation, it is too difficult for people to represent themselves in
court.
There is a saying: ``He who represents himself as a lawyer has a fool
for a client.'' People need professional legal aid to get through the
maze of the justice system. If you are poor in this country--and most
people are--if you are uneducated--and many are--and scared when you go
to court, you are not going to be able to successfully work against a
private attorney on the other side. It just takes away from the whole
idea of equal justice under the law.
I talked earlier about domestic violence. There are ladies--and
sometimes men--who need protective orders from abusive partners or
seniors who have been victimized by fraudulent lenders as well. Legal
assistance is vital to ensuring that these parties are treated fairly
and are aware of their rights. That is why I am a champion of the Legal
Services Corporation, which helps fund legal aid programs throughout
the country.
This bill, as I say, cuts $75 million, which would make many people
in the Nation not have representation and unable to pursue justice.
Nearly 50 percent of all eligible potential clients are turned away
from legal services nationally, and it has hurt people all over this
country.
The attorneys do heroic work, and there are serious consequences for
reducing the funding to these folks. Unless we ensure legal assistance,
we effectively shut the courthouse doors to many who won't be able to
protect their rights.
The decrease would come from the DEA. Again, the DEA has had
numerous, numerous problems with agents who have gone rogue and have
done things that you shouldn't do anywhere, least of all when you are a
DEA agent representing our country. The funding in the hands of Legal
Services could change the lives of thousands of people who need legal
representation.
This amendment is $25 million less than what I would have like to
have gotten with the $35 million amendment, but I will take that. If we
can get the 10, hopefully, Mr. Pittenger will be happy with the 25 cut
from the 35 that we should have gotten, in my opinion, on top to
restore the 75 that we have lost.
Representatives Quigley, Castor, Schrader, and Joe Kennedy have all
helped on this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, once again, I rise in support of the Legal
Services Corporation.
This is an organization that is the major source of funding for legal
aid offices all across this country. The funding, as my colleague
indicated, has not kept pace with need, inflation, or reality.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman--and I have seen as a legal
aid volunteer in the courtrooms and then again as a prosecutor the
impact of adequate legal representation. I spent hours and hours, along
with other volunteers, trying to ensure that citizens of this country
who, through no fault of their own, are being victimized by large
interests or by folks who did know how to navigate the legal system
could have adequate representation in the courts.
Mr. Chairman, inside these halls, we debate with great vigor and
great detail the nuances to every single piece
[[Page H3705]]
of legislation, yet spend far too little time discussing the impact of
how that is going to be enforced after it becomes law. That is what the
Legal Services Corporation does.
The fact is, in many ways, another source of funding for Legal
Services is through the interest on lawyers' trusts accounts, IOLTA
funding. With low interest rates over the course of past several years,
that funding has been devastated.
In Massachusetts alone, that used to be about $34 million a year
through a separate fund that has been reduced to $4 million. The fact
of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that Legal Services has already been
decimated at a time when more and more people need to understand that
they have access to a fair and just legal system. That is what this
amendment seeks to do.
That is why I am proud to support it, and I ask my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the Drug Enforcement Agency does
extraordinarily important work in targeting high-level drug trafficking
organizations--disrupting and dismantling them, attacking the economic
basis of the drug trade, and contributing to counterterrorism
activities that are tied to and financed by drugs.
We have seen the absolute anarchy in northern Mexico. Mexico is a
failed state. The northern part of the state is a complete disaster. We
have got utter lawlessness along the Texas border, the southwest
border, so it is so important that the DEA be given the resources that
they need to do their job.
I understand the concern about the Legal Services Corporation. I will
be filing legislation to give attorneys a dollar-for-dollar deduction
in their taxes for services that they donate to the poor. I think it is
a far better way to get at the concern that we all have that legal
services be provided to the poor by doing that through the Tax Code
rather than by appropriating our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars.
The DEA has a very, very important job to do.
As for the concerns that the gentleman has raised and that I have
heard other people raise about some of the activities of some senior
level folks at the DEA, we have withheld money from the Department of
Justice in our bill specifically to encourage the new Attorney General
to discipline those high-level DEA officials who were involved in that
embarrassing and disgraceful episode that we saw take place in Colombia
that the inspector general uncovered.
That kind of behavior is not acceptable, and they should all be
fired, and we have encouraged the new Attorney General to do so
immediately. However, I think the taking of additional money from the
DEA is a bad idea, and I do encourage my colleagues to oppose the
amendment. I will also point out that we have an initial $43 million in
this bill for violence against women programs, specifically for legal
assistance for domestic violence victims.
I do urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment in order to
protect the vital role that the DEA plays in the war on drugs.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, let me be clear. This does not cut the DEA.
It only reduces the amount of money it was increased by in the budget,
and it was increased by something like $40 million in a $2 billion
budget. It would take $10 million, which would make a big difference to
Legal Services.
Once the Rohrabacher-Cohen-Farr amendment passes, they won't be
messing with States that have legalized medical marijuana, and it will
give the DEA a lot more time to do the right things they need to do in
northern Mexico and in other failed states; and as for the states that
haven't failed, stay out of them.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for any comments he may have.
Mr. FATTAH. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I don't want anyone to be confused here. On the floor,
the chairman from the subcommittee and from the full committee has
said--and I have said it--that we realize that the Legal Services
Corporation and the shortfall needs to be addressed.
I believe, before we pass a final bill, it will be addressed. There
is no possibility that I am going to support a bill that has got $300
million funding for Legal Services Corporation.
There is this notion of a $10 million increase on top of a $25
million cut. I don't want these votes to be viewed as some kind of
ceiling for Legal Services, and I think we ought to be careful here to
make sure, as the House is working through this, that we understand
that the amount that the bill is at now is unacceptable. It has already
been cut. Taking that cut and adding $10 million back to it is not a
satisfactory response, notwithstanding the intentions of our colleague
here.
We want to address the bigger issue, which is the full funding for
Legal Services. As we go forward in this effort, I want to make my
intentions clear that I intend to fight to make sure that we live up to
our commitment and our responsibilities in terms of fully funding Legal
Services.
Mr. CULBERSON. I want to assure my friend from Philadelphia, as we
get down further into conference, that we have got priorities in the
bill that we did not have enough money for, and we will work hard with
you to try to find resources, but let's not take it from the DEA.
I would urge Members to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives, for training of State and local law
enforcement agencies with or without reimbursement, including
training in connection with the training and acquisition of
canines for explosives and fire accelerants detection; and
for provision of laboratory assistance to State and local law
enforcement agencies, with or without reimbursement,
$1,250,000,000, of which not to exceed $36,000 shall be for
official reception and representation expenses, not to exceed
$1,000,000 shall be available for the payment of attorneys'
fees as provided by section 924(d)(2) of title 18, United
States Code, and not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated herein shall be available to investigate or act
upon applications for relief from Federal firearms
disabilities under section 925(c) of title 18, United States
Code: Provided further, That such funds shall be available to
investigate and act upon applications filed by corporations
for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under section
925(c) of title 18, United States Code: Provided further,
That no funds made available by this or any other Act may be
used to transfer the functions, missions, or activities of
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to
other agencies or Departments.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 33, line 19, insert after the dollar amount ``(reduced
by $5,000,000)''.
Page 42, line 24, insert after the dollar amount
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 46, line 7, insert after the dollar amount
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to stand with the veterans
throughout the country by offering a simple amendment to bolster funds
in this act for Veterans Treatment Courts.
Veterans Treatment Courts promote sobriety and recovery through
coordinated local partnerships among community corrections agencies,
drug treatment providers, the judiciary, and other community support
groups. Veterans Treatment Courts have been extremely successful since
they were first
[[Page H3706]]
created in 2008 by a Buffalo judge to combat the growing numbers of
veterans appearing before the court that were addicted to drugs and
alcohol, as well as suffering from mental illness.
Many of our Nation's heroes returning from combat are traumatized due
to the associated violence and pressure of war and often cope with such
feelings with substance abuse. They need focused treatment and a
helping hand, and these courts provide such an avenue.
The alternative to Veterans Treatment Courts is often jail time. I
think we can all agree that providing treatment for our veterans
through community partnerships at the local level is a far better
option than locking them up.
My amendment pays for this modest increase for this critical
initiative by reducing funds for the salaries and expenses for the
overreaching Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives by $5
million. I offered a very similar amendment last year, which was
adopted by voice vote.
The ATF's salaries and expenses are slated to receive an increase of
$49 million from fiscal year 2015 enacted levels, which would bring the
total appropriation level to $1.25 billion. My amendment redirects
funds from bureaucrats in the mismanaged and overzealous ATF to a
worthy treatment program for our Nation's veterans.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to, once again, show
their support for the worthwhile program by passing my commonsense
amendment.
I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on
this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment, but I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has a good amendment, and
I encourage the House to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 33, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 42, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 46, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer another amendment to
this bill, along with my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), that seeks
to bolster another important program.
First, I reiterate my thanks to the committee for the long hours they
have dedicated to prioritizing limited resources in order to produce
this bill, but I simply believe the House should not reward bad
behavior for that type that the ATF has shown recently. My amendment is
simple, and it is nearly identical to an amendment I offered last year,
which was adopted by voice vote.
The amendment shifts $5 million from the overreaching ATF bureaucrats
to a worthy and effective program known as the Harold Rogers
Prescription Drug Monitoring Program.
{time} 1945
You ask why $5 million. Because that amount would bring the
Prescription Drug Monitoring Program appropriations back to the level
originally approved by the House last year. The gentleman, Mr. Rogers
of Kentucky, is the chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations,
and he has been unrelenting on the issue of combating prescription drug
abuse.
This problem is truly plaguing our streets, our youth, and our
communities. Prescription drug abuse is contributing to addiction,
health deterioration, and even untimely death for too many across our
country. Prescription drug abuse also fuels the demand for other
illicit drugs, such as cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy, and heroin,
along with human trafficking, gunrunning, and murder. Much of the
solicitation activity flows over our southwestern border and into my
home State of Arizona.
The primary purpose of the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program is to
enhance the capacity of regulatory and law enforcement agencies to
collect and analyze controlled substance prescription data through a
centralized database administered by an authorized State agency. States
that have implemented the PDMP can collect and analyze this data much
more effectively than States in which collection of this data requires
manual review of pharmacy files.
It is this body's duty, through the annual appropriations process, to
evaluate which programs are worthwhile and which ones are not. The
Prescription Drug Monitoring Program has shown promising results, but
we must not give up. We must continue to think of our families, our
friends, and our future generations.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. I thank
Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Fattah.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am
not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I support the effort here to increase
funding for a very important program that is addressing a major problem
in our country. I divorce myself from the offset, not in terms of the
actual offset, but in any criticism of the ATF. I think that they have
some very brave, courageous Americans who are trying to make our
country safer. I think in lieu of the balancing act here, I support the
amendment, and I agree with it.
Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
If I could also point out, actually, the ATF did the right thing
here. I strenuously disagreed with the ammo ban and had a chance to
meet with the head of the ATF, as I was the new chairman of the CJS
Subcommittee, and walked him through the problems he was going to face
on this House floor with amendments and problems with their budget and
their spending plan this year.
He is a patriot, former marine, and a lifelong law enforcement
officer. He understood they had kind of gone beyond the bounds of the
statute, so he agreed to drop the ban on .223 ammunition after I had a
very good heart-to-heart meeting with him, and so ATF did the right
thing. I think we should encourage good behavior.
I want to recognize and I want to thank the new head of the ATF for
doing the right thing and not going after law-abiding Americans'
constitutional right to possess and use perfectly lawful .223
ammunition and focus on enforcing the statute, which is designed to
protect police officers from armor-piercing bullets that can be fired
from pistols.
ATF did the right thing here, but I think the gentleman has a good
amendment. That money is going to a good cause. The Prescription Drug
Monitoring Program is a good one. I share my colleague's support for
the amendment. I want to encourage Members to vote for it, but I want
to be sure the Record reflects that the ATF did the right thing in
dropping the ammo ban, and I don't expect we are going to see another
attempt by the ATF to attempt to ban .223 ammunition because the new
chairman of the CJS Subcommittee will be on them immediately.
Mr. FATTAH. We are in agreement again, maybe coming to it from
different angles, but the important thing is we are at a ``yes'' on
this amendment. The way we all get to these points may be different.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my friend.
Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Arizona for
yielding me time to speak on this very
[[Page H3707]]
important amendment. I want to thank him for his leadership.
Prescription drug abuse has become an epidemic in my home State of
Arkansas and throughout our country. I am so grateful for people like
Chief Kirk Lane of Benton, Arkansas, who leads on this issue throughout
my district.
Tonight I speak from the well of our beloved House first as a dad,
and a Congressman second. I have had personal experiences with the
tragic loss of life that come as a result of prescription drug abuse,
and many times our children and our loved ones are the ones who are so
closely affected and impacted.
My daughter is 18 years old, and she already knows four people in her
age group who have lost their lives due to the influence of
prescription drugs and the related impacts. That is tragic.
I am proud that Arkansas recently passed legislation that gives law
enforcement investigators access to our State's Prescription Drug
Monitoring Program. This law in my State will enhance investigative
capabilities and will give law enforcement investigators better ability
to bring criminals to justice who are abusing prescription drug
practices and trying to dump those drugs back on the street.
This is a serious problem that deserves more of our attention, first
at our dinner tables, in our schools, and in our capitol buildings. I
am so proud to support Mr. Gosar's amendment that cuts money from the
overhead at the ATF and will strengthen these prescription drug
monitoring activities.
I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his kind words in
support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and enter
into a colloquy.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Blum).
Mr. BLUM. Mr. Chairman, as a small-business man and a supporter of
the private sector, I wish to commend the committee for the inclusion
of report language which states: ``The committee encourages NOAA to
purchase services from the private sector when such services are
available, cost effective, and practicable.''
As my friend from Texas knows, NOAA operates a fleet of survey ships
for nautical charting as well as a fleet of survey aircraft for aerial
photography and LIDAR for mapping. However, the inspector general of
the Department of Commerce has long recommended that the aircraft fleet
be privatized, as aerial survey operations are better, faster, and less
expensive when purchased from the private sector. In fact, the
inspector general found NOAA survey operations cost 42 percent more
than the private sector, which was then confirmed by a second NOAA-
commissioned study.
Rather than accept these cost savings and productivity improvement
requirements, NOAA has continually acquired new planes, new aerial
sensors, and new ships. This is not only poor stewardship of taxpayer
money and inefficient use of resources, but results in the government
duplicating and directly competing with private enterprise. There are
numerous companies, including small businesses, ready and able to
perform these services for NOAA at a reduced cost and increased
quality.
I have visited one such private sector mapping firm in my district
and heard firsthand about how government agencies are engaged in this
behavior, which hinders private economic growth and job creation.
My question for the gentleman from Texas is: Regarding the language I
quoted earlier, is it the intent of the committee to include
contracting for such surveying and mapping services when there is a
qualified, capable, and cost-effective solution available in the
private sector?
Mr. CULBERSON. I want to thank my colleague from Iowa for raising
this important point, and the committee does expect NOAA to utilize the
private sector for these services when they are available and cost
effective and practicable. I deeply appreciate my friend's interest and
look forward to continuing to work with him on these issues to ensure
they are taken care of as we move through the process.
Mr. BLUM. I thank my friend from Texas and appreciate his hard work
on this important legislation.
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Byrne
Mr. BYRNE. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 33, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $250,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, my straightforward amendment would cut the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, by 20
percent. That would result in $250 million worth of savings.
Let me make one thing clear. I know that the ATF has an important
mission to play in keeping our Nation safe and regulating everything
from firearms to alcohol. That said, in the last few years, we have
seen an outrageous growth in operations and regulations coming out of
the ATF.
How could we forget the Fast and Furious gun trafficking scheme that
was allowed to go so far offtrack that 2,000 guns were allowed to flow
to Mexican drug trafficking groups? Worst of all, a Federal law
enforcement officer was killed with a gun from that operation.
There was Operation Fearless, where an undercover operation in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, went horribly wrong. Convicted felons were given
access to weapons, the fake storefront was burglarized, and $39,000 in
merchandise was lost. The ATF even used someone with developmental
disabilities in the operation and ultimately arrested him for his
involvement.
From Wichita, Kansas, to Portland, Oregon, to Atlanta, Georgia, the
stories of botched operations and inappropriate action just goes on and
on.
Then there was the ATF's recent attempt to reclassify common M855
ammunition as armor piercing, despite its exemption from this
classification since 1986 for sporting purposes. Thankfully, this
proposal was dropped after pressure from Congress.
Mr. Chairman, the people I represent in southwest Alabama are tired
of a Federal Government that doesn't live within its means. They want
to see their elected officials in Washington get serious about making
cuts to the Federal bureaucracy. My constituents also are tired of
executive overreach and the Federal Government involving itself in
areas where it simply doesn't belong.
I know that the committee and Chairman Culberson have made real
efforts to rein in the ATF, and I appreciate those efforts. I also
understand that ATF is now under new leadership, and I hope that the
new leaders get serious about much-needed reforms.
I am all for safety and responsible gun ownership, and the ATF does
have a role to play in that, but this amendment would simply require
ATF to return to its core functions and responsibilities. It would
cause ATF to look at itself in the mirror, find areas where they can
cut back, and refocus on their true priorities.
Ultimately, this amendment is about protecting our Second Amendment
rights while also pushing for real reforms to Federal spending. I urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I do understand the gentleman's concern.
My constituents and all of us were upset with the ATF's attempt to ban
.223 ammunition, but they did the right thing: they withdrew the ammo
ban after I had a heart-to-heart with them. By doing the right thing, I
think we should reward good behavior.
I am monitoring them very closely. We have spending plan language in
our bill that allows the subcommittee to have ongoing oversight over
not only
[[Page H3708]]
the ATF and Department of Justice, every agency under our jurisdiction
has to submit a spending plan to us that is then subjected to careful
ongoing oversight throughout the year; and if we cut ATF by $250
million, they are not able to do all the important work that they are
now engaged in, and it would really devastate the agency.
{time} 2000
There are a lot of dedicated law enforcement officers in that agency
that are doing their very best to fight gangs and violent criminals.
We have visited with the folks at ATF. They are not concerned about
law-abiding citizens or a gun dealer who is following the law. They are
focused on the criminal element in the country.
So I would encourage Members, and I would be happy to work with you
and share with you the ongoing oversight work that I am doing. I
encourage you to visit with the new ATF Director. He is a very
impressive man: a marine and a lifelong law enforcement officer who did
the right thing here.
The agency is devoted to protecting Americans' Second Amendment
rights. As the new chairman, if I ever detect any deviation from that,
I assure you this son of the South is going to make sure our Second
Amendment rights are protected.
I would encourage Members to oppose the amendment. I just don't want
to see the ATF devastated.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his superb
work in this area. We are in great debt to you for all that you have
done. And I am 100 percent confident you will continue to do that.
I don't know the new leadership over there. I pray that it is truly
new leadership. Because what has happened at ATF is simply not
acceptable. And it is particularly not acceptable when it interferes
with the Second Amendment rights of the people of the United States of
America.
So I thank the gentleman. I know that he will do everything he
possibly can. I will take him up on his offer to meet the new
leadership.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. I urge Members to oppose the amendment.
Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. I visited at the ATF headquarters. In looking at their
work particularly focused on explosives--and their new site in
Alabama--looking at some of the work that they are doing around the
country, it is so vitally important that I think at this time in our
country's history for us to retreat from our commitment to this agency
would be a very unfortunate and unwise decision.
So I would hope that the House would vote in opposition to this
amendment and make sure that as we go forward we can try to address
whatever the concerns are. But cutting ATF by this amount of money
would put so many Americans at risk, and I think it would be unwise.
Mr. CULBERSON. Reclaiming my time, I join my colleague in urging a
``no'' vote on this amendment, and will, again, work with my colleague
in making sure the ATF continues to protect the Second Amendment rights
of Americans.
There is no greater power the Congress has than the power of the
purse. I assure you as the new chairman that I am monitoring very, very
closely to make sure that ATF, FBI, and the Department of Justice
enforce the law and preserve our Second Amendment Rights.
Therefore, I urge Members to vote ``no'', and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Buck
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 33, line 25, strike ``none of the'' and insert
``such''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chair, I rise to strike language from this
appropriations bill that denies hope, denies dignity, and denies
Americans their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
When I was district attorney in northern Colorado, a gentleman
visited my office. He told me a story that I have heard from many, many
others. He told me that 40 years ago, when he was in college, he gave
his landlord a bad check. He pled guilty to a felony.
The past 40 years, he has been a model citizen. He finished college.
He work hard and raised a family. Now he wants to go hunting with his
grandchild. He can't because he is a convicted felon.
The law allows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives to restore this man's right to possess a firearm. The burden
is on the applicant to prove that he is not a danger. ATF may
investigate to make sure. This appropriations bill prohibits ATF from
processing applications, from following the law established by Congress
30 years ago.
America is a compassionate country. We restore the right to vote in
many States, and other rights. There is no good reason to prevent law-
abiding citizens from, at the very least, petitioning ATF to have their
rights restored.
The change I am seeking is fair and reasonable, and it is long
overdue. People who are able to prove to ATF that their possession of a
firearm would pose no danger to society would finally, after over two
decades of unfair treatment, be permitted to make their case and have
their rights restored.
Not everyone who petitions ATF will have their rights restored. In
fact, this bill does not intend in any way, shape, or form to allow a
violent criminal to possess a firearm--only those nonviolent criminals
that ATF deems are not a danger. Not everyone will have their rights
restored, but Washington should not get in the way of Americans asking
for a second chance.
For these reasons, I respectfully request support for this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Federal Prison System
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Federal Prison System for the
administration, operation, and maintenance of Federal penal
and correctional institutions, and for the provision of
technical assistance and advice on corrections related issues
to foreign governments, $6,951,500,000: Provided, That the
Attorney General may transfer to the Department of Health and
Human Services such amounts as may be necessary for direct
expenditures by that Department for medical relief for
inmates of Federal penal and correctional institutions:
Provided further, That the Director of the Federal Prison
System, where necessary, may enter into contracts with a
fiscal agent or fiscal intermediary claims processor to
determine the amounts payable to persons who, on behalf of
the Federal Prison System, furnish health services to
individuals committed to the custody of the Federal Prison
System: Provided further, That not to exceed $5,400 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided further, That not to exceed $50,000,000 shall remain
available for necessary operations until September 30, 2017:
Provided further, That, of the amounts provided for contract
confinement, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain available
until expended to make payments in advance for grants,
contracts and reimbursable agreements, and other expenses:
Provided further, That the Director of the Federal Prison
System may accept donated property and services relating to
the operation of the prison card program from a not-for-
profit entity which has operated such program in the past,
notwithstanding the fact that such not-for-profit entity
furnishes services under contracts to the Federal Prison
System relating to the operation of pre-release services,
halfway houses, or other custodial facilities.
buildings and facilities
For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new
facilities; purchase and acquisition of facilities and
remodeling, and equipping of such facilities for penal and
correctional use, including all necessary expenses incident
thereto, by contract or force account; and constructing,
remodeling, and equipping necessary buildings and facilities
at existing penal and correctional institutions, including
all necessary expenses incident thereto, by contract or force
account,
[[Page H3709]]
$230,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$145,000,000 shall be available only for costs related to
construction of new facilities: Provided, That labor of
United States prisoners may be used for work performed under
this appropriation.
federal prison industries, incorporated
The Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, is hereby
authorized to make such expenditures within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available, and in accord with
the law, and to make such contracts and commitments without
regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by section 9104
of title 31, United States Code, as may be necessary in
carrying out the program set forth in the budget for the
current fiscal year for such corporation.
limitation on administrative expenses, federal prison industries,
incorporated
Not to exceed $2,700,000 of the funds of the Federal Prison
Industries, Incorporated, shall be available for its
administrative expenses, and for services as authorized by
section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, to be computed
on an accrual basis to be determined in accordance with the
corporation's current prescribed accounting system, and such
amounts shall be exclusive of depreciation, payment of
claims, and expenditures which such accounting system
requires to be capitalized or charged to cost of commodities
acquired or produced, including selling and shipping
expenses, and expenses in connection with acquisition,
construction, operation, maintenance, improvement,
protection, or disposition of facilities and other property
belonging to the corporation or in which it has an interest.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Moore
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the gentlewoman offering the
amendment at this point in the reading?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 34, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
Page 42, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 44, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman
from Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, my amendment transfers $2 million into the
Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act for the purpose
of expanding and improving police training to safely and appropriately
respond to mentally ill individuals.
Now, Mr. Chair, we have heard a lot lately in the news about high
profile police-involved shootings that have become a major subject here
around the country and here in Congress. Not surprising to some of us,
especially those of us who hail from large urban cities, this is a
widespread problem that has been around for a while.
But today, I am offering this amendment to highlight one serious
issue that I think should be a major part of our current national
dialogue: ensuring that police have adequate training to identify
persons with mental illness and to safely, when it is possible, resolve
encounters during a crisis.
Mr. Chair, indulge me for a moment while I tell you a story about a
31-year-old man in my home district of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who,
unfortunately, is no longer with us today. His name was Dontre
Hamilton.
Dontre, like many people in this country, suffered from a mental
illness. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia 1 year prior to the
incident and had been off his medication due to an insurance issue.
On April 30 of last year, Dontre was taking a nap on a public park
bench when employees of a nearby Starbucks called the police. Two
police officers came and did a wellness check and left the scene,
discerning that Mr. Hamilton was no threat to himself, nor to anyone in
the park or the public.
Soon thereafter, yet another call came from the Starbucks employee
because this gentleman was sleeping on the public park bench. Another
police officer, Officer Manney of the Milwaukee Police Department,
arrived and started to pat down Dontre. This pat-down turned into a
struggle, and Officer Manney pulled out his baton to help him subdue
Mr. Hamilton.
The struggle escalated, and Dontre got control of the baton and swung
it at Officer Manney. This caused Officer Manney to draw his firearm
and shoot 14 bullets into Dontre Hamilton.
Officer Manney was terminated for conducting a pat-down in
contravention of his training on dealing with mentally ill individuals
but faced no charges in the death of Dontre Hamilton.
Mr. Chair, perhaps this tragedy could have been prevented. Too often,
our mental health infrastructure is woefully inadequate for many
Americans. A lack of treatment can turn a treatable mental illness into
a severe debilitating condition. Many can't hold a job or pay rent.
Many end up homeless on the streets. In fact, more than 124,000 of the
610,000 homeless people in the United States suffer from a severe
mental illness.
As a result of many failures in our system, our Nation's police
officers have de facto become our country's first responders to crisis
calls, including those individuals experiencing mental illness. Too
often these calls, many intended to be out of concern for the
individual in crisis, become a tragic fatality.
As we know, mentally ill persons are not generally dangerous, Mr.
Chair. In fact, they are actually more likely to become victims
themselves than actual perpetrators of violence. Many of these tragic
encounters could be prevented if police officers are trained and follow
proper procedures.
The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act is an
important Federal initiative and tool that will help us bridge this
gap. This law established a grant program called the Justice and Mental
Health Collaboration Program which helps States and localities develop
collaborative approaches to dealing with the intersection of criminal
justice and mental health systems.
One of the authorized grant uses under the program is training to
police officers for exactly these purposes: to safely respond to crisis
calls and limit the chance of a tragic and often preventable
consequence.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am
not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Woodall). Without objection, the gentleman from
Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CULBERSON. The gentlewoman has a good amendment, and I want to
encourage Members to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 2015
Amendment Offered by Mr. Connolly
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 34, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,,000,000)''.
Page 42, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 46, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman and
the distinguished ranking member and their staffs for their cooperation
on this amendment.
The amendment increases the funding for Veterans Treatment Courts by
$1 million. I offered a similar amendment last year that the House also
adopted on a voice vote.
With the additional funds provided by this amendment, a total of $6
million would be available for such courts, which is still short of the
$8 million Congress has authorized under the bipartisan Mentally Ill
Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act.
Our Nation's heroes are returning home from more than a decade of
war. Upon their return, they bear the visible and invisible wounds of
deployment. Substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic
brain injury, and various mental health disorders can lead our
returning heroes down a difficult and often lonely path during their
transition to civilian life.
Twenty percent of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans suffer from post-
[[Page H3710]]
traumatic stress disorder or major depression. One in six battle with
substance abuse. Left undiagnosed or untreated, these illnesses can
result in an encounter with the justice system. Worse yet, these
illnesses can also lead to suicide, which veterans commit at twice the
rate of our civilian population.
Fortunately, specialized Veterans Treatment Courts are being
developed across the country, including in my home county of Fairfax in
Virginia, to help veterans who do find themselves in the justice system
and suffer from substance addiction or mental health disorders so that
they can alter their course and find the assistance they deserve, Mr.
Chairman.
The first such court was established in Buffalo, New York, in 2008;
and since then, more than 200 have opened across the Nation. Hundreds
more are currently going through the planning and training process.
Today, there are more than 11,000 vets enrolled in Veterans Treatment
Courts. Virginia is home to the sixth largest veteran population in the
country, with nearly 850,000 veterans, more than 10 percent of whom
live in my district, the 11th Congressional District of Virginia.
The comprehensive treatment program provides eligible veterans with
an alternative to jail and incarceration. Participating veterans must
commit to an 18- to 24-month program, during which they receive group
counseling, a dedicated veteran mentor, and enroll in vocational
education and self-help programs.
By bringing veteran service organizations, State veterans service
departments, and volunteer mentors into the courtrooms, Veterans
Treatment Courts can promote community collaboration and connect
veterans with the programs and benefits they have earned and that they
may need.
Having a veteran-only court docket ensures that everyone, from the
judge to the volunteers, specializes in veterans care, and the
involvement of fellow veterans allows the defendant to experience a
camaraderie to which he or she became accustomed in the military.
We know this model works, and it is our hope this amendment will
provide these courts with the resources they need to help our veterans
who fall into the justice system to get back on the right track and
transition successfully back into the society they swore to defend.
In closing, again, I want to thank the distinguished chairman, the
distinguished ranking member, and their respective staffs for their
cooperation in this matter.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although
I support the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CULBERSON. I think the gentleman has a good amendment, and I
would encourage the Members to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and enter
into a colloquy with my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Price).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price) for a colloquy.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr.
Chairman.
During the full committee consideration of this legislation, the
chairman will recall that we discussed the accompanying report language
that, for the first time, would allocate NSF research funding by
directorate and, in particular, would disproportionately reduce funding
for the Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences and the
Directorate for Geosciences. This has raised critical questions and
concerns within the scientific community.
As the legislative process goes forward, I ask for the chairman's
assurance that we can work together to preserve the National Science
Foundation's traditional discretion and flexibility in allocating basic
research funding among the Foundation's directorates.
Mr. CULBERSON. I look forward to working with you, Dr. Price, and
other members of the subcommittee and the full committee, as well as
the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, to ensure that we protect
the independence of the National Science Foundation.
It is vitally important that America preserves its leadership role in
the world, and scientific research and NSF and NASA have been a vital
part of that.
A strong supporter of our investment in the sciences, my favorite
Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, liked to say that liberty was the
firstborn of science.
It is vital that we work together, as I will with you, sir, as we
move through conference, to continue to preserve the flexibility and
independence of the National Science Foundation. We, in the committee
report, are simply working to make sure NSF prioritizes their funding,
but I will continue to work with you throughout this process as we move
forward.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman. This is
critically important. I appreciate the chance to work on this, as the
legislation moves forward.
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
State and Local Law Enforcement Activities
Office on Violence Against Women
violence against women prevention and prosecution programs
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance for the prevention and prosecution of violence
against women, as authorized by the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) (``the 1968
Act''); the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994 (Public Law 103-322) (``the 1994 Act''); the Victims of
Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-647) (``the 1990
Act''); the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the
Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-
21); the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) (``the 1974 Act''); the Victims
of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public
Law 106-386) (``the 2000 Act''); the Violence Against Women
and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public
Law 109-162) (``the 2005 Act''); and the Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Public Law 113-4) (``the
2013 Act''); and for related victims services, $479,000,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That of the
amount provided--
(1) $196,000,000 is for grants to combat violence against
women, as authorized by part T of the 1968 Act;
(2) $28,000,000 is for transitional housing assistance
grants for victims of domestic violence, dating violence,
stalking, or sexual assault as authorized by section 40299 of
the 1994 Act;
(3) $8,000,000 is for the National Institute of Justice for
research and evaluation of violence against women and related
issues addressed by grant programs of the Office on Violence
Against Women, which shall be transferred to and administered
by the Office of Justice Programs;
(4) $11,000,000 is for a grant program to provide services
to advocate for and respond to youth victims of domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking;
assistance to children and youth exposed to such violence;
programs to engage men and youth in preventing such violence;
and assistance to middle and high school students through
education and other services related to such violence:
Provided, That unobligated balances available for the
programs authorized by sections 41201, 41204, 41303 and 41305
of the 1994 Act, prior to its amendment by the 2013 Act,
shall be available for this program: Provided further, That
10 percent of the total amount available for this grant
program shall be available for grants under the program
authorized by section 2015 of the 1968 Act: Provided further,
That the definitions and grant conditions in section 40002 of
the 1994 Act shall apply to this program;
(5) $51,000,000 is for grants to encourage arrest policies
as authorized by part U of the 1968 Act, of which $4,000,000
is for a homicide reduction initiative;
(6) $35,000,000 is for sexual assault victims assistance,
as authorized by section 41601 of the 1994 Act;
(7) $33,000,000 is for rural domestic violence and child
abuse enforcement assistance grants, including as authorized
by section 40295 of the 1994 Act;
(8) $16,000,000 is for grants to reduce violent crimes
against women on campus, as authorized by section 304 of the
2005 Act;
(9) $42,500,000 is for legal assistance for victims, as
authorized by section 1201 of the 2000 Act;
[[Page H3711]]
(10) $4,500,000 is for enhanced training and services to
end violence against and abuse of women in later life, as
authorized by section 40802 of the 1994 Act;
(11) $16,000,000 is for grants to support families in the
justice system, as authorized by section 1301 of the 2000
Act: Provided, That unobligated balances available for the
programs authorized by section 1301 of the 2000 Act and
section 41002 of the 1994 Act, prior to their amendment by
the 2013 Act, shall be available for this program;
(12) $6,000,000 is for education and training to end
violence against and abuse of women with disabilities, as
authorized by section 1402 of the 2000 Act;
(13) $500,000 is for the National Resource Center on
Workplace Responses to assist victims of domestic violence,
as authorized by section 41501 of the 1994 Act;
(14) $1,000,000 is for analysis and research on violence
against Indian women, including as authorized by section 904
of the 2005 Act: Provided, That such funds may be transferred
to and administered by the Office of Justice Programs;
(15) $500,000 is for a national clearinghouse that provides
training and technical assistance on issues relating to
sexual assault of American Indian and Alaska Native women;
(16) $25,000,000 for victim services programs for victims
of trafficking, as authorized by section 107(b)(2) of Public
Law 106-386, for programs authorized under Public Law 109-
164, or programs authorized under Public Law 113-4; and
(17) $5,000,000 for the purposes authorized under the Rape
Survivor Child Custody Act.
Office of Justice Programs
state and local law enforcement assistance
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) (``the 1994
Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (``the 1968 Act''); the Justice for All Act of 2004
(Public Law 108-405); the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990
(Public Law 101-647) (``the 1990 Act''); the Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law
109-164); the Violence Against Women and Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162)
(``the 2005 Act''); the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-248) (``the Adam Walsh
Act''); the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection
Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-386); the NICS Improvement
Amendments Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-180); subtitle D of
title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-296) (``the 2002 Act''); the Second Chance Act of 2007
(Public Law 110-199); the Prioritizing Resources and
Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (Public
Law 110-403); the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (Public Law
98-473); the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime
Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public
Law 110-416); the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act
of 2013 (Public Law 113-4) (``the 2013 Act''); and other
programs, $1,015,400,000, to remain available until expended
as follows--
(1) $409,000,000 for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant program as authorized by subpart 1 of part E
of title I of the 1968 Act (except that section 1001(c), and
the special rules for Puerto Rico under section 505(g) of
title I of the 1968 Act shall not apply for purposes of this
Act), of which, notwithstanding such subpart 1, $20,000,000
is for grants for law enforcement activities associated with
the presidential nominating conventions, $15,000,000 is for
an Officer Robert Wilson III memorial initiative on
Preventing Violence Against Law Enforcement Officer
Resilience and Survivability (VALOR), $4,000,000 is for use
by the National Institute of Justice for research targeted
toward developing a better understanding of the domestic
radicalization phenomenon, and advancing evidence-based
strategies for effective intervention and prevention,
$22,500,000 is for the matching grant program for law
enforcement armor vests, as authorized by section 2501 of
title I of the 1968 Act, and $2,500,000 is for a program to
improve juvenile indigent defense;
(2) $220,000,000 for the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program, as authorized by section 241(i)(5) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)(5)):
Provided, That no jurisdiction shall request compensation for
any cost greater than the actual cost for Federal immigration
and other detainees housed in State and local detention
facilities;
(3) $41,000,000 for Drug Courts, as authorized by section
1001(a)(25)(A) of title I of the 1968 Act;
(4) $7,000,000 for mental health courts and adult and
juvenile collaboration program grants, as authorized by parts
V and HH of title I of the 1968 Act, and the Mentally Ill
Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and
Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-416);
(5) $2,000,000 for the Capital Litigation Improvement Grant
Program, as authorized by section 426 of Public Law 108-405,
and for grants for wrongful conviction review;
(6) $5,000,000 for economic, high technology and Internet
crime prevention grants, including as authorized by section
401 of Public Law 110-403;
(7) $20,000,000 for sex offender management assistance, as
authorized by the Adam Walsh Act, and related activities;
(8) $1,000,000 for the National Sex Offender Public
Website;
(9) $73,000,000 for grants to States to upgrade criminal
and mental health records for the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System, including as authorized by the NICS
Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-180);
(10) $125,000,000 for DNA-related and forensic programs and
activities, of which--
(A) $117,000,000 is for a DNA analysis and capacity
enhancement program and for other local, State, and Federal
forensic activities, including the purposes authorized under
section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000
(Public Law 106-546) (the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant
Program): Provided, That up to 4 percent of funds made
available under this paragraph may be used for the purposes
described in the DNA Training and Education for Law
Enforcement, Correctional Personnel, and Court Officers
program (Public Law 108-405, section 303);
(B) $4,000,000 is for the purposes described in the Kirk
Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program (Public Law
108-405, section 412); and
(C) $4,000,000 is for Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program
grants, including as authorized by section 304 of Public Law
108-405;
(11) $6,000,000 for the court-appointed special advocate
program, as authorized by section 217 of the 1990 Act;
(12) $5,000,000 for a veterans treatment courts program;
(13) $11,000,000 for a program to monitor prescription
drugs and scheduled listed chemical products;
(14) $13,000,000 for prison rape prevention and prosecution
grants to States and units of local government, and other
programs, as authorized by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of
2003 (Public Law 108-79);
(15) $75,000,000 is for the Comprehensive School Safety
Initiative; and
(16) $2,400,000 for the operationalization, maintenance and
expansion of the National Missing and Unidentified Persons
System:
Provided, That, if a unit of local government uses any of
the funds made available under this heading to increase the
number of law enforcement officers, the unit of local
government will achieve a net gain in the number of law
enforcement officers who perform non-administrative public
sector safety service.
juvenile justice programs
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance, the following amounts are made available until
expended--
(1) $95,000,000 for youth mentoring grants;
(2) $19,000,000 for programs authorized by the Victims of
Child Abuse Act of 1990;
(3) $68,000,000 for missing and exploited children
programs, including as authorized by sections 404(b) and
405(a) of the 1974 Act (except that section 102(b)(4)(B) of
the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-401)
shall not apply for purposes of this Act); and
(4) $1,500,000 for child abuse training programs for
judicial personnel and practitioners, as authorized by
section 222 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990.
public safety officer benefits
(including transfer of funds)
For payments and expenses authorized under section
1001(a)(4) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968, such sums as are necessary (including
amounts for administrative costs), to remain available until
expended; and $16,300,000 for payments authorized by section
1201(b) of such Act and for educational assistance authorized
by section 1218 of such Act, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That notwithstanding section 205 of this
Act, upon a determination by the Attorney General that
emergent circumstances require additional funding for such
disability and education payments, the Attorney General may
transfer such amounts to ``Public Safety Officer Benefits''
from available appropriations for the Department of Justice
as may be necessary to respond to such circumstances:
Provided further, That any transfer pursuant to the preceding
proviso shall be treated as a reprogramming under section 505
of this Act and shall not be available for obligation or
expenditure except in compliance with the procedures set
forth in that section.
Community Oriented Policing Services
community oriented policing services programs
(including transfer of funds)
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance, the following amounts are made available until
expended: Provided, That any balances made available through
prior year deobligations shall only be available in
accordance with section 505 of this Act--
(1) $11,000,000 for anti-methamphetamine-related
activities, which shall be transferred to the Drug
Enforcement Administration upon enactment of this Act;
(2) $30,000,000 for assistance to Indian tribes;
(3) $52,500,000 for initiatives to improve police-community
relations, as described in the report accompanying this Act;
(4) $41,000,000 for a grant program for community-based
sexual assault response reform;
(5) $68,000,000 for offender reentry programs and research,
as authorized by the Second Chance Act of 2007 (Public Law
110-199), without regard to the time limitations specified at
section 6(1) of such Act; and
[[Page H3712]]
(6) $35,000,000 is for regional information sharing
activities, as authorized by part M of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.
General Provisions--Department of Justice
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 201. In addition to amounts otherwise made available
in this title for official reception and representation
expenses, a total of not to exceed $50,000 from funds
appropriated to the Department of Justice in this title shall
be available to the Attorney General for official reception
and representation expenses.
Sec. 202. None of the funds appropriated by this title
shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the
life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were
carried to term, or in the case of rape or incest: Provided,
That should this prohibition be declared unconstitutional by
a court of competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null
and void.
Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated under this title
shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate
in any way the performance of, any abortion.
Sec. 204. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove
the obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to
provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to
receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided,
That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect
of section 203 intended to address the philosophical beliefs
of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
Sec. 205. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation
made available for the current fiscal year for the Department
of Justice in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any
transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 206. The Attorney General is authorized to extend
through September 30, 2016, the Personnel Management
Demonstration Project transferred to the Attorney General
pursuant to section 1115 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-296; 28 U.S.C. 599B) without limitation on
the number of employees or the positions covered.
Sec. 207. None of the funds made available under this
title may be used by the Federal Bureau of Prisons or the
United States Marshals Service for the purpose of
transporting an individual who is a prisoner pursuant to
conviction for crime under State or Federal law and is
classified as a maximum or high security prisoner, other than
to a prison or other facility certified by the Federal Bureau
of Prisons as appropriately secure for housing such a
prisoner.
Sec. 208. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be used by Federal prisons to purchase cable television
services, or to rent or purchase audiovisual or electronic
media or equipment used primarily for recreational purposes.
(b) Subsection (a) does not preclude the rental,
maintenance, or purchase of audiovisual or electronic media
or equipment for inmate training, religious, or educational
programs.
Sec. 209. None of the funds made available under this
title shall be obligated or expended for any new or enhanced
information technology program having total estimated
development costs in excess of $100,000,000, unless the
Deputy Attorney General and the investment review board
certify to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate that the information
technology program has appropriate program management
controls and contractor oversight mechanisms in place, and
that the program is compatible with the enterprise
architecture of the Department of Justice.
Sec. 210. The notification thresholds and procedures set
forth in section 505 of this Act shall apply to deviations
from the amounts designated for specific activities in this
Act and in the report accompanying this Act, and to any use
of deobligated balances of funds provided under this title in
previous years.
Sec. 211. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used to plan for, begin, continue, finish, process, or
approve a public-private competition under the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any successor
administrative regulation, directive, or policy for work
performed by employees of Federal Prison Industries,
Incorporated.
Sec. 212. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
funds shall be available for the salary, benefits, or
expenses of any United States Attorney assigned dual or
additional responsibilities by the Attorney General or his
designee that exempt that United States Attorney from the
residency requirements of section 545 of title 28, United
States Code.
Sec. 213. At the discretion of the Attorney General, and
in addition to any amounts that otherwise may be available
(or authorized to be made available) by law, with respect to
funds appropriated by this title under the headings
``Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution
Programs'', ``State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance'',
``Juvenile Justice Programs'', and ``Community Oriented
Policing Services Programs''--
(1) up to 3 percent of funds made available to the Office
of Justice Programs for grant or reimbursement programs may
be used by such Office to provide training and technical
assistance; and
(2) funds made available for grant or reimbursement
programs under such headings, except for amounts appropriated
specifically for research, evaluation, or statistical
programs administered by the National Institute of Justice
and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, may be transferred to
and merged with funds provided to the National Institute of
Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, to be used by
them for research, evaluation, or statistical purposes,
without regard to the authorizations for such grant or
reimbursement programs: Provided, That the transfer authority
in this paragraph is in addition to any other transfer
authority contained in this Act: Provided further, That any
transfer pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to the
notification procedures applicable to a reprogramming of
funds under section 505 of this Act.
Sec. 214. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
section 20109(a) of subtitle A of title II of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.
13709(a)) shall not apply to amounts made available by this
or any other Act.
Sec. 215. None of the funds made available under this or
any other Act, for fiscal year 2016 and each fiscal year
thereafter, other than for the national instant criminal
background check system established under section 103 of the
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note),
may be used by a Federal law enforcement officer to
facilitate the transfer of an operable firearm to an
individual if the Federal law enforcement officer knows or
suspects that the individual is an agent of a drug cartel,
unless law enforcement personnel of the United States
continuously monitor or control the firearm at all times.
Sec. 216. (a) None of the income retained in the Department
of Justice Working Capital Fund pursuant to title I of Public
Law 102-140 (105 Stat. 784; 28 U.S.C. 527 note) shall be
available for obligation during fiscal year 2016, except up
to $40,000,000 may be obligated for implementation of a
unified Department of Justice financial management system.
(b) Not to exceed $30,000,000 of the unobligated balances
transferred to the capital account of the Department of
Justice Working Capital Fund pursuant to title I of Public
Law 102-140 (105 Stat. 784; 28 U.S.C. 527 note) shall be
available for obligation in fiscal year 2016, and any use,
obligation, transfer or allocation of such funds shall be
treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this
Act.
(c) Any use, obligation, transfer or allocation of excess
unobligated balances available under section 524(c)(8)(E) of
title 28, United States Code, shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this Act.
(d) Of amounts available in the Assets Forfeiture Fund in
fiscal year 2016, $154,700,000 shall be for payments
associated with joint law enforcement operations as
authorized by section 524(c)(1)(I) of title 28, United States
Code, and $20,514,000 shall be for payments associated with
subparagraphs (B), (F), and (G) of section 524(c)(1) of title
28, United States Code.
(e) The Attorney General shall submit a spending plan to
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate not later than 30 days after
the date of enactment of this Act detailing the planned
distribution of Assets Forfeiture Fund joint law enforcement
operations funding during fiscal year 2016.
Sec. 217. (a) Of the funds appropriated by this Act under
each of the headings ``General Administration--Salaries and
Expenses'', ``United States Marshals Service--Salaries and
Expenses'', ``Federal Bureau of Investigation--Salaries and
Expenses'', ``Drug Enforcement Administration--Salaries and
Expenses'', and ``Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives--Salaries and Expenses'', $20,000,000 shall not be
available for obligation until the Attorney General
demonstrates to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate that all recommendations
included in the Office of Inspector General of the Department
of Justice, Evaluation and Inspections Division Report 15-04
entitled ``The Handling of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct
Allegations by the Department's Law Enforcement Components'',
dated March, 2015, have been implemented or are in the
process of being implemented.
(b) The Inspector General of the Department of Justice
shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives and the Senate not later than 90 days
after the date of enactment of this Act on the status of the
Department's implementation of recommendations included in
the report specified in subsection (a).
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice
Appropriations Act, 2016''.
TITLE III
SCIENCE
Office of Science and Technology Policy
For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the
National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and
Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.), hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by
section 3109 of title 5, United
[[Page H3713]]
States Code, not to exceed $2,250 for official reception and
representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in
the District of Columbia, $5,555,000.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
science
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of science research and development
activities, including research, development, operations,
support, and services; maintenance and repair, facility
planning and design; space flight, spacecraft control, and
communications activities; program management; personnel and
related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as
authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United
States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger
motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance,
and operation of mission and administrative aircraft,
$5,237,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017:
Provided,That the formulation and development costs (with
development cost as defined under section 30104 of title 51,
United States Code) for the James Webb Space Telescope shall
not exceed $8,000,000,000: Provided further, That should the
individual identified under subsection (c)(2)(E) of section
30104 of title 51, United States Code, as responsible for the
James Webb Space Telescope determine that the development
cost of the program is likely to exceed that limitation, the
individual shall immediately notify the Administrator and the
increase shall be treated as if it meets the 30 percent
threshold described in subsection (f) of section 30104:
Provided further, That, $140,000,000 shall be for a Jupiter
Europa mission to assure progress on a mission which meets
the Planetary Science decadal objectives, consisting of an
orbiter and studies of both a surface element as well as
sample analysis of plumes emanating from the surface:
Provided further, That NASA shall use the Space Launch System
as the launch vehicle for a Jupiter Europa mission, plan for
a launch no later than 2022, and include in the fiscal year
2017 budget the five year funding profile necessary to
achieve those goals.
aeronautics
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of aeronautics research and development
activities, including research, development, operations,
support, and services; maintenance and repair, facility
planning and design; space flight, spacecraft control, and
communications activities; program management; personnel and
related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as
authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United
States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger
motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance,
and operation of mission and administrative aircraft,
$600,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017.
space technology
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of space technology research and
development activities, including research, development,
operations, support, and services; maintenance and repair,
facility planning and design; space flight, spacecraft
control, and communications activities; program management;
personnel and related costs, including uniforms or allowances
therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5,
United States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of
passenger motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter,
maintenance, and operation of mission and administrative
aircraft, $625,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2017, of which $25,000,000 shall be for icy satellites
surface technology and test beds.
exploration
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of exploration research and development
activities, including research, development, operations,
support, and services; maintenance and repair, facility
planning and design; space flight, spacecraft control, and
communications activities; program management; personnel and
related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as
authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United
States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger
motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance,
and operation of mission and administrative aircraft,
$4,759,300,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017:
Provided, That not less than $1,096,300,000 shall be for the
Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle: Provided further, That not
less than $2,313,000,000 shall be for the Space Launch
System, including no less than $1,850,000,000 for launch
vehicle development, which shall have a lift capability not
less than 130 metric tons and which shall have core elements
and an enhanced upper stage developed simultaneously:
Provided further, That of the amounts provided for launch
vehicle development, no less than $50,000,000 shall be for
enhanced upper stage development: Provided further, That of
the funds made available for the Space Launch System,
$410,000,000 shall be for exploration ground systems and
$53,000,000 shall be for program integration: Provided
further, That $1,000,000,000 shall be for commercial
spaceflight activities: Provided further, That $350,000,000
shall be for exploration research and development.
space operations
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of space operations research and
development activities, including research, development,
operations, support and services; space flight, spacecraft
control and communications activities, including operations,
production, and services; maintenance and repair, facility
planning and design; program management; personnel and
related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as
authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United
States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger
motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and
operation of mission and administrative aircraft,
$3,957,300,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017.
education
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of aerospace and aeronautical education
research and development activities, including research,
development, operations, support, and services; program
management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms
or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and
5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel expenses;
purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; and purchase,
lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of mission and
administrative aircraft, $119,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2017, of which $18,000,000 shall be for
the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
and $40,000,000 shall be for the National Space Grant College
program.
safety, security and mission services
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of science, aeronautics, space
technology, exploration, space operations and education
research and development activities, including research,
development, operations, support, and services; maintenance
and repair, facility planning and design; space flight,
spacecraft control, and communications activities; program
management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms
or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and
5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel expenses;
purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed
$63,000 for official reception and representation expenses;
and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of
mission and administrative aircraft, $2,768,600,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2017.
construction and environmental compliance and restoration
For necessary expenses for construction of facilities
including repair, rehabilitation, revitalization, and
modification of facilities, construction of new facilities
and additions to existing facilities, facility planning and
design, and restoration, and acquisition or condemnation of
real property, as authorized by law, and environmental
compliance and restoration, $425,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2021: Provided, That proceeds from leases
deposited into this account shall be available for a period
of 5 years to the extent and in amounts as provided in annual
appropriations Acts: Provided further, That notwithstanding
section 20145(b)(2)(A) of title 51, United States Code, such
proceeds referred to in the preceding proviso shall be
available for obligation for fiscal year 2016 in an amount
not to exceed $9,470,300: Provided further, That each annual
budget request shall include an annual estimate of gross
receipts and collections and proposed use of all funds
collected pursuant to section 20145 of title 51, United
States Code.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978,
$37,400,000, of which $500,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2017.
administrative provisions
(including transfers of funds)
Funds for any announced prize otherwise authorized shall
remain available, without fiscal year limitation, until the
prize is claimed or the offer is withdrawn.
Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available
for the current fiscal year for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration in this Act may be transferred between
such appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers. Balances so
transferred shall be merged with and available for the same
purposes and the same time period as the appropriations to
which transferred. Any transfer pursuant to this provision
shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds under section
505 of this Act and shall not be available for obligation
except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that
section.
The spending plan required by this Act shall be provided
by NASA at the theme, program, project and activity level.
The spending plan, as well as any subsequent change of an
amount established in that spending plan that meets the
notification requirements of section 505 of this Act, shall
be treated as a reprogramming under section 505 of this Act
and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure
except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that
section.
The unexpired balances of a previous account, for
activities for which funds are provided in this Act, may be
transferred to the
[[Page H3714]]
new account established in this Act that provides for such
activities. Balances so transferred shall be merged with the
funds in the newly established account, but shall be
available under the same terms, conditions and period of time
as previously appropriated.
National Science Foundation
research and related activities
For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.), and Public
Law 86-209 (42 U.S.C. 1880 et seq.); services as authorized
by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; maintenance
and operation of aircraft and purchase of flight services for
research support; acquisition of aircraft; and authorized
travel; $5,983,645,000, to remain available until September
30, 2017, of which not to exceed $520,000,000 shall remain
available until expended for polar research and operations
support, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies for
operational and science support and logistical and other
related activities for the United States Antarctic program:
Provided, That receipts for scientific support services and
materials furnished by the National Research Centers and
other National Science Foundation supported research
facilities may be credited to this appropriation.
major research equipment and facilities construction
For necessary expenses for the acquisition, construction,
commissioning, and upgrading of major research equipment,
facilities, and other such capital assets pursuant to the
National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 et
seq.), including authorized travel, $200,030,000, to remain
available until expended.
education and human resources
For necessary expenses in carrying out science, mathematics
and engineering education and human resources programs and
activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of
1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.), including services as
authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
authorized travel, and rental of conference rooms in the
District of Columbia, $866,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2017.
agency operations and award management
For agency operations and award management necessary in
carrying out the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42
U.S.C. 1861 et seq.); services authorized by section 3109 of
title 5, United States Code; hire of passenger motor
vehicles; uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by
sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United States Code; rental
of conference rooms in the District of Columbia; and
reimbursement of the Department of Homeland Security for
security guard services; $325,000,000: Provided, That not to
exceed $8,280 is for official reception and representation
expenses: Provided further, That contracts may be entered
into under this heading in fiscal year 2016 for maintenance
and operation of facilities and for other services to be
provided during the next fiscal year: Provided further, That
of the amount provided for costs associated with the
acquisition, occupancy, and related costs of new headquarters
space, not more than $27,370,000 shall remain available until
expended.
office of the national science board
For necessary expenses (including payment of salaries,
authorized travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, the
rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia, and
the employment of experts and consultants under section 3109
of title 5, United States Code) involved in carrying out
section 4 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42
U.S.C. 1863) and Public Law 86-209 (42 U.S.C. 1880 et seq.),
$4,370,000: Provided, That not to exceed $2,500 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978,
$15,160,000, of which $400,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2017.
administrative provision
Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available
for the current fiscal year for the National Science
Foundation in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased
by more than 10 percent by any such transfers. Any transfer
pursuant to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming
of funds under section 505 of this Act and shall not be
available for obligation except in compliance with the
procedures set forth in that section.
This title may be cited as the ``Science Appropriations
Act, 2016''.
TITLE IV
RELATED AGENCIES
Commission on Civil Rights
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights,
including hire of passenger motor vehicles, $9,200,000:
Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in this
paragraph shall be used to employ in excess of four full-time
individuals under Schedule C of the Excepted Service
exclusive of one special assistant for each Commissioner:
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this
paragraph shall be used to reimburse Commissioners for more
than 75 billable days, with the exception of the chairperson,
who is permitted 125 billable days: Provided further, That
none of the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be
used for any activity or expense that is not explicitly
authorized by section 3 of the Civil Rights Commission Act of
1983 (42 U.S.C. 1975a).
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission as authorized by title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990, section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Genetic Information Non-
Discrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 (Public Law 110-233), the
ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-325), and the
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-2),
including services as authorized by section 3109 of title 5,
United States Code; hire of passenger motor vehicles as
authorized by section 1343(b) of title 31, United States
Code; nonmonetary awards to private citizens; and up to
$29,500,000 for payments to State and local enforcement
agencies for authorized services to the Commission,
$364,500,000: Provided, That the Commission is authorized to
make available for official reception and representation
expenses not to exceed $2,250 from available funds: Provided
further, That the Chair is authorized to accept and use any
gift or donation to carry out the work of the Commission.
International Trade Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the International Trade
Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and
services as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United
States Code, and not to exceed $2,250 for official reception
and representation expenses, $84,500,000, to remain available
until expended.
Legal Services Corporation
payment to the legal services corporation
For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out
the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974,
$300,000,000, of which $266,900,000 is for basic field
programs and required independent audits; $5,100,000 is for
the Office of Inspector General, of which such amounts as may
be necessary may be used to conduct additional audits of
recipients; $19,000,000 is for management and grants
oversight; $4,000,000 is for client self-help and information
technology; $4,000,000 is for a Pro Bono Innovation Fund; and
$1,000,000 is for loan repayment assistance: Provided, That
the Legal Services Corporation may continue to provide
locality pay to officers and employees at a rate no greater
than that provided by the Federal Government to Washington,
DC-based employees as authorized by section 5304 of title 5,
United States Code, notwithstanding section 1005(d) of the
Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996(d)): Provided
further, That the authorities provided in section 205 of this
Act shall be applicable to the Legal Services Corporation:
Provided further, That, for the purposes of section 505 of
this Act, the Legal Services Corporation shall be considered
an agency of the United States Government.
administrative provision--legal services corporation
None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal
Services Corporation shall be expended for any purpose
prohibited or limited by, or contrary to any of the
provisions of, sections 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, and 506 of
Public Law 105-119, and all funds appropriated in this Act to
the Legal Services Corporation shall be subject to the same
terms and conditions set forth in such sections, except that
all references in sections 502 and 503 to 1997 and 1998 shall
be deemed to refer instead to 2015 and 2016, respectively.
Marine Mammal Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as
authorized by title II of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), $3,340,000.
Office of the United States Trade Representative
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States
Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as
authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
$54,250,000, of which $1,000,000 shall remain available until
expended: Provided, That not to exceed $124,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses.
State Justice Institute
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as
authorized by the State Justice Institute Authorization Act
of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10701 et seq.) $5,121,000, of which
$500,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2017:
Provided, That not to exceed $2,250 shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses: Provided
further, That, for the purposes of section 505 of this Act,
the State Justice Institute shall be considered an agency of
the United States Government.
[[Page H3715]]
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
(including rescissions)
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not
authorized by the Congress.
Sec. 502. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 503. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures
are a matter of public record and available for public
inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing
law, or under existing Executive order issued pursuant to
existing law.
Sec. 504. If any provision of this Act or the application
of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be
held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of
each provision to persons or circumstances other than those
as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.
Sec. 505. None of the funds provided under this Act, or
provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in fiscal year 2016, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds that: (1) creates or initiates a new
program, project or activity; (2) eliminates a program,
project or activity; (3) increases funds or personnel by any
means for any project or activity for which funds have been
denied or restricted; (4) relocates an office or employees;
(5) reorganizes or renames offices, programs or activities;
(6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities
presently performed by Federal employees; (7) augments
existing programs, projects or activities in excess of
$500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, or reduces by 10
percent funding for any program, project or activity, or
numbers of personnel by 10 percent; or (8) results from any
general savings, including savings from a reduction in
personnel, which would result in a change in existing
programs, projects or activities as approved by Congress;
unless the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are
notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds by
agencies (excluding agencies of the Department of Justice)
funded by this Act and 45 days in advance of such
reprogramming of funds by agencies of the Department of
Justice funded by this Act.
Sec. 506. (a) If it has been finally determined by a court
or Federal agency that any person intentionally affixed a
label bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any
inscription with the same meaning, to any product sold in or
shipped to the United States that is not made in the United
States, the person shall be ineligible to receive any
contract or subcontract made with funds made available in
this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and
ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 through
9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
(b)(1) To the extent practicable, with respect to
authorized purchases of promotional items, funds made
available by this Act shall be used to purchase items that
are manufactured, produced, or assembled in the United
States, its territories or possessions.
(2) The term ``promotional items'' has the meaning given
the term in OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, Item (1)(f)(3).
Sec. 507. (a) The Departments of Commerce and Justice, the
National Science Foundation, and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration shall provide to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
a quarterly report on the status of balances of
appropriations at the account level. For unobligated,
uncommitted balances and unobligated, committed balances the
quarterly reports shall separately identify the amounts
attributable to each source year of appropriation from which
the balances were derived. For balances that are obligated,
but unexpended, the quarterly reports shall separately
identify amounts by the year of obligation.
(b) The report described in subsection (a) shall be
submitted within 30 days of the end of each quarter.
(c) If a department or agency is unable to fulfill any
aspect of a reporting requirement described in subsection (a)
due to a limitation of a current accounting system, the
department or agency shall fulfill such aspect to the maximum
extent practicable under such accounting system and shall
identify and describe in each quarterly report the extent to
which such aspect is not fulfilled.
Sec. 508. Any costs incurred by a department or agency
funded under this Act resulting from, or to prevent,
personnel actions taken in response to funding reductions
included in this Act shall be absorbed within the total
budgetary resources available to such department or agency:
Provided, That the authority to transfer funds between
appropriations accounts as may be necessary to carry out this
section is provided in addition to authorities included
elsewhere in this Act: Provided further, That use of funds to
carry out this section shall be treated as a reprogramming of
funds under section 505 of this Act and shall not be
available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section: Provided
further, That for the Department of Commerce, this section
shall also apply to actions taken for the care and protection
of loan collateral or grant property.
Sec. 509. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be
available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco
products, or to seek the reduction or removal by any foreign
country of restrictions on the marketing of tobacco or
tobacco products, except for restrictions which are not
applied equally to all tobacco or tobacco products of the
same type.
Sec. 510. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel of the
Department of Justice to obligate more than $2,705,164,000
during fiscal year 2016 from the fund established by section
1402 of Public Law 98-473 (42 U.S.C. 10601).
Sec. 511. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Justice in this Act may be used to discriminate
against or denigrate the religious or moral beliefs of
students who participate in programs for which financial
assistance is provided from those funds, or of the parents or
legal guardians of such students.
Sec. 512. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act
or any other appropriations Act.
Sec. 513. Any funds provided in this Act used to implement
E-Government Initiatives shall be subject to the procedures
set forth in section 505 of this Act.
Sec. 514. (a) The Inspectors General of the Department of
Commerce, the Department of Justice, the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation,
and the Legal Services Corporation shall conduct audits,
pursuant to the Inspector General Act (5 U.S.C. App.), of
grants or contracts for which funds are appropriated by this
Act, and shall submit reports to Congress on the progress of
such audits, which may include preliminary findings and a
description of areas of particular interest, within 180 days
after initiating such an audit and every 180 days thereafter
until any such audit is completed.
(b) Within 60 days after the date on which an audit
described in subsection (a) by an Inspector General is
completed, the Secretary, Attorney General, Administrator,
Director, or President, as appropriate, shall make the
results of the audit available to the public on the Internet
website maintained by the Department, Administration,
Foundation, or Corporation, respectively. The results shall
be made available in redacted form to exclude--
(1) any matter described in section 552(b) of title 5,
United States Code; and
(2) sensitive personal information for any individual, the
public access to which could be used to commit identity theft
or for other inappropriate or unlawful purposes.
(c) Any person awarded a grant or contract funded by
amounts appropriated by this Act shall submit a statement to
the Secretary of Commerce, the Attorney General, the
Administrator, Director, or President, as appropriate,
certifying that no funds derived from the grant or contract
will be made available through a subcontract or in any other
manner to another person who has a financial interest in the
person awarded the grant or contract.
(d) The provisions of the preceding subsections of this
section shall take effect 30 days after the date on which the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in
consultation with the Director of the Office of Government
Ethics, determines that a uniform set of rules and
requirements, substantially similar to the requirements in
such subsections, consistently apply under the executive
branch ethics program to all Federal departments, agencies,
and entities.
Sec. 515. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available under this Act may be used by the Departments
of Commerce and Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, or the National Science Foundation to acquire
or renew a high-impact or moderate-impact information system,
as defined for security categorization in the National
Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Federal
Information Processing Standard Publication 199, ``Standards
for Security Categorization of Federal Information and
Information Systems'' unless the agency has--
(1) reviewed the supply chain risk for the information
systems against criteria developed by NIST and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to inform acquisition decisions
for high-impact and moderate-impact information systems
within the Federal Government;
(2) reviewed the supply chain risk from the presumptive
awardee against available and relevant threat information
provided by the FBI and other appropriate agencies; and
(3) in consultation with the FBI or other appropriate
Federal entity, conducted an assessment of any risk of cyber-
espionage or sabotage associated with the acquisition of such
system, including any risk associated with such system being
produced, manufactured, or assembled by one or more entities
identified by the United States Government as posing a cyber
threat, including but not limited to, those that may be
owned, directed, or subsidized by the People's Republic of
China.
[[Page H3716]]
(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under this Act may be used to acquire a high-impact
or moderate-impact information system reviewed and assessed
under subsection (a) unless the head of the assessing entity
described in subsection (a) has--
(1) developed, in consultation with NIST, the FBI and
supply chain risk management experts, a mitigation strategy
for any identified risks;
(2) determined, in consultation with NIST and the FBI, that
the acquisition of such system is in the national interest of
the United States; and
(3) reported that determination to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
and the agency Inspector General.
Sec. 516. None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be used in any way whatsoever to support or justify the
use of torture by any official or contract employee of the
United States Government.
Sec. 517. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
treaty, in fiscal year 2016 and each fiscal year thereafter,
none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available
under this Act or any other Act may be expended or obligated
by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United
States to pay administrative expenses or to compensate an
officer or employee of the United States in connection with
requiring an export license for the export to Canada of
components, parts, accessories or attachments for firearms
listed in Category I, section 121.1 of title 22, Code of
Federal Regulations (International Trafficking in Arms
Regulations (ITAR), part 121, as it existed on April 1, 2005)
with a total value not exceeding $500 wholesale in any
transaction, provided that the conditions of subsection (b)
of this section are met by the exporting party for such
articles.
(b) The foregoing exemption from obtaining an export
license--
(1) does not exempt an exporter from filing any Shipper's
Export Declaration or notification letter required by law, or
from being otherwise eligible under the laws of the United
States to possess, ship, transport, or export the articles
enumerated in subsection (a); and
(2) does not permit the export without a license of--
(A) fully automatic firearms and components and parts for
such firearms, other than for end use by the Federal
Government, or a Provincial or Municipal Government of
Canada;
(B) barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames) or complete
breech mechanisms for any firearm listed in Category I, other
than for end use by the Federal Government, or a Provincial
or Municipal Government of Canada; or
(C) articles for export from Canada to another foreign
destination.
(c) In accordance with this section, the District Directors
of Customs and postmasters shall permit the permanent or
temporary export without a license of any unclassified
articles specified in subsection (a) to Canada for end use in
Canada or return to the United States, or temporary import of
Canadian-origin items from Canada for end use in the United
States or return to Canada for a Canadian citizen.
(d) The President may require export licenses under this
section on a temporary basis if the President determines,
upon publication first in the Federal Register, that the
Government of Canada has implemented or maintained inadequate
import controls for the articles specified in subsection (a),
such that a significant diversion of such articles has and
continues to take place for use in international terrorism or
in the escalation of a conflict in another nation. The
President shall terminate the requirements of a license when
reasons for the temporary requirements have ceased.
Sec. 518. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
fiscal year 2016 and each fiscal year thereafter, no
department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States
receiving appropriated funds under this Act or any other Act
shall obligate or expend in any way such funds to pay
administrative expenses or the compensation of any officer or
employee of the United States to deny any application
submitted pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(1)(B) and qualified
pursuant to 27 CFR section 478.112 or .113, for a permit to
import United States origin ``curios or relics'' firearms,
parts, or ammunition.
Sec. 519. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to include in any new bilateral or multilateral trade
agreement the text of--
(1) paragraph 2 of article 16.7 of the United States-
Singapore Free Trade Agreement;
(2) paragraph 4 of article 17.9 of the United States-
Australia Free Trade Agreement; or
(3) paragraph 4 of article 15.9 of the United States-
Morocco Free Trade Agreement.
Sec. 520. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to authorize or issue a national security letter in
contravention of any of the following laws authorizing the
Federal Bureau of Investigation to issue national security
letters: The Right to Financial Privacy Act; The Electronic
Communications Privacy Act; The Fair Credit Reporting Act;
The National Security Act of 1947; USA PATRIOT Act; and the
laws amended by these Acts.
Sec. 521. If at any time during any quarter, the program
manager of a project within the jurisdiction of the
Departments of Commerce or Justice, the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, or the National Science Foundation
totaling more than $75,000,000 has reasonable cause to
believe that the total program cost has increased by 10
percent or more, the program manager shall immediately inform
the respective Secretary, Administrator, or Director. The
Secretary, Administrator, or Director shall notify the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days in
writing of such increase, and shall include in such notice:
the date on which such determination was made; a statement of
the reasons for such increases; the action taken and proposed
to be taken to control future cost growth of the project;
changes made in the performance or schedule milestones and
the degree to which such changes have contributed to the
increase in total program costs or procurement costs; new
estimates of the total project or procurement costs; and a
statement validating that the project's management structure
is adequate to control total project or procurement costs.
Sec. 522. Funds appropriated by this Act, or made
available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for
intelligence or intelligence related activities are deemed to
be specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of
section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
414) during fiscal year 2016 until the enactment of the
Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016.
Sec. 523. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in
an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in
excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or
grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the
contract or grant that, to the best of its knowledge and
belief, the contractor or grantee has filed all Federal tax
returns required during the three years preceding the
certification, has not been convicted of a criminal offense
under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and has not, more
than 90 days prior to certification, been notified of any
unpaid Federal tax assessment for which the liability remains
unsatisfied, unless the assessment is the subject of an
installment agreement or offer in compromise that has been
approved by the Internal Revenue Service and is not in
default, or the assessment is the subject of a non-frivolous
administrative or judicial proceeding.
(rescissions)
Sec. 524. (a) Of the unobligated balances from prior year
appropriations available to the Department of Commerce's
National Technical Information Service, $10,000,000 are
rescinded.
(b) Of the unobligated balances available to the Department
of Justice, the following funds are hereby rescinded, not
later than September 30, 2016, from the following accounts in
the specified amounts--
(1) ``Working Capital Fund'', $100,000,000;
(2) ``United States Marshals Service, Federal Prisoner
Detention'', $69,500,000;
(3) ``Federal Bureau of Investigation, Salaries and
Expenses'', $120,000,000 from fines collected to defray
expenses for the automation of fingerprint identification and
criminal justice information services and associated costs;
(4) ``State and Local Law Enforcement Activities, Office on
Violence Against Women, Violence Against Women Prevention and
Prosecution Programs'', $15,000,000;
(5) ``State and Local Law Enforcement Activities, Office of
Justice Programs'', $40,000,000; and
(6) ``State and Local Law Enforcement Activities, Community
Oriented Policing Services'', $20,000,000.
(c) The Department of Justice shall submit to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate a report no later than September 1, 2016,
specifying the amount of each rescission made pursuant to
subsection (b).
Sec. 525. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to purchase first class or premium airline travel in
contravention of sections 301-10.122 through 301-10.124 of
title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 526. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more
than 50 employees from a Federal department or agency at any
single conference occurring outside the United States unless
such conference is a law enforcement training or operational
conference for law enforcement personnel and the majority of
Federal employees in attendance are law enforcement personnel
stationed outside the United States.
Sec. 527. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this or any other Act may be used to transfer,
release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within
the United States, its territories, or possessions Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who--
(1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed
Forces of the United States; and
(2) is or was held on or after June 24, 2009, at the United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department
of Defense.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike section 527.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
[[Page H3717]]
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments. The first strikes
section 527; the second strikes section 528. I had to put them in as
two separate amendments because only one amendment pends at a time, but
they are really together.
Sections 527 and 528, which my amendment would strike, restricts the
President's authority to move Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United
States for trial.
Mr. Chairman, simply put, it is time to punish Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. In GTMO, he has not been
tried, convicted, or punished. Meanwhile, Federal courts have tried,
convicted, and punished more than 400 terrorists. None of them have
ever escaped from a U.S. prison. No prison where they are located has
ever been subjected to an attack.
The only thing my friends who are opposed to closing Guantanamo have
on their side is fear. Fear, Mr. Chairman. As they argue against this
amendment, they will try to tell us that these men are dangerous and
scary, that these men can harm us, that these men are the worst of the
worst--and some may be--but these men are already in our custody.
Like so many murderers and terrorists already in prison, they have no
power over us. They have been shut off from the outside world for more
than a decade.
If there are terrible people in Guantanamo--and I am not denying that
there are--then it is time for them to face the consequences of their
actions in a U.S. court. And that is the rub. The terrorists that have
been prosecuted and sentenced had their day in court and were found
guilty.
U.S. Federal courts have successfully tried and convicted criminals
and terrorists during times of war and peace for hundreds of years, all
while respecting the rights of due process that our Constitution
demands.
This leads me to believe that some of my colleagues do not believe in
the American system of justice. They do not trust our American courts
to do justice. I do not understand why.
Through the centuries, our legal system has kept America safe by
putting away dangerous individuals while protecting those who were
innocent of the government's charges against them. That is the beauty
of our system that has made it the envy of the world.
The principles underpinning the system, the right to due process and
to a fair trial, are built into our Constitution and are part of our
most basic values. But in order for the system to work, you actually
need to get your day in court.
Without our amendment, this bill guarantees that we will continue
holding people indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay.
Even though we suspect that we are holding people who are terrorists,
some of whom probably are, in fact, terrorists, none of this has been
proven in a court of law. Without this amendment, we will continue to
hold them indefinitely without charge, contrary to every tradition this
country stands for, contrary to any notion of due process.
The founding principles of the United States, that no person may be
deprived of liberty without due process of law and certainly may not be
deprived of liberty indefinitely without due process of law, demands
that we close the detention facility at Guantanamo.
We must close this facility, try these people, condemn the guilty,
place them in supermax facilities, release the innocent, if there are
any; and restore our national honor. I urge the support of this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure everyone in the
House understands that what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is
attempting to do is to give constitutional rights to foreign nationals
captured on battlefields overseas who are being held in Guantanamo Bay.
Never before in American history have we ever given foreign nationals--
enemy combatants captured overseas on a battlefield--constitutional
rights, the most precious rights we have, that were fought for, bled
for, died for by our forefathers on so many battlefields all over the
world to preserve these precious rights reserved for the people of the
United States of America. Mr. Nadler wants to extend the protections of
this Constitution to the killers and the psychopaths who have killed so
many Americans overseas.
I could not disagree more strenuously. I know the House disagrees
strenuously. We have voted on this repeatedly. And the House and the
Congress have repeatedly affirmed this language, which says very
clearly, ``none of the funds appropriated''--this is the language Mr.
Nadler seeks to strike:
``None of the funds appropriated . . . in this or any other Act may
be used to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to
or within the United States . . . Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other
detainee who is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed
Forces . . . and is or was held on or after June 24, 2009 . . . at
Guantanamo Bay.''
During World War II, a group of Nazi saboteurs who landed on beaches
in Long Island and in Florida were captured fairly rapidly by local
police officers and local militia and were handed over to the U.S.
military. Franklin Roosevelt did the right thing, and they immediately
held these Nazis as military detainees. They were accorded a trial
under the Code of Military Justice and executed, as they should have
been, I think within about 60 days.
This is not really an issue with the American people, who I hope, Mr.
Chairman, are out watching tonight because there could not be a more
dramatic contrast between the majority in the House that is
representing the will of the Nation in seeing that our laws are
enforced and the enemies of the United States are hunted down wherever
they may hide.
I had a constituent tell me Hamas stands for ``hiding among mosques
and schools.'' Wherever these people may hide--they hide behind women
and children. They will not face our soldiers on the battlefield. When
we have met them on the battlefield, we have defeated them decisively.
Where the men and women of the United States military find these
people and hunt them down and kill them or capture them--if we have
captured them and they have information that could save American lives,
we bring them to Guantanamo Bay, and we have saved countless lives by
holding them there.
We, in this appropriations bill, make clear that we will not give
these killers, these cowards, these terrorists, these foreign fighters
on foreign battlefields the precious rights reserved for the people of
the United States by this Constitution. And it is that simple.
If you want to give terrorists, foreign fighters on foreign
battlefields constitutional rights, you should vote with the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Vote against Mr. Nadler's amendment if you believe that the rights
guaranteed by this Constitution are reserved for the people of the
United States and that if you are an enemy combatant, a foreign
national fighting the United States, you are going to be dealt with
severely and accorded the Code of Military Justice, as it should be.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 90 seconds
remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, almost everything the gentleman just said is not
apropos and is wrong.
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the people at
Guantanamo have exactly the same constitutional rights--no more and no
less--than they would have if brought to the United States. So it has
nothing to do with giving constitutional rights to foreign nationals.
Second of all, some of these people were, indeed, captured on foreign
battlefields; some were not.
Third of all, maybe they should be tried by military tribunals. But
they have been held for 11, 12, 14, 15 years. We can't manage to try
them by foreign tribunals. Put them in a Federal court. Try them.
Convict them.
[[Page H3718]]
{time} 2045
Put them in a Federal court, try them, and convict them. If you want
to put them in a military tribunal, you can do that, fine. We haven't
managed to. But the fact is, by staying in Guantanamo, they don't have
any less, fewer, or more constitutional rights than are here. Anyone
within the jurisdiction of the United States, according to the Supreme
Court, has constitutional rights. We must treat them with due process.
All this amendment says is treat them the way the Supreme Court has
said we should: try them, condemn them, or find them innocent, as the
case may be. Some may be innocent. Many of them are not. Some may be.
We should follow our traditions.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment so that we can
apply American concepts of justice as the Supreme Court has said we
must.
We can try them by military tribunal in Guantanamo or in the United
States. We can try them in Federal Court. Military tribunals haven't
worked. We haven't been able to make them work. Federal courts have
worked. We should condemn the guilty and release the innocent, if there
are any.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes
Mr. FATTAH. It was not long after 9/11 that we held a conversation
here in Washington, and the former Speaker was on a panel over in
Rayburn, I think. We were discussing this, and he said, well, this is
the situation that we find ourselves in after these attacks. And I
asked Speaker Gingrich at the time, former Speaker, this notion of us
being a nation of laws, what did that mean now. Because under former
President Bush, the original President Bush, he had complained about
the Chinese holding people without trial. We had issued a formal
complaint that the Chinese were holding people without trial, using
secret evidence and so forth and so on, and what did this mean now in
the context of our own country's conduct. Speaker Gingrich said that,
well, he wasn't really sure because we are at a difficult moment.
So now we are here. We have had two Presidents who tried to close
Guantanamo. President Bush who opened it, and his second administration
wanted to end it, and then we had two Presidential elections in which
the country voted for Barack Obama, who said he wanted to close this
facility. We have a congressional majority that is not going to do it,
that is going to put every impediment in the way of doing it.
We have our national security enterprise that says that this is used
as a recruitment tool against our interests, that this is working
against the security of the United States. And, more important than
perhaps even that is, I am sure, gnaws at our ideals as Americans that
you would take someone, hold them, never try them, never produce any
evidence in a tribunal of any type, military or civilian, and say that
you are going to do it in perpetuity, that this is not the great Nation
that our ideal speaks to. This is the act of something less than what
we should be doing as a great country.
Mr. Chairman, I know that it is not popular and Mr. Nadler's
amendment is not going to probably enjoy majority support, but at the
end of the day, we can't just ask what is popular or what is politic.
At some point, we have to ask ourselves what is the right thing. If we
can complain about China holding people without charge, with secret
evidence and no trial and no access to lawyers, then we have to think
about looking in the mirror and think about what we have allowed other
people's actions to turn our country into in this circumstance.
So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Nadler amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me, if I could, Mr. Chairman, point out that President Obama has
already said he wants to close Guantanamo Bay and bring these people
into the United States. The 19th terrorist was captured in the United
States, and therefore he was entitled to constitutional protection
because he was in the United States.
But the only thing standing between Barack Obama giving these
terrorists and killers constitutional rights is this language in this
appropriations bill which says none of the money in the United States
can be used to transfer these killers into the United States. As soon
as they touch our soil, they will be given constitutional rights. And
that is exactly what Mr. Nadler wants to do with his amendment is give
these precious constitutional rights to these killers and these cowards
that have been captured on foreign battlefields, these foreign
nationals who have never been afforded the protection of the United
States Constitution, which is reserved for the people of the United
States.
They deserve what they have got. They are lucky to be alive. They are
lucky to be in Guantanamo Bay. And I urge Members to vote against this
amendment to ensure that these people are given what they deserve, and
that is, whether it be life in prison or whatever lies ahead of them,
that they will never again threaten the people of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no,'' against Mr. Nadler's
amendment, to ensure that constitutional protections are only afforded
to the people of the United States or those persons who are actually
within our boundaries when they are captured or they commit a crime.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 528. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise
made available in this or any other Act may be used to
construct, acquire, or modify any facility in the United
States, its territories, or possessions to house any
individual described in subsection (c) for the purposes of
detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the
effective control of the Department of Defense.
(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to
any modification of facilities at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(c) An individual described in this subsection is any
individual who, as of June 24, 2009, is located at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and who--
(1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of
the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is--
(A) in the custody or under the effective control of the
Department of Defense; or
(B) otherwise under detention at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to strike section 528.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike section 528.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this is really a continuation of our
colloquy from the last amendment since they both seek to do the same
thing. Let me just say a couple of things.
Again, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that people in
Guantanamo Bay have the same constitutional rights as people in
Florida, New York, or Washington, so I do not seek to give people in
Guantanamo Bay constitutional rights they do not already have. They
have the constitutional rights. That was the Supreme Court decision, I
think, in 2009 I think the decision was. They have the constitutional
rights. Anyone under the jurisdiction and effective control of the
United States has the constitutional rights, so that is not really in
question.
What is really in question is: Are we going to honor our obligations?
Now, the gentleman says that some of these people are terrible people,
that they are murderers. Some of them may be,
[[Page H3719]]
and some of them are, but some of them may not be. They have not been
tried. They ought to be tried.
As the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, we have criticized the
Chinese communists, and we have criticized many other nations for
holding people in jail indefinitely, for not trying them and for not
giving them any kind of due process. These people, like any other human
beings, deserve some due process.
Some of them, I am sure, have been terrorists. They ought to be
condemned and put in jail forever. Some of them may not be. And some of
them were captured on foreign battlefields and some were not. Some of
them were simply victims of the Hatfields and the McCoys' feud between
two tribes or clans in Afghanistan or wherever, and one clan said: Gee,
the Americans are paying a $5,000 bounty, so why don't we tip them off
to our enemy and tell them that they are a terrorist. Some of them were
victims of that.
The facts ought to come out. Some due process ought to be given. No
one ought to be held in jail for life without a trial, without a
hearing, and without some due process. That is what we stand for. And
simply saying that Americans deserve due process but other people do
not, A, it is wrong. Other people do not have constitutional rights,
but if they are in the United States, they do. If they are in
Guantanamo, they have constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has
already said that.
So the question here is: Are we going to bring them to a facility in
the United States, a supermax facility? No one has escaped from them.
It is cheaper. It saves the taxpayers a lot of money. Give them a
military tribunal or a Federal trial and do what is right. That is what
is at stake here.
I will say one other thing. Our military has told us time and time
again that the stain of Guantanamo, besides being a stain on our honor,
is one of the greatest recruiting tools the terrorists have. They point
to Guantanamo. They say: Look at those American hypocrites. They are
persecuting Muslims. They are persecuting non-Americans.
Well, they have a point. And other people think they have a point,
and they get angry. They get radicalized, and they become terrorists
against us.
So why not, for the 120-odd people who are still at Guantanamo, the
majority of whom have been judged not to pose a threat to this country
by our own military authorities, do the right thing? Give them a trial.
Throw them in jail for whatever lengthy period of time is indicated if
they are guilty. And if they are not, then they ought to be released if
they are not guilty of a crime, if they haven't been terrorists. We
have to have some evidence. We can't simply point to someone and say,
``He is guilty of a crime. He is a terrorist,'' without some evidence
to that fact. That is our tradition. Mr. Chairman, that is what this
amendment calls for.
I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, let me point out to all the Members of
the House and those listening here this evening that the section Mr.
Nadler attempts to strike is the only thing standing between President
Barack Obama and his attempt to close Guantanamo Bay and transfer all
these killers, these cowards, and these foreign nationals captured on
the foreign battlefields either attempting to or having already killed
American soldiers. This language that Mr. Nadler is attempting to
strike prohibits, says:
None of the funds appropriated by this or any other act may be used
to construct or acquire or modify any facility in the United States to
house any individual transferred into the United States from Guantanamo
Bay.
So, Mr. Chairman, we have got two provisions in this bill: no money
to transfer anybody from Guantanamo into the United States--and that
amendment, which will be a record vote, will be decisively defeated by
the House in a minute--and then this amendment which Mr. Nadler is
offering. We have put language in this bill for the last several years
to make sure that President Obama cannot use Federal hard-earned
taxpayer dollars to build a prison facility or modify it to house
anybody transferred from Guantanamo.
Now, this is very clear-cut. This is very simple. Obviously anybody
held, if you are in a military tribunal, you get due process. That is
not the issue. What Mr. Nadler is attempting to do with this amendment,
again, is to give constitutional rights to foreign nationals captured
on foreign battlefields engaged, and we are still at war with these
people. We are still at war. And Mr. Nadler is attempting to extend
constitutional protections fought for and died for by our ancestors to
enemy combatants captured on foreign battlefields--never been done,
absolutely unprecedented, and, frankly, unbelievable. I cannot even
imagine the cost, the sacrifice, the burden on American taxpayers, the
threat to American safety, for what?
So these foreign nationals, these psychopathic killers in ISIL are
going to respect us and like us because we give them a trial and gave
them constitutional protection? Yeah, that is going to happen.
Mr. Chairman, we are at war with a medieval mindset that is
determined to destroy our way of life and our liberty. They are hostile
to everything that our Founding Fathers fought for. These people would
destroy this Constitution that we have had for over 200 years, worked
so hard to preserve and protect.
I cannot think of anything more destructive or damaging to the morale
of our troops, to the morale of our Nation, and to all of those
families who lost loved ones in the war on terror than to bring in
these killers and cowards in the United States and grant them the
protections guaranteed to American citizens in the United States
Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, Mr. Chairman, even the Nazis who came ashore on Long Island
that the gentleman referred to before were tried in the military
tribunal. They weren't simply thrown in jail and held forever. They
were tried in a military tribunal, condemned, and then sentenced to
death.
All this amendment says is we should do the same thing, that people
who are in the custody and the jurisdiction of the United States
already have constitutional rights. We are not giving them
constitutional rights. The Supreme Court already said they have them.
We are saying they should get a military tribunal or a civilian trial,
whichever is chosen. This amendment doesn't deal with that. And they
should be condemned or not.
One more thing. The gentleman keeps saying that these people were
enemies of the United States captured on the foreign battlefield. Some
were and some were not.
Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Nadler, because the section we are
dealing with is a prohibition against building a prison facility in the
United States to house these people. So that is what the debate needs
to be about. What you are attempting to strike is a prohibition against
using our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to build a prison to house
these killers.
Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriations bill. I just want
everybody to know it is $2 million per inmate at Guantanamo. It is a
premium facility, $2 million per inmate.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New York has
expired.
{time} 2100
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the question before the House is whether
or not our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars are going to be used to build
a prison facility in the United States to house the terrorists and
killers and cowards held in Guantanamo Bay. That is the question before
us.
Mr. NADLER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
[[Page H3720]]
Mr. NADLER. Does the gentleman not know what has been testified to
repeatedly, that it will be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers' money to
hold them in the United States than in Guantanamo?
Mr. CULBERSON. Well, that may be your opinion, sir, but we will not,
and will not ever, afford constitutional rights or house foreign
fighters captured on a foreign battlefield who have been killing the
men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States on a foreign
battlefield, we are never going to house them in a prison in the United
States. We are never going to give them constitutional rights. Those
rights are reserved to the people of the United States and the people
who commit crimes within the boundaries of the United States.
The 19th terrorist, who didn't quite make it that day, was captured
in the United States, and he was given a trial, as he should be. The
Constitution extends protections to persons within the United States.
These people, again, whom we are at war with have never been afforded
constitutional protections. And you are right, the Nazis captured in
Long Island and in Florida were given due process in a military
tribunal, as these individuals have been given due process in military
tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. That is the way it always has been and
always should be.
And certainly the Members of this House have voted repeatedly in the
past, and I am confident they will vote again tonight to defeat this
amendment to reaffirm that these precious rights in the United States
Constitution are reserved for the people of the United States and will
never be extended to enemy foreign fighters, particularly these cowards
who have been waging war against women and children and won't come out
and fight our men and women on the battlefield in open combat.
This language in this bill is the only thing standing between
President Barack Obama in his attempt to close Guantanamo Bay and move
these people into prison facilities in the United States. So I urge
Members to vote against Mr. Nadler's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and enter
into a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin) and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield initially to my friend, Mr.
Babin, and then will yield to Mr. Posey.
Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I am seeking an increase of funding for the
Commercial Crew Program in our Science budget.
For the past several years, the United States taxpayers have been
paying over $70 million a person to launch our astronauts to the
International Space Station on Russian vehicles from Russian soil. We
must end this reliance on the Russians as quickly as possible. We must
set priorities within the NASA budget to make sure that the American
astronauts are launched from American soil on American vehicles sooner
rather than later.
When it comes to spending within our NASA budget, it is important
that we set a precedent of what we think is the most important thing to
do. NASA is the only U.S. Government agency that has human spaceflight
as its mission. If NASA doesn't do it, then it simply is not going to
be done.
This investment in Commercial Crew, which is managed out of Johnson
Space Center in the 36th congressional District, would aid the
development of U.S. human spaceflight capabilities and lay the
foundation for future commercial transportation and end our dependence
on the Russians.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to ensure that we
give this program the funding necessary to end our reliance on the
Russians.
Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Babin. I want to assure you that as we
work through this process in conference and the additional funding
becomes available--and I do expect that as we move forward, if we have
additional funding, we are going to make sure that any gaps or holes,
whether it be in the Orion program or anywhere else, we are going to
fill those holes and make sure that we are given as much support as we
possibly can to Commercial Crew and to Orion.
We funded the Orion program at the level the President requested. And
if we get additional funds, we will do our very best to hit that mark
also for the Commercial Crew Program.
Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. I am very supportive of the Commercial Crew Program, and
I think that there is a shortfall in that particular program. I think
that is what the gentleman is referring to in his hope that we can
address that shortfall so that we don't have to spend what has now been
about $500 million with our Russian counterparts in order to transport
astronauts to the International Space Station.
Mr. CULBERSON. We will work together. If we, as we say, find
additional funds, we will do everything we can to help Orion.
Mr. BABIN. Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CULBERSON. I will be happy also to yield to my good friend, Mr.
Posey, for a colloquy as well.
Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This bill adequately funds the Space Launch System, the rocket which
will carry the Orion capsule into space, and I am grateful for that.
It adequately funds exploration ground systems, which are essential
to getting Orion off the ground, and I am really grateful for that.
But without sufficiently funding the Orion capsule, we will be
delaying the deep space exploration missions. Orion is a very unique
and very special spacecraft, unlike any we have ever sent into space,
possessing capabilities to carry astronauts deeper into space than
humans have ever gone before. The technological and engineering
challenges are enormous, and it requires proper funding to get the job
done.
It is critical that Orion receives adequate funding to remain on
schedule. My rough calculations indicate this funding level, so much
less than authorized, can result in the delay of having Orion online by
as much as 2 years. Imagine having our space launch systems ready to
go, our exploration ground systems ready to go, and no space capsule
ready to fly for 2 more years after that. That would be disastrous.
Unfortunately, when Congress assigns tasks to NASA and does not
provide adequate funding, American's space program gets criticized and
maligned for being behind schedule, when it is actually Congress that
caused the problem.
I thank my colleagues for their work on this issue, and I am hopeful
that we can work together to make certain Orion gets enough funding to
stay on schedule to carry humans into space, deep space, by 2021.
I thank Chairman Culberson for his work on this and his assurance
that we can work together to secure adequate funding to keep Orion on
schedule.
Mr. CULBERSON. I want to assure the gentleman that we will do so. I
want to make sure to make the Record clear that we funded Orion at the
level requested by NASA. We fully funded in exactly the number they
asked for. If additional funds become available, and it looks like it
is really going to help them speed up the program, we will certainly
make those funds available to them, because we want to get Americans
back into space as quickly as possible on an American built rocket.
That is why you have seen us plus up the SLS heavy launch rocket
program to accelerate that program, which will have so many uses. But,
of course, you know I don't know there is any stronger advocate for
NASA and America's space program than I am and you gentlemen are. I
look forward to working with you.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I move to strike the last word with the gentleman
from Texas.
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the gentleman cannot strike the
last word.
Mr. CULBERSON. Do I have the ability to strike the last word again to
complete additional colloquy with the gentleman from Colorado?
[[Page H3721]]
The Acting CHAIR. Only the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman
from Pennsylvania can move to strike the last word under the rule.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word and enter
into a colloquy with the gentleman from Colorado, my friend.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I thank my
friend from Florida for speaking up on behalf of Orion.
Orion is America's new spacecraft to take astronauts further into
space than ever before and land our astronauts on Mars.
Orion had its maiden test flight this past December, and it was a
resounding success. The Orion program, as Mr. Posey stated, needs a
full funding for this, and we believe it to be $1.35 billion for fiscal
year '16 to meet those needs.
I appreciate the committee including language in the committee report
requiring NASA to provide an assessment of these challenges, but
Congress needs to provide the resources necessary in fiscal year `16 to
mitigate the entire risk and move this project forward.
So I thank the gentleman from Texas for his support of the Orion
program. We need to make sure it has sufficient resources to get our
men and women, our astronauts, to Mars as quickly as possible.
Mr. CULBERSON. I look forward to working with you and my colleague
from Texas and our colleagues from Florida in ensuring everyone in this
House supports NASA and the manned space program. And I will work
closely with you and my colleagues to ensure that any additional
funding that Orion needs that they receive as we move through this
process and go into conference.
As you noted, the bill that we have before us tonight funds Orion at
the level requested by NASA. We gave them exactly what they asked for.
We also asked them to give us reports on making sure they can meet
their deadlines for testing the spacecraft and meeting their
milestones. As they prove that to us and as we get further along and
additional funds get available and they show us they need that, of
course, we will put them at the top of the list.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank the gentleman. I look forward to staying on
top of this so that as they move forward we have sufficient funding to
really propel this project forward and get our astronauts to Mars.
Mr. CULBERSON. I thank the gentleman. America will never surrender
the high ground--outer space is the high ground of the 21st century--
and we are going to make sure to preserve America's leadership in space
exploration, both manned and unmanned.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Vacating Demand for Recorded Vote on Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I am doing something I would rather not do.
But the gentleman from Texas was so nice on my rape kit amendment, and
we did save Texas and have Davy Crockett, a predecessor of mine, in
Congress.
I ask unanimous consent that my request for a recorded vote on the
amendment I offered that the chair was against, that it be withdrawn,
to the end that the amendment stand disposed of by the voice vote
thereon.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the request for a recorded vote
is withdrawn. Accordingly, the noes have it and the amendment is not
adopted.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 529. To the extent practicable, funds made available
in this Act should be used to purchase light bulbs that are
``Energy Star'' qualified or have the ``Federal Energy
Management Program'' designation.
Sec. 530. The Director of the Office of Management and
Budget shall instruct any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States receiving funds
appropriated under this Act to track undisbursed balances in
expired grant accounts and include in its annual performance
plan and performance and accountability reports the
following:
(1) Details on future action the department, agency, or
instrumentality will take to resolve undisbursed balances in
expired grant accounts.
(2) The method that the department, agency, or
instrumentality uses to track undisbursed balances in expired
grant accounts.
(3) Identification of undisbursed balances in expired grant
accounts that may be returned to the Treasury of the United
States.
(4) In the preceding 3 fiscal years, details on the total
number of expired grant accounts with undisbursed balances
(on the first day of each fiscal year) for the department,
agency, or instrumentality and the total finances that have
not been obligated to a specific project remaining in the
accounts.
Sec. 531. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) or the Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) to develop, design, plan, promulgate,
implement, or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or
contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or
coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-
owned company unless such activities are specifically
authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of
this Act.
(b) None of the funds made available by this Act may be
used to effectuate the hosting of official Chinese visitors
at facilities belonging to or utilized by NASA.
(c) The limitations described in subsections (a) and (b)
shall not apply to activities which NASA or OSTP has
certified--
(1) pose no risk of resulting in the transfer of
technology, data, or other information with national security
or economic security implications to China or a Chinese-owned
company; and
(2) will not involve knowing interactions with officials
who have been determined by the United States to have direct
involvement with violations of human rights.
(d) Any certification made under subsection (c) shall be
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, no later than 30 days prior to the activity in
question and shall include a description of the purpose of
the activity, its agenda, its major participants, and its
location and timing.
Sec. 532. None of the funds made available by this or any
other Act, for fiscal year 2016 and each fiscal year
thereafter, may be used to pay the salaries or expenses of
personnel to deny, or fail to act on, an application for the
importation of any model of shotgun if--
(1) all other requirements of law with respect to the
proposed importation are met; and
(2) no application for the importation of such model of
shotgun, in the same configuration, had been denied by the
Attorney General prior to January 1, 2011, on the basis that
the shotgun was not particularly suitable for or readily
adaptable to sporting purposes.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Esty
Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 94, beginning on line 16, strike section 532.
Page 96, beginning on line 12, strike section 537.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman from Connecticut
and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 532 and 537, two
harmful gun riders in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, appropriations bills are not the proper place to
address significant policy provisions. Instead, such changes to gun
policy must be seriously and properly considered by Congress through
the regular order. The American people deserve an open and transparent
process where a full range of options can be frankly discussed and
debated by the proper congressional committee and the entire House of
Representatives.
Over the past several years, various appropriations riders related to
gun policy have had unintended consequences that could have been
prevented had these issues been fully and thoroughly debated in
Congress.
Today is National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Today of all days we
can and must do better. We should not allow contentious policy
provisions related to important Federal policies governing firearms to
be attached to these appropriations bills.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Appropriations Committee and the House as a
whole to stop inserting significant gun
[[Page H3722]]
policy provisions into must-pass spending bills.
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
June 2, 2015, on page H3722, the following appeared: There was
no objection. 2115
The online version should be corrected to read: There was no
objection. The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn. 2115
========================= END NOTE =========================
{time} 2115
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 533. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to maintain or establish a computer network
unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and
exchanging of pornography.
(b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall limit the use of funds
necessary for any Federal, State, tribal, or local law
enforcement agency or any other entity carrying out criminal
investigations, prosecution, adjudication, or other law-
enforcement related activity.
Sec. 534. The Departments of Commerce and Justice, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National
Science Foundation, the Commission on Civil Rights, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, the International Trade
Commission, the Legal Services Corporation, the Marine Mammal
Commission, the Offices of Science and Technology Policy and
the United States Trade Representative, and the State Justice
Institute shall submit spending plans, signed by the
respective department or agency head, to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
within 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 535. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated or expended to implement the Arms Trade Treaty
until the Senate approves a resolution of ratification for
the Treaty.
Sec. 536. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to relinquish the responsibility of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration with
respect to Internet domain name system functions, including
responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone
file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions.
Sec. 537. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to require a person licensed under section 923 of
title 18, United States Code, to report information to the
Department of Justice regarding the sale of multiple rifles
or shotguns to the same person.
Sec. 538. No funds provided in this Act shall be used to
deny the Inspectors General of the Departments of Commerce
and Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and the National Science Foundation timely
access to all records, documents, and other materials in the
custody or possession of the respective department or agency
or to prevent or impede the particular Inspector General's
access to such records, documents, and other materials,
unless in accordance with an express limitation of section
6(a) of the Inspector General Act, as amended, consistent
with the plain language of the Inspector General Act, as
amended. The Inspectors General of the Departments of
Commerce and Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and the National Science Foundation shall
report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate within five calendar days any
failures to comply with this requirement.
Sec. 539. The Department of Commerce, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science
Foundation, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy
shall provide a monthly report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate
on any official travel to China by any employee of such
Department or agency, including the purpose of such travel.
Sec. 540. (a) No funds made available in this Act may be
used to facilitate, permit, license, or promote exports to
the Cuban military or intelligence service or to any officer
of the Cuban military or intelligence service, or an
immediate family member thereof.
(b) This section does not apply to exports of goods
permitted under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export
Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.).
(c) In this section--
(1) the term ``Cuban military or intelligence service''
includes, but is not limited to, the Ministry of the
Revolutionary Armed Forces, and the Ministry of the Interior,
of Cuba, and any subsidiary of either such Ministry; and
(2) the term ``immediate family member'' means a spouse,
sibling, son, daughter, parent, grandparent, grandchild,
aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Farr
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk to strike
section 540.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike section 540 (page 97, line 18 through page 98, line
10).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I am serving my 22nd year in the United
States Congress, and I have never seen a provision in an appropriations
bill like this.
This amendment in there could be labeled the ``family feud.'' There
is only one Member of Congress who is related to anybody in the
leadership and in the military in Cuba, and he is the person who put
this amendment in.
What it does is it prohibits businesses from doing business in Cuba
because it makes it almost impossible for any business to get a
license. That is why the United States Chamber of Commerce; the
National Foreign Trade Council; the Emergency Committee for American
Trade; USA Engage, which is a trade group; and CubaNow, which is
Florida's Cuban Americans, are all opposed to this provision of the
bill and support my amendment to strike it.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record letters from CubaNow which are
in support of my amendment.
Dear Congressman Farr: We urge that House Members vote to
strip Section 540 from H.R. 2578, Commerce, Justice, Science,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.
This provision would turn back the strategic effort to
normalize relations between the U.S. and Cuba, harming
advancements to increased commerce with Cuba.
Majorities of Americans, Cuban-Americans, and Cubans
support normalizing relations and ending the unilateral trade
embargo. Bipartisan support exists in both the House and
Senate and throughout the business community and the majority
of civil society groups focused on Cuba.
The question of Cuba policy should be approached
deliberatively in the full context of hemispheric relations.
Please support the Farr amendment to strip Section 540 from
H.R. 2578.
Sincerely,
CubaNow;
Emergency Committee for American Trade;
Engage Cuba;
Manchester Trade Limited, Inc.;
National Foreign Trade Council;
U.S. Chamber of Commerce;
USA*Engage.
____
#CubaNow Statement on Administration Veto Threats Over Cuba Policy
[From #CubaNow]
Washington.--#CubaNow Political Director David Gomez issued
the following statement in support of the Obama
Administration's veto threats and congressional efforts to
eliminate attempts to limit or roll back the new Cuba policy:
``#CubaNow supports the recent veto threats issued by the
Obama Administration in regards to the House's current
Transportation and Commerce appropriations bills. As the
Administration noted, these bills include policy riders that
place unacceptable and regressive restrictions related to
Cuba, including Americans' right to travel to the Island and
the ability to do business with and support Cuba's growing
private sector. #CubaNow also supports the floor amendment by
Rep. Sam Farr to strike the restrictions from the Commerce
appropriations bill and other similar efforts in Congress to
keep spending bills free of bad policy that will do nothing
to help the Cuban people.''
``Congress should work on advancing U.S.-Cuba policy in a
constructive manner that recognizes there's no going back to
the failed ideas of yesterday. Only a small minority in
Congress continues to try to drag their feet. But the Cold
War is over, and it's time that Congress heeds the will of an
American public that by and large supports moving forward
with greater engagement. Our new direction will do more to
help Cuban civil society than riders that try to breathe life
into an unsuccessful half-century-old policy.''
Mr. FARR. Almost every country in this hemisphere and almost every
country in the world has normal trade relations with Cuba. We are
trying to open those up so that businesses in America, particularly our
agriculture and our other trading goods, can take advantage of the
market in Cuba--not a big one, but an important one--because it is so
close to shore.
What this amendment does is it stops all of that. It targets the
Cuban military by saying that anything related to the Cuban military
and what they own, which is a lot of businesses in Cuba, may not be
used to facilitate, permit, license, or promote exports to the Cuban
military or intelligence services or the immediate families thereof.
This is what is really so damaging. The term ``immediate family,'' as
described in the bill, means a spouse, sibling, son, daughter, parent,
grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew. Now, how does a
businessperson in the United States know if
[[Page H3723]]
any of those people are working for any of the agencies that this bill
restricts from?
It hurts American businesses, and it hurts Cubans. Let's stop living
in the past. Let's strike this provision in the bill and support my
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I am glad this amendment is here.
President Obama said--and he said this a while ago--that his policies
are to help promote the Cuban people's independence from Cuban
authorities.
Now, no one can claim that the Cuban military and the Cuban
intelligence community and their direct family members are not the
Cuban authorities. Nothing is more authority than those two things.
Let's unmask what this amendment does.
The language in the mark, in the bill, simply affirms that we should
not send exports--I will make this very clear--to the Cuban military or
the intelligence community or their immediate families. In unmasking
this amendment, what this amendment is saying is no, no, no, that we do
support and that we do want to do business with the Cuban military and
the Cuban intelligence services and their immediate families.
By the way, it is the same military and intelligence services that
brutalized the Cuban people, that beat prodemocracy demonstrators, that
beat a number of American citizens in Panama recently, that illegally
smuggles weapons, which has members of that Cuban military under
indictment here in a U.S. Federal court for the murder of American
citizens.
I am glad this amendment is here because this amendment unmasks the
underlying issue, and the chairman's mark specifically deals with--
again, as I mentioned--the Cuban military and the intelligence
community and their immediate relatives.
If this amendment were to happen, what we would be saying is that we
want to do business, not with Cuba and not with the Cuban people, but
with the Cuban military and the intelligence services and their direct
relatives. Frankly, I am glad this amendment is here because it does
unmask the issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Farr amendment.
Section 540 is critical in ensuring that exports to Cuba reach and
benefit the Cuban people, not the regime's military and intelligence
services, which actively and aggressively collaborate with our enemies
throughout the world. Still today, Cuba has one of the most robust spy
networks in the United States. These are not the people we should be
rewarding with American business.
The most recent State Department report on Cuba's human rights
conditions says that harsh prison conditions, arbitrary arrests,
selective prosecution, and the denial of fair trials continue in the
country.
The iron fist of the Castro regime has cracked down on peaceful
democratic activists with over 2,000 dissidents arrested since the
President's December 17 announcement. Just this past Sunday, 59 members
of the Ladies in White were arrested along with 25 other human rights
activists--their crime? It was attending Sunday mass, Mr. Chairman.
The oppression is not limited to Cuba's borders. According to high-
level military defectors from Venezuela's Government, there are between
2,700 and 3,000 Cuban military and intelligence agents aiding in the
crackdown against Venezuelan protesters and opposing American interests
in that country.
These are the thugs--the very individuals--who would most benefit
from the Farr amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is a diversity of views in this
Chamber with regard to our broader Cuba policy. What I cannot
understand is why anyone would want to reward the individuals
responsible for the deaths of Americans, for the oppression of the
Cuban people, for spying against our country.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to oppose the Farr amendment.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, rhetoric is really cheap here, but I would
urge Members to read the bill and to read the second term.
It reads:
The term ``Cuban military intelligence service'' includes
but is not limited to the Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed
Forces and the Ministry of Interior of Cuba and any
subsidiary of such ministry.
The term ``immediate family'' means spouse, sibling, son,
daughter, and so on.
The analysis by our own Library of Congress says that this would
severely hurt the consumer communication devices that would be sent to
families in Cuba as part of the negotiations that are going on right
now between the United States and the administration.
It would also hurt materials, equipment, tools used by the private
sector to construct or to renovate privately owned buildings, tools and
equipment for private sector agriculture activity, tools and equipment
and supplies and instruments used by the private sector.
This provision just kills the ability for the United States to open
up trade that every other country has. This is just a ``family feud''
amendment. This is not good business, and that is why the business
community is opposed.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. McClintock). The gentleman from California has
2 minutes remaining.
Mr. FARR. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
Once again, the other side is really pushing the envelope in terms of
characterizing what this amendment actually does.
This amendment would strike provisions included in this bill that
would prohibit the Department of Commerce from issuing licenses for new
types of exports that are permitted under the Obama administration's
new policy of engagement with Cuba. This provision is not only an
inappropriate policy rider in this appropriations bill, but, if
included, it would put this House, once again, on the wrong side of
history.
Supporters of this provision claim that it would only prohibit
exporting to anyone who works with the Cuban military, intelligence
services, and their immediate families. The reality is that the effects
of this provision are much, much broader.
It would make it difficult for the Department of Commerce to issue
licenses to companies that want to export to Cuba, U.S. companies that
create jobs in the United States of America. This includes equipment
and supplies for entrepreneurs that are related to running their own
businesses here in America, and it includes the materials, equipment,
and tools to construct or renovate privately owned businesses.
Simply put, this rider is wrong. It is wrong for business, and it
certainly should not be part of a bill that funds our critical
Commerce, Justice, and Science programs.
The majority of Americans and Cubans agree that U.S. policy toward
Cuba has been an unpopular failure for more than 50 years. Instead of
including misguided provisions that undermine the process of
normalizing relations with Cuba, we should be moving toward increased
exchanges, formal relations with our neighbors, and creating good-
paying jobs in the United States by allowing the exporting of U.S.
products to Cuba.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out the language Mr.
Farr is attempting to strike.
It reads:
No funds made available to do business with the Cuban
military or the intelligence services.
The only thing standing between President Barack Obama's attempt to
override the will of the people as expressed by Congress, which is we
will not do business with Cuba, is the Federal law. President Obama is
attempting to change that.
The only thing stopping President Obama from doing business with Cuba
is this language, and the language says
[[Page H3724]]
you cannot do business with the Communist military in Cuba or with the
Communist intelligence services.
It is very straightforward. If you want to do business with the
private sector in Cuba, go ahead. All this says is that you can't do
business with the Communist military or with the Communist intelligence
services.
Therefore, we urge Members to vote ``no'' against this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Florida has expired.
Mr. FARR. It is very interesting that the capitalist society out
there supports my amendment: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National
Foreign Trade Council, Engage Cuba, the Emergency Committee for
American Trade. They wrote a letter that they urge the House Members to
strip section 540 from H.R. 2578, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
The provision would turn back the strategic effort to normalize
relations between the U.S. and Cuba, harming advancements to increase
commerce with Cuba. The majorities of Americans, Cuban Americans, and
Cubans support the normalization of relations and any unilateral trade
embargo.
Bipartisan support exists in both the House and the Senate and
throughout the businesses community and with the majority of the civil
society focused on Cuba. The question of Cuba policy should be
approached deliberatively and in the full context of hemispheric
relations.
I urge the support of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, we spend a lot of time making something
simple complex. The problem here is that, in a small nation, an island
like Cuba, trying to discern whether somebody is related--a cousin, a
nephew, a so-and-so who might work for some entity--is very
problematic.
What this restriction would basically mean is that you wouldn't be
able to do any business. That is notwithstanding everything else,
notwithstanding the failure of the last 50 years, notwithstanding the
fact that everybody else in the world is doing business in Cuba, this
language would prevent us from being able to do any business there
because you would not be able to predetermine whether there was a blood
connection between some person you were selling a cell phone to and
someone who, at some point, was a grunt in the military.
{time} 2130
That is the issue. That is why we should support the Farr amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 541. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be expended during fiscal year 2016 for the shutdown of the
Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy or for the
preparation therefor.
spending reduction account
Sec. 542. The amount by which the applicable allocation of
new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of
proposed new budget authority is $0.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Schweikert
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Curbelo of Florida). The Clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Add at the end of the bill (before the short title), the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used to transfer cell site simulators, or IMSI
Catcher, or similar cell phone tower mimicking technology to
state and local law enforcement that haven't adopted
procedures for the use of such technology that protects the
constitutional rights of citizens.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from Arizona and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I will try to make this very quick
because I know there is a point of order.
This was one of those moments where there was a concern about new
adopted technology. We have all heard the stories of some of these,
shall we call them, dummy cell sites that are basically used to capture
the phone calls because they produce the largest, most powerful signal.
Now, some of this technology that has been being used at the Federal
Government level is being transferred to State and local law
enforcement.
The amendment is meant to be very simple and just says for the
Federal Government to design, for Justice to design, protocols that the
constitutional rights are being protected, that if a local law
enforcement is going to use this capture technology, that they better
darn well be following the Constitution, and before that technology is
transferred, that there is an understanding, mechanics of that being
laid out.
We tried to make the amendment as simple and clear-cut as possible.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against
the amendment, reluctantly, because I agree with the gentleman's
amendment because I share his concern about privacy matters; but
because the amendment proposes to change existing law, and it
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, it, therefore,
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
I do share the gentleman's concern. I think it is very important
that, as the House debates these matters, that we remember that our
most important right as Americans is to be left alone and our right of
privacy. I am deeply concerned about these cell phone towers that are
spoofed, that are designed to spoof our phones, and the government
intruding into our zone of privacy that is now compromised by these
electronic devices in so many ways.
However, House rules state in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a
general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing
law.''
This amendment does require a new determination by its express terms,
and while I will certainly work with the gentleman as we move forward
in conference to address this concern, make sure our privacy rights are
protected, I do ask at this time for a ruling from the Chair on the
substance of my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, with the chairman's friendship and
commitment and where he is on understanding the importance of the
issue, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
June 2, 2015, on page H3724, the following appeared: There was
no objection. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ENGEL
The online version should be corrected to read: There was no
objection. The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn. AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY MR. ENGEL
========================= END NOTE =========================
Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel
Mr. ENGEL. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Commerce, the Department of
Justice, or any other Federal agency to lease or purchase new
light duty vehicles for any executive fleet, or for an
agency's fleet inventory, except in accordance with
Presidential Memorandum--Federal Fleet Performance, dated May
24, 2011.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
[[Page H3725]]
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, on May 24, 2011, President Obama issued a
memorandum on Federal fleet performance that required all new light-
duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be alternative fuel vehicles,
such as hybrid, electric, natural gas, or biofuel, by December 31,
2015.
My amendment echoes the President's memorandum by prohibiting funds
in this act from being used to lease or purchase new light-duty
vehicles unless that purchase is made in accord with the President's
memorandum. I have submitted identical amendments to 16 different
appropriations bills over the past few years, and every time they have
been accepted by both the majority and the minority, so I hope my
amendment will receive similar support today.
Global oil prices are down. We no longer pay $147 per barrel. But
despite increased production here in the United States, the global
price of oil is still largely determined by OPEC. Spikes in oil prices
have profound repercussions for our economy. The primary reason is that
our cars and trucks run only on petroleum. We can change that with
alternative technologies that exist today.
The Federal Government operates the largest fleet of light-duty
vehicles in America, over 633,000 vehicles. Nearly 50,000 of these
vehicles are within the jurisdiction of this bill, being used by the
Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, and the National Science
Foundation.
When I was in Brazil a few years ago, I saw how they diversified
their fuel by greatly expanding their use of ethanol. People there can
drive to a gas station and choose whether to fill their vehicle with
gasoline or with ethanol or some other mix. They make their choice
based on cost or whatever criteria they deem important. I want this
same choice for American consumers.
That is why I am proposing a bill this Congress, as I have in the
past, which will provide for cars built in America to be able to run on
a fuel instead of, or in addition to, gasoline. It doesn't cost much at
all; and if they can do it in Brazil, we can do it here.
In conclusion, expanding the role these alternative technologies play
in our transportation economy will help break the leverage that foreign
government-controlled oil companies hold over Americans. It will
increase our Nation's domestic security and protect consumers. I ask
that my colleagues support the Engel amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I do
not oppose the gentleman's amendment and would urge its adoption.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Fattah), my friend from Philadelphia.
Mr. FATTAH. We had a big celebration at the Ben Franklin Institute in
Philadelphia for electric cars, and there was such a variety of
vehicles. Alternative fuels are important. I think that the gentleman's
amendment is one that we have accepted in previous appropriation bills,
and I concur with the chairman that we would accept it in this case.
Mr. CULBERSON. I urge Members to support the amendment and urge its
adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I conclude and say I thank my colleagues and
look forward to continuing to work together with them in a bipartisan
fashion for the good of the American people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas
Mr. POE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk regarding the
Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, with multiple cosponsors.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) Except as provided by subsection (b), none of
the funds made available by this Act for the Department of
Justice or the Federal Bureau of Investigation may be used to
mandate or request that a person (as defined in section
101(m) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
(50 U.S.C. 1801(m)) alter the product or service of the
person to permit the electronic surveillance (as defined in
section 101(f) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)) of any user of
such product or service.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to mandates
or requests authorized under the Communications Assistance
for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
Mr. POE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have a simple, straightforward
amendment to protect the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
This is a very similar amendment that passed DOD Appropriations last
year.
I would like to thank Representatives Lofgren, Massie, Conyers,
Amash, Nadler, Farenthold, Polis, Labrador, and Lieu for working with
me as cosponsors on this important amendment.
James Comey, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
recently asked Congress to update the law to ensure that the Federal
Government can access information from Americans' cell phones and
personal electronic devices in the future.
Many U.S. technology companies have also been approached by the
government agencies, urging them either through intimidation or just
request to create back doors on their products' encryption system so
the government can access it later down the road. We have all learned
recently about the government's abuse of section 215 under the PATRIOT
Act and abuse under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act.
Basically what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is prohibit the
government from going to Apple, for example, and telling Apple that
they want an encryption in cell phones that they sell to Americans, an
encryption that would allow the FBI to have access to this information,
which would include not just conversations, not just include emails,
but it would also include text messaging as well.
This is a straightforward amendment. This prohibits the Federal
Government--specifically, the FBI--from going in and receiving this
information. Privacy is important. It is under our Constitution. There
should be no doubt that the Federal Government should have no access to
our cell phones and the information that is in those cell phones. That
is what this amendment does.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition, but I do not oppose the gentleman's amendment. I agree with
his amendment and encourage the House to support it.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized on
her reservation.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I had also sought to seek the time in
opposition, although I also do not oppose the amendment.
Mr. CULBERSON. Does the gentlewoman support the amendment?
Ms. LOFGREN. I support the amendment, as does the gentleman.
Mr. CULBERSON. That was my point. I think it is important. We are
here in this Chamber looking at George Mason, who refused to sign the
Constitution because he was so concerned that the power of the Federal
Government would just absolutely obliterate----
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
Does the gentlewoman withdraw her reservation?
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, further reserving, I was wondering if the
Democratic side of the aisle might be able to split the time. That is
why I was reserving the right to object.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to split the time with
[[Page H3726]]
the gentlewoman. I am claiming the time in opposition, although I do
not oppose it. The gentleman still has some time remaining on his
initial time. I will yield in just a moment, but I really think it is
important in this age of electronic communication that we in the
Congress debate and be keenly aware of the new boundaries.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
Ms. LOFGREN. I withdraw my reservation.
The Acting CHAIR. The reservation is withdrawn.
Without objection, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
{time} 2145
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, my neighbor and good friend, Judge Ted
Poe, brings a very important point to the floor tonight.
In this new era of expanding technology that now intrudes on every
aspect of our lives, it is very important to remember the admonition
that Benjamin Franklin gave us--that those who would surrender a little
freedom to gain a little safety are soon going to find themselves with
neither.
I do find it instructive that we are here on this House floor looking
at George Mason, who is on the right here, who refused to sign the
Constitution because he was so concerned the Federal Government would
become omnipotent and obliterate the rights of individuals and the
rights of the States to control those issues that deal exclusively with
the States.
My favorite Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, was keenly aware of
and concerned about the power of the Federal Government. We are
entering into a whole new era now where the government has got the
ability to intrude on every aspect of our life.
I share Judge Poe's concern. I support his amendment, and I urge the
House to support it. If the FBI has a court order, if the National
Security Agency gets a court order, I believe they could get access to
what they need to get access to. Just like cracking a safe.
In fact, I asked this question, if I could, of Director Comey in
front of our subcommittee. He said these new iPhones--I dropped my
iPhone 5 and had to get a 6--he said these can't be cracked. So,
therefore, you would have to open them up like you would a safe, as you
had to order safes, I bet, opened on occasion, Judge Poe.
So I agree with the amendment, and I yield the balance of my time to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As Mr. Poe recognized, this is a very diverse group of authors who
don't agree on everything, but this is very important for a reason.
First, it is fundamental that our privacy be protected; that the
Fourth Amendment be adhered to. Secondly, we all know--and if you ask
any computer scientist, they will tell you--that once the vulnerability
is introduced for a good reason, it is available for hacking for very
bad reasons. Finally, for competitiveness. Think how competitive it is
to sell an American product around the world when everyone knows that
it is compromised. Not a really good marketing tool.
Last year, as Mr. Poe mentioned, we had almost precisely this
amendment on the floor as an amendment to the DOD appropriations. What
was the vote on that amendment? It was 293-123; overwhelming.
So I am hoping that Members will not flip-flop, that they will, in
fact, vote the way they did last year.
And I will just go a little trip down memory road. When I was first
elected to the Congress, I took my oath of office January 4, 1995, and
I met Bob Goodlatte for the very first time. And he and I went all over
this Congress to try and work on decontrol of encryption.
Although a lot of people we talked to in 1995 had no idea what we
were talking about when we talked about encryption, ultimately that
bipartisan effort was successful. We must not let that successful
effort to protect privacy, to protect technology, be eroded at this
point.
So I look forward to a very strong vote on this. I think it is
important that we have a vote, even though there is agreement, just to
send the message to the other body how serious that we are.
Mr. CULBERSON. Our most important right as Americans is to be left
alone. If you are a law-abiding American, you are secure in your home
and your possessions. Your home is your castle.
Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. We might not agree on everything, but I think we agree
on the Fourth Amendment. So this is a great day for this body to come
together across the aisle for that purpose. And I thank the gentleman
for yielding
Mr. CULBERSON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. I just wanted to indicate that on behalf of the minority,
we support your amendment and are prepared to agree to it.
Mr. POE of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Massie).
Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Judge Poe, for introducing this amendment.
This was substantially the same amendment that we offered last summer
that passed with a veto-proof majority 293-123.
Back doors are bad for three reasons. When the government forces
companies to put back doors or weaken their encryption, it is bad for
security because hackers are going to find these back doors and other
foreign countries will find these back doors.
It is bad for privacy because the Fourth Amendment can be violated.
And it is bad for business. As my colleague Zoe Lofgren from California
mentioned, it is bad for business because it makes us less competitive
overseas. Who wants to buy a piece of defective software that was made
defective by our government?
So I urge Members to vote for this amendment because it would prevent
all of these bad things from occurring.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. POE of Texas. In conclusion, I want to thank the minority, Ms.
Lofgren, and all the cosponsors on this, as well as the chairman of the
subcommittee, for their support.
On the issue of privacy, in this time where we have threats to this
country, we can have security and we can certainly have privacy, and we
can have the Constitution be followed as well.
The Fourth Amendment has always required that if the government wants
to search, the government must follow certain rules. And those rules
are that you must get a warrant from a judge based on probable cause.
That is still the law of the land, even in 2015.
All this amendment does is ensure the fact that the government--the
FBI--follows the Constitution. The idea that the Federal Government
wants to have encryption in American cell phones so they can have
access to the information is repulsive. So all this does is keep the
Federal Government out of our business without appropriate
constitutional protections.
I ask for support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reaffirm that, as Judge
Poe has written this amendment, there is an exception in here that if
the government gets a court order, they can go in and put a back door
on the phone when the judge says there is a compelling reason to do so.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. POE of Texas. Certainly. The law--the Constitution--still applies
that the government must go and get a warrant based upon probable cause
under the Fourth Amendment. Of course, there are exceptions to
warrantless search.
Mr. CULBERSON. Reclaiming my time, the way the amendment is written,
the government can't just force all phone companies to build a back
door into all telephones. You have got to have a court order on that
specific phone, on that specific person, before you can do it. That is
absolutely reasonable. That is what Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson
intended for us to do.
[[Page H3727]]
Therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to execute a subpoena of tangible things pursuant to
section 506 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 876)
that does not include the following sentence: ``This subpoena
limits the collection of any tangible things (including phone
numbers dialed, telephone numbers of incoming calls, and the
duration of calls) to those tangible things identified by a
term that specifically identifies an individual, account,
address, or personal device, and that limits, to the greatest
extent reasonably practicable, the scope of the tangible
things sought.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, here in Congress we have just been spending
a lot of time and energy discussing NSA surveillance. The American
public--and now, Members of Congress in both Chambers--have spoken
clearly that the kind of bulk data collection the NSA has engaged in
needs to be stopped. However, there is a corresponding change that we
need to make with regard to the Drug Enforcement Administration.
In a series of revelations from 2013 to 2015, it came to light that
the DEA had for more than 20 years been gathering a vast database of
information on America's personal communications. There was no
congressional authority for this program and no oversight by Congress
or any area of the Federal Government.
Legal experts who weighed in after the program was finally made
public have said without hesitation that the program was illegal.
In 2013, the Department of Justice brought this program to an end,
but there is nothing to stop the government or the DOJ from resuming it
at will unless Congress acts by inserting this language in the
appropriations bill. Without this language, the DEA could once again
unilaterally sweep up the communications records of millions of
Americans.
There is no reason that, as we work to end the unconstitutional
surveillance that the NSA has engaged in, we should continue to allow
the DOJ to have the very same abuses.
This is a corresponding piece of legislation to something that
already passed the House with regard to the NSA by an overwhelming
majority.
I urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan amendment that we
worked on with Mr. Griffith, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. Nadler, and Mr.
Farenthold to simply prohibit DOJ from using Federal funds to engage in
bulk data collection of Americans' phone records or other data, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Just being given Mr. Polis' amendment, I oppose the
idea of bulk data collection. I would like to accept the gentleman's
amendment because of my previous expressed concerns about how we want
to make sure we are protecting the privacy of law-abiding Americans.
So I would accept the gentleman's amendment with the understanding
that I would work with him. There may be unintended consequences here
that I am not immediately aware of. Judiciary Committee staff is
working with ours right now to make sure we have got our arms around
this.
I want to make sure that if the DEA has a valid court order, a valid
subpoena, that they can go after lawbreakers and complete their
investigations. Again, we want to protect the privacy of law-abiding
Americans.
Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. I think with the understanding that the chairman has laid
out, your accepting this amendment would move us forward, and I agree.
I think we have a clear understanding that you are accepting it, but we
will work together to make sure it doesn't have any unintended
consequences.
Mr. CULBERSON. Reclaiming my time, with that understanding, I want to
make sure we reserve the right of DEA to get a court order to do their
work. With that understanding, I withdraw my opposition and will accept
the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler), the coauthor of the amendment.
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of this amendment to prevent bulk collection
of data at the Department of Justice.
Last month, this House spoke loud and clear that we oppose the
National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata.
Today, the Senate joined us in that judgment, and, together, we have
reaffirmed our commitment to the Fourth Amendment and to protecting
Americans from unconstitutional government surveillance.
We learned earlier this year that long before the NSA program ban,
the Drug Enforcement Administration engaged in its own bulk collection
program that provided a model for the NSA to use nearly a decade later.
This program included logs of virtually all telephone calls from the
U.S. to as many as 116 countries, ostensibly linked to drug
trafficking, all without a court order and without authorization from
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. Although the DOJ has since shut down
this program, there is nothing preventing the Department from renewing
it in secret without authorization, as it did before. This amendment
would ensure that it remains dormant and that Americans' privacy
remains secure.
I thank Mr. Polis and the other cosponsors of the amendment, and I
thank the gentleman from Texas for accepting this amendment. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Farenthold).
Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and
thank my colleague from Texas for agreeing to accept it.
This has been a great victory this week in our ability to work with
the Senate to rein in what I believe to be the unconstitutional bulk
data collection by the NSA.
Just because we stopped the NSA doesn't mean we shouldn't be ever
vigilant. With the reports of the DEA engaging in similar activities,
it is absolutely appropriate that we use the power of the purse to
ensure that this type of spying on American citizens--this bulk data
collection--is stopped.
This is no different from the general warrants that were complained
about when the King of England would send troops to rifle through
people's desks just looking for stuff. It is the exact same thing in
the digital age. I encourage my colleagues to support it and look
forward to working with my colleague, Mr. Culberson, in making sure it
does become part of this bill.
{time} 2200
Mr. POLIS. In conclusion, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Culberson). It is, indeed, the intended language and we believe
the actual language of the amendment that would not interfere with any
valid court orders or warrants. We are happy to work with them in that
regard.
The amendment is designed to pertain to bulk collection of data,
which was never specifically authorized by Congress.
I appreciate the gentleman from Texas accepting the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
[[Page H3728]]
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) Each amount made available by this Act, except
those amounts made available to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, is hereby reduced by 1 percent.
(b) The reduction in subsection (a) shall not apply with
respect to the following accounts of the Department of
Justice:
(1) ``Fees and Expenses of Witnesses''.
(2) ``Public Safety Officer Benefits''.
(3) ``United States Trustee System Fund''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to begin by
thanking the committee and Chairman Culberson for their tremendous work
that they have put into this bill, identifying ways to reduce spending
and to be a good steward of the taxpayers' money.
This funding bill is $51.4 billion, and I would like to point out
that that is $661 million below the President's request. Good work on
behalf of our team.
Now, I am one of those that thinks more needs to be done, especially
when we look at the discretionary spending. There is more we should do.
My amendment calls for a 1 percent across-the-board spending reduction.
That would reduce the budget authority by $540 million and outlays by
$340 million in Fiscal Year 2016.
I am fully aware of the opposition that exists to across-the-board
cuts by many of the appropriators, and I have many times stood on this
floor and heard how they think this is just a little bit of a cut too
much.
However, we are nearly $18.3 trillion in debt. Indeed, Admiral
Mullen, on July 6, 2010, said the greatest threat to our Nation's
security is our Nation's debt.
Getting our spending under control is an important step for us to
take. That is why we need to move forward and do what many of our
States have done and institute across-the-board cuts to save one penny
out of a dollar.
Engage the rank-and-file Federal employees. Have them bring to the
table their best ideas. Our children are depending on us to do this in
order to maintain the fiscal sovereignty of our Nation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. It is important for the House to oppose this amendment
because, as in our personal lives or our business lives, the
Appropriations Committee has prioritized the very precious and scarce,
hard-earned taxpayer dollars that we are entrusted to appropriate to
make sure that they are spent on the most urgent priorities first.
We do not want to cut, as Mrs. Blackburn would, the FBI. We do not
want to cut our operations of our cybersecurity forces, as Mrs.
Blackburn would. I do not want to cut the work that is being done by
our law enforcement officials across the country, as Mrs. Blackburn
would.
This amendment would also cut, for example, the good work that is
being done by the U.S. Marshals Service. This would cut the 55 new
immigration judges that we have included in the bill.
This would cut the amount of money we set aside for the operation of
our prison system, of the ATF, all Federal law enforcement agencies
that perform such a vital role. We prioritized them and made sure they
are protected from cuts.
I would oppose this amendment on the basis that we do not want to cut
Federal law enforcement.
We also don't want to cut our Nation's investment in the sciences and
the National Science Foundation or our work to preserve America's
leadership role in space exploration.
We want to make sure that we are doing all that we can to accelerate
our work in bringing American astronauts back into space on an
American-made rocket as quickly as possible. This amendment would cut
NASA.
We have, in the bill, however, cut or eliminated dozens of programs
that their authorization has expired--or their usefulness has expired.
We went in and dramatically cut programs that were not effective
anymore, completely eliminated programs.
We found all kinds of savings in this bill, and I am sure that our
priorities are ones that the good people of Tennessee that Mrs.
Blackburn represents would share. I know her constituents share, as we
do, a commitment to law enforcement, to scientific research, to
America's space program; and they would probably also agree with our
cuts to the Department of Commerce, our unavoidable cuts really to the
Census.
We did our best to protect the important work that our men and women
in uniform who enforce the laws of the United States do. This amendment
would be a blunt cut across the board to all of these worthwhile
programs, and I urge the Members to oppose it.
Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. I wanted to say that I concur completely with the
chairman, and I am opposed to the amendment.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chairman, I appreciate, as I said, the work
that the committee has done, but I think it is imperative that we
realize the burden that we are placing on future generations.
Quite frankly, I think it is rather selfish of this body to force
future generations--our children and grandchildren--to pay for the out-
of-control spending of today.
Have we done a good job? Yes. Could we do a superlative? Absolutely,
we could. Cutting one penny out of a dollar is a wise step. I don't
know of anybody that thinks we are underspent. I know a lot of people
that think we are overspent and that we are overtaxed.
What it is going to take in order to get our fiscal house in order
and to secure this Nation for future generations is, yes, indeed,
targeted cuts. It is going to take across-the-board cuts, and it is
going to take everybody agreeing that we don't have a revenue problem,
we have a spending problem.
That is a component of our budget and appropriations process that the
American people are demanding that we get under control. It is not
necessarily a debate about worthiness. There are lots of good programs
and essential programs.
What it is, is a debate about stewardship, making certain that we are
focusing and that we are doing the extra work that is necessary to get
the spending under control.
As I said, this is $51.4 billion in discretionary funding that is in
this appropriations bill. It is below the President's request. The
committee is to be commended for that.
Taking the step of a 1 percent cut, you are talking about $540
million in budget authority and $340 million reduction in outlays. It
is a goal that we should set for ourselves. It is doable. It is
attainable.
We should take a playbook and a lesson from the States and the
counties and the communities that we represent and make the effort to
reduce the spending just a little bit more.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I
have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The gentleman from Texas has 2\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I want to point out also that the
amendment before us would cut 1 percent from eliminating the backlog of
rape kits that are piling up in local police departments all over the
country. We increased funding to eliminate that backlog of rape kits.
We increased funding to help forensic labs at the local level. We
increased funding to make sure that programs to prevent violence
against women are fully funded. This amendment would cut those funding
increases for violence against women.
{time} 2210
It is not the annual appropriations bill that is the biggest part of
the problem. All of us need to recognize that we have got to look at
the entire Federal budget.
The annual appropriations bill only represents one-third of the
problem. The other two-thirds of the problem are the automatic
mandatory problems: the looming bankruptcy of Medicare, the looming
bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicaid, the incredible
[[Page H3729]]
burden that ObamaCare has placed on individual Americans--it threatens
to bankrupt the entire healthcare system--the national debt, and the
interest on the national debt.
The American taxpayers are, indeed, taxed too much, but the biggest
part of the spending problem is on these automatic programs that are
consuming two-thirds of the Nation's resources.
In fact, if you pay off all those existing--just paying for these
existing programs, the mandatory programs, which you have to think of
as America's mortgage and interest payments, once you pay Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt, veterans benefits,
you are only left with $689 billion to run the entire Federal
Government, which is enough money to run the government through July
27. ``National credit card day'' is what I call it. July 27 is the day
when we run out of existing revenue, and we are living on borrowed
money to be paid off by our kids.
A far better way to deal with this problem is to deal with the
looming bankruptcy of Medicare, Social Security, and to deal with the
national debt and deficit, the two-thirds of the problem out there, and
not look at some 1 percent cut on the one-third of the budget that we
have already prioritized and cut everywhere we possibly can while
protecting law enforcement. We are protecting our investment in the
sciences and space exploration.
I urge the Members to reject this amendment, and I would urge the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) to work with us throughout
the year as we develop these appropriations bills and help us find cuts
in programs and prioritization of funding, rather than bringing the
amendment to the floor at the last minute.
I urge Members to vote against this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for Federal
Prison Systems--Salaries and Expenses, and increasing the
amount made available for Office of Justice Programs--Office
of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention, by
$69,515,000.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from Virginia and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Madam Chair, this amendment that I am offering today would repurpose
just 1 percent of the funding for the Federal prison system and restore
funding for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Madam Chair, the underlying bill zeros out both title II formula
grants and title V discretionary grants for prevention and early
intervention programs, which were funded last year at approximately $70
million. To ensure that our State juvenile justice systems are not
irreparably damaged, this amendment would take just 1 percent away from
our Federal prison systems, approximately $70 million, to maintain our
commitment to prevention and early intervention.
The prison system can take steps to deal with this reduction by
limiting duplicate prosecutions or pursuing evidence-based alternatives
to incarceration, particularly for first-time offenders. These
practices not only will save money, but will also improve public
safety.
We have a choice, Madam Chair. We can invest in prisons after the
fact, or we can invest in prevention and early intervention before the
fact and eliminate what the Children's Defense Fund calls the Cradle to
Prison Pipeline.
Madam Chair, at this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cardenas).
Mr. CARDENAS. Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to
my colleague and friend Congressman Scott's amendment and to encourage
this body to restore critical funding for the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
This existing appropriations bill decimates funding for title II
State formula grants and title V local delinquency prevention programs
which are essential investments that are proven to reduce crime.
This amendment would provide $69,515,000, the equivalent of less than
1 percent of the Federal prison budget, which is a small investment
when you consider the cost of incarcerating a youth is an average of
$88,000 per year. That is hundreds of dollars a day to incarcerate a
youth. Evidence-based alternatives to incarceration for youth costs as
little as $11 per day.
These proven juvenile crime prevention methods cost pennies compared
to the incarceration of our young people. Members from both parties
have espoused the importance of investing in our children. Conservative
organizations have been among the loudest advocates for reforming our
criminal justice system--in particular, for our youth--to move from an
incarceration-based system to one that funds proven research-based
alternatives to putting behind bars America's children. There is a
bipartisan consensus on this, ladies and gentlemen.
While this amendment will be withdrawn, I hope we can work together
to fund these critical programs to give our children the opportunity to
be productive members of our communities, reduce crime, and save
billions of tax dollars going forward.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I would like to thank the ranking member of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce for raising this important
issue. I assure him that it is my intention that we will be working
between here and the final bill to improve upon this area in the bill.
I thank the chairman for all of his work in this regard.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
I thank the gentleman for allowing us to debate because I understand
the point of order will be sustained.
There will be other opportunities during the legislative process, as
the ranking member of the subcommittee has indicated, to deal with this
issue.
The way the bill has been drafted, it was impossible to get an
amendment in order, but there will be other possibilities later on in
the process, and I would hope the chair and the ranking member will
work effectively to make sure that we deal with the choice that we
have, whether we are going to just put money away for young people to
get in trouble and then deal with it or we can deal with it in advance
with prevention and early intervention. This is what this amendment
would do.
Madam Chair, if the gentleman is going to assert his point of order,
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and deal with the
issue later on in the process.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee
Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Add, at the end of title V of the bill, the following:
[[Page H3730]]
Sec. 5__. (a) For each fiscal year after the expiration of
the period specified in subsection (b) in which a State
receives funds for a program referred to in subsection
(c)(2), the State shall require that all individuals enrolled
in an academy of a law enforcement agency of the State and
all law enforcement officers of the State fulfill a training
session on sensitivity each fiscal year, including training
on ethnic and racial bias, cultural diversity, and police
interaction with the disabled, mentally ill, and new
immigrants. In the case of individuals attending an academy,
such training session shall be for 8 hours, and in the case
of all other law enforcement officers, the training session
shall be for 4 hours.
(b)(1) Each State shall have not more than 120 days,
beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, to comply
with subsection (a), except that--
(A) the Attorney General may grant an additional 120 days
to a State that is making good faith efforts to comply with
such subsection; and
(B) the Attorney General shall waive the requirements of
subsection (a) if compliance with such subsection by a State
would be unconstitutional under the constitution of such
State.
(2) For any fiscal year after the expiration of the period
specified in paragraph (1), a State that fails to comply with
subsection (a), shall, at the discretion of the Attorney
General, be subject to not more than a 20-percent reduction
of the funds that would otherwise be allocated for that
fiscal year to the State under subpart 1 of part E of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), whether characterized as the Edward
Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
Programs, the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants
Program, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
Program, or otherwise.
(c) Amounts not allocated under a program referred to in
subsection (b)(2) to a State for failure to fully comply with
subsection (a) shall be reallocated under that program to
States that have not failed to comply with such subsection.
Ms. LEE (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
{time} 2220
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman from California and
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I want to thank the Chair and our ranking
member for your leadership on this subcommittee for your interest and
support on this amendment. I recognize the point of order and plan to
withdraw the amendment.
Recent events in Ferguson, Staten Island, Baltimore, and around the
country really illustrate the need for significant reform in police
interaction in communities that they are sworn to serve and protect.
That is why this amendment would require the States receiving funding
from the Department of Justice's Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Program put academy students and law enforcement officers
through sensitivity training on ethnic and racial bias, cultural
diversity, and police interaction with the disabled, mentally ill, and
new immigrants.
As you know, DOJ's Byrne JAG Grant Program is the primary provider of
Federal criminal justice funding to State and local jurisdictions
supporting a wide range of law enforcement and court activities. Our
law enforcement agencies and officers play a critical role in
protecting the safety of our communities. We need them to work
cooperatively and competently along with our community members if we
want to protect the public safety and the integrity of our
neighborhoods.
This is a major issue in many congressional districts where many
officers live outside of the communities they serve and do not have the
training to deal with a diverse constituency. Madam Chairman, I know
that we all agree that the status quo is simply unacceptable.
Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Clay), my colleague who has demonstrated incredible leadership on this
issue and continues to work in a bipartisan fashion on this very
commonsense policy.
Mr. CLAY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment. FBI Director
James Comey's February 12, 2015, speech, entitled, ``Hard Truths: Law
Enforcement and Race,'' addressed what he characterized as a
``disconnect between police and minority communities.'' Director Comey
challenged officers to ``acknowledge the widespread existence of
unconscious bias.'' We appreciate his candor and acknowledgment of
issues we have long felt.
Experience in our communities indicates negative police interaction,
and excessive force disproportionately affects communities of color,
but there are other communities who would also benefit from better law
enforcement relations.
As FBI Director, Mr. Comey requires all new agents and analysts to
study the agency's interaction with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
followed by a visit to the King Memorial. The FBI's required study
serves as recognition that in order to truly see each other as people,
we must recognize our shortcomings and create and identify
opportunities to understand, respect, and be decent to one another.
Police officer sensitivity training and annual retraining demonstrate
a commitment to communities across this Nation. As Members of Congress,
it is a practice we must encourage. In Ferguson, Staten Island,
Cleveland, North Charleston and Baltimore, the need for reform is as
clear as it is urgent.
Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), our ranking member.
Mr. FATTAH. I want to thank the gentlewoman for her steadfastness and
her focus on this matter and pledge to her that I am going to work with
the chairman as we go forward to see that we get this incorporated in
the final product of our bill.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. I continue to reserve the point of order pending the
gentlewoman's withdrawal of the amendment.
Madam Chairman, I want to reassure my colleague that I will continue
to work with her and my ranking member, to work on this as we move
through conference, as we discussed in full committee.
I appreciate the gentlewoman's withdrawing the amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I want to thank our ranking member and our
chairman for their commitment to continue to work on this very
important issue, along with Congressman Clay.
Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enforce section 221 of title 13, United States
Code, with respect to the survey, conducted by the Secretary
of Commerce, commonly referred to as the ``American Community
Survey''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chair, we are all familiar with the Census that takes place
every 10 years where there is a counting of the people in America. The
Census Bureau also has another project, not constitutionally required,
but something
[[Page H3731]]
that they do called the American Community Survey, which is a partial
sampling of about 3 million Americans a year.
A survey is sent out, and I will read from this 28-page survey. It is
48 questions long, and the questions have nothing to do with how many
people live in your house. Some of the questions are like this:
When do you leave for work?
When does your spouse leave for work?
When do your kids leave for school?
Does anyone suffer from a mental illness in the residence?
Does your house have a sink with a faucet?
Does anyone have trouble walking?
Does anyone have trouble getting dressed or bathed?
So there are 48 question like this, and failure to abide by and fill
out this document and send it back to the Census Bureau could result in
a fine.
Now, people in my district have called my office from all over the
country about getting this thing in the mail and the harassment by the
Census Bureau and subcontractors, including the fact that I have a
single parent in my district that called and was complaining about the
fact that the Census Bureau person would sit in the front of her house
waiting for her to come home from work and then go to the door and peak
through the windows trying to get her to fill out this page, or these
28 pages and send them back to the Census Bureau. So harassment takes
place. And some people are threatened with a fine that is imposed for
failure to abide by the survey.
Now, what this amendment does, it does not eliminate the American
Community Survey. The ranking member and I had a discussion, I guess,
about 5 hours ago on the House floor about whether it is a good idea or
not. It doesn't even stop the survey from being conducted.
{time} 2230
All it does is prohibit the Federal Government from imposing a
penalty for failure to fill out the survey. That results in the fact
that people then can voluntarily fill out this form and send it back if
they want to. If they don't want to voluntarily have their privacy
invaded by the government, then they don't have to fill it back out and
don't have to worry about a fine.
That is what this amendment does: prohibits funding to allow the fine
to be collected, thus making the survey voluntary.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I supported the gentleman's last amendment.
I strongly oppose this amendment.
It is impossible for me to conceive that we want to run the greatest
country on the face of the Earth without data, without information,
without knowledge of what the circumstances of the citizens of the
country are--how many daycare slots, where to locate VA hospitals, all
of the other information that is generated through this community
survey.
Now, I note that there is talk about a fine, but we haven't been able
to identify anybody who has ever been fined. We do know that our
neighbors to the north, when the Canadians moved to a voluntary system
in their rural areas, they stopped getting almost any compliance.
If the Federal Government is going to plan in terms of Federal
highways, in terms of Federal programming, and a whole range of items
that flow through formal grants, not through earmarks, but by knowledge
of what is happening in communities, these surveys are critical.
The idea that we would say we are going to run this great country, we
don't want any information, we are going to put on blindfolds and just
kind of hope for the best when we are making public policy about
education and housing and transportation needs or health care needs, it
doesn't make a lot of sense. It may have some popularity politically,
but as a notion for actual intentional leadership for our Nation, to
say that we want to separate ourselves from actual information about
what is going on in these communities, I think that the gentleman, as
right as he was in the original amendment that I supported him on, in
this particular matter I think he is headed in the wrong direction.
I would ask my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--put the party
aside, put the national interest first, and know for certainty that no
person would ever--you are always talking about running the government
like a business--no one would run a business without utilizing data to
understand the marketplace.
At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I
have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Culberson), chairman of the committee.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman.
I want to express my strong support for my neighbor and good friend
Judge Poe's amendment because, again, our most important right as
Americans is to be left alone.
In fact, the data, and I agree with my ranking member that this data
is important, but it can be included as a part of the Census itself.
Any really essential questions the Department of Commerce can include
within the core questions of the Census. They don't have to send this
long intrusive and detailed and very invasive survey out to every
American and subject Americans to the threat of a $10,000 fine if they
don't comply.
I support the gentleman's amendment as a further reflection of our
commitment on this subcommittee and in this Congress to protect
America's right to privacy and to be left alone by their government, as
Mr. Mason and Mr. Jefferson intended.
I urge Members to support Mr. Poe's amendment. And remember, if the
government needs this data, they can just put it in the basic Census
itself.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, how much time is remaining between the
gentleman who is the proponent and myself?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. FATTAH. And I assume he has the right to close?
The Acting CHAIR. Yes, he does.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, let me remind the House that we had another
Texan--he was the President of the United States--and it was under his
administration that the questions that were put together in the
community survey were developed under that administration.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania does have the right to close.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, well, then at this point, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for bringing up
the American Community Survey and where it came from. That is
irrelevant. The issue is Americans should not be required to give
personal information to the Federal Government. If they want to fill
out this form, go for it. Make it voluntary. Fill it out and send the
Federal Government all the information you can come up with about what
takes place in your residence. But it should not be required.
The Federal Government could get this information some other way.
They could go to polling. The idea that they have got to go door to
door to get this information when information is gathered all over the
country by different businesses not going door to door--the government
can do it other ways and not violate the right of privacy.
I would ask that this amendment be adopted that basically requires
the American Community Survey to be voluntary, and that the fine that
is allowed by law not be allowed or not be collected under this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, let me close by just saying that I just want
to make sure that, because there is some antipathy about, sometimes,
anything that may emanate from this administration, I just want to make
it clear
[[Page H3732]]
that this was not some Democratic scheme here to gather up people's
private information; that this is actually a legitimate activity of the
Federal Government. It is one joined in by the Chamber of Commerce and
other business organizations who tell us that this is vitally
important.
I think just from a commonsense basis, we actually know as
politicians, because when we are engaged in activities that are
important, we try to get a lot of information. So we know it is
important. It is actually important for making sure that Federal
programs are focused on the priorities of your community. And if we
don't have the knowledge of how many people need daycare slots or how
many veterans there are or what the other circumstances are in a
particular community, it is impossible to do the planning that is
necessary.
I would ask that we reject this amendment and that we continue to use
data as a basis to make informed decisions here at the national level.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Foster
Mr. FOSTER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, offered
jointly with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), my colleague.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 543. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to fund any Experimental Program to Stimulate
Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FOSTER. Madam Chair, every year, hundreds of billions of dollars
is transferred out of States that pay far more in Federal taxes than
they receive back in Federal spending--the so-called ``payer States.''
And this money is transferred into States that receive a lot more
Federal spending than they pay in taxes--the ``taker States.'' This is
an enormous and economically unjustifiable redistribution of wealth
between the States.
The payer States can be characterized in a number of ways, but most
of the payer States are large population States, while virtually all of
the taker States are smaller, which means that they are overrepresented
in the Senate.
Over time, Senators from these States have inserted hundreds of
programs that systematically steer money into the taker States. Our
amendment takes a first small step to begin rolling back these taker
State preferences by eliminating one of the most unjustifiable of them
all: the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research,
commonly referred to as EPSCoR.
{time} 2240
EPSCoR was started as an experimental program in 1978 with the goal
of redistributing Federal research dollars into States that
traditionally received less than their ``fair share'' of NSF funding.
However, because ``fair share'' was determined on a per State basis,
rather than on a per capita basis, it has devolved into just another
program that steers money into smaller States that already get far more
than their fair share of Federal spending.
Since no allowance is made for whether the State has a big or a small
population, the EPSCoR program systematically discriminates against
researchers simply because they come from States with large
populations. The EPSCoR States are hardly lacking for Federal largesse.
According to the Tax Foundation, in a typical year, the EPSCoR States
received approximately $60 billion more in Federal spending than they
paid in Federal taxes.
How does one justify a program that excludes researchers in States
like Florida or Texas, which over the past 3 years got only an average
of about $7 per capita in NSF funding while steering money into States
like Rhode Island, Alaska, and New Hampshire, which already got 5 times
more?
Why should a researcher at Brown University in Rhode Island be
eligible for a grant set-aside that is unavailable to researchers at
SMU, FSU, UCLA, Rutgers, or Northern Illinois?
As a scientist, I find that it is not surprising that it is very
difficult to find supporters for EPSCoR in the scientific community.
Precious research funding would be far better spent in a competitive,
merit-based process as it will be if our amendment is adopted.
Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Garrett), the cosponsor of my amendment.
Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster) for his
work on this issue. I am honored to serve alongside him on the Payer
State Caucus as well.
Madam Chair, this program is yet another example of good intentions
and bad policy. What was intended to be a temporary assistance to a
select group of States to build a research infrastructure and then exit
the program has become a permanent and growing pot of taxpayer
subsidies. This, of course, is in addition to the permanent and growing
pot of subsidies the government has already enacted for the States.
For three decades, 30 years after establishment, this program
continues to be called--what?--an experimental program, and no State--
none--has graduated from the program; yet it exists 30 years later.
This can only demonstrate one thing, Madam Chair, that this is yet
another example of ineffective, wasteful redistribution programs that
the taxpayers are compelled to financially support. The Foster-Garrett
amendment would relieve the taxpayers of this burden.
Again, I thank Mr. Foster for his work in protecting the payer
States, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. FOSTER. I thank my colleague from New Jersey.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, this program is designed to ensure that
academic institutions and industry can develop science and engineering
capabilities that are outside of traditional research hubs.
The partnerships support areas of strategic importance in such
disciplines as aerospace and aerospace-related research. I do urge a
``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.
I now yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would
eliminate the EPSCoR program.
For more than 60 years, the National Science Foundation has provided
academic research funding to colleges and universities around the
Nation, and it has been critical to ongoing research that is essential
to maintaining our competitive edge in scientific advancement.
The NSF's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research,
commonly known as EPSCoR, is an authorized program whose mission is to
help balance the allocation of NSF and other Federal research and
development funding to avoid the undue concentration of money to only a
few States.
This successful program has had a profound impact on my home State of
Rhode Island, allowing nine of our academic institutions to increase
research capacity, to enrich the experience of their students, and to
contribute to advances in a variety of fields.
Currently, 25 States, including Rhode Island, and 3 jurisdictions
account for only about 10 percent of all NSF funding, despite the fact
that these States account for 20 percent of the U.S. population. EPSCoR
has helped to stabilize this imbalance in funding and should continue
to do so in the 2016 fiscal year and beyond.
In order to ensure robust academic research and outcomes across the
country, geographic diversity in funding should be considered to ensure
that we are taking advantage of the particular experiences, knowledge,
and perspectives of academics and institutions from every State. This
amendment to
[[Page H3733]]
eliminate this successful program would be a step backward for the
United States' commitment to research and development.
Investments in critical programs, such as EPSCoR, are essential to
creating jobs, innovating for the future, maintaining our competitive
edge in scientific research and a global economy.
I urge my colleagues to join me in strongly opposing this amendment.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I would ask Members to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FOSTER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Goodlatte
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel of the
Department of Justice to negotiate or conclude a settlement
with the Federal Government that includes terms requiring the
defendant to donate or contribute funds to an organization or
individual.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My amendment prevents the Department of Justice from requiring
mandatory donations as part of settlement agreements. The Department of
Justice is systematically subverting Congress' budget authority by
using settlements to funnel money to third-party groups.
An investigation by the House Judiciary and Financial Services
Committees reveals that, in just the last 10 months, the Department of
Justice has used mandatory donations to direct as much as half a
billion dollars to activist groups.
These payments occur entirely outside of the congressional
appropriations and oversight process. In some cases, the Department of
Justice is using mandatory donations to restore funding that Congress
specifically cut. This is money that could otherwise be going directly
to victims.
The Department of Justice continues to resist document requests, but
what little has been provided confirms that activist groups which stood
to gain from mandatory donation provisions were involved in placing
those provisions in the settlements.
The committees raised concerns with the Department of Justice in
2014, but instead of suspending the practice, the Department of Justice
has doubled down. It recently entered into an over $50 million
settlement relating to robo-signing; $7.5 million of that did not make
it to victims.
{time} 2250
Instead, it went to a third party. Incredibly, the settlement
specifically provided that there would be no oversight of the money.
The situation is even more egregious when one considers that the
required donation will nearly double the net assets of the DOJ-
specified recipient. It is deeply troubling for that to happen at the
unilateral discretion of the executive branch.
This amendment takes no money away from any organization. It is
purely prospective. It ensures that settlement money goes either
directly to victims or to the Treasury for elected representatives to
decide how it is to be spent.
It is critical that we act. The Department of Justice is ignoring
Congress' concerns, increasing the use of third-party payments, even as
we object. The purpose of enforcement actions is punishment and redress
to actual victims. Carrying that concept to communities at large or
activist community groups, however worthy, is a matter for the
legislative branch and is not to be conducted at the unilateral
discretion of the executive.
This is fundamentally a bipartisan institutional issue. There was
abuse of third-party payments in the Bush administration. This
amendment is about preserving Congress' appropriations authority. I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I am not planning on strongly objecting to
this, but I want to make a few points. One is that this is something
that should be dealt with in an authorizing circumstance, but I think
because it is on an appropriations bill, it could have unintended
consequences.
As I understand the plain English of what is being said, an
administration faced with, for instance, the Gulf oil spill could not
have been involved in a settlement in which various entities received
dollars to try to find redress for harm that was created in the Gulf. I
think that that would be very problematic because there were a lot of
groups--fishermen, other associations, chambers of commerce, others--
who received support through that settlement.
I just think we ought to be careful. It would probably be better that
there be hearings and that there be an understanding around what this
actually means. I have offered my own bipartisan-supported legislation
that would create a congressional framework for settlements. I am not
opposed to the thrust of what is being said here.
I do recognize that there have been circumstances in past
administrations. I am not aware of the instances that the chairman
speaks of now, but I would just hope that rather than rushing forward,
we would be mindful that this is probably the kind of thing that we
really would want authorizers to handle and not have it tucked into an
appropriations bill at this time. Plus, if you really think that the
executive branch is using their authority, the idea that they would
then sign it away by signing our appropriations bill, if it is so
meaningful to them, it might slow down the passage of our very
important piece of legislation.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for his concern
about this. I want to assure the gentleman that the language in this is
designed to make it clear that it applies to donations and not to
anybody who is a victim of a lawsuit where redress is sought for them
because the compensation for them is not a donation. That is actual
recompense for the harm that they suffered.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I know the chairman is quite aware of how
these words, ``donation,'' ``mandatory,'' ``settlement,'' so forth and
so on, might be applied and abused in various ways.
Again, obviously, if this is something the majority wants to do, they
will do it. I just think that it may have unintended consequences; and
this administration, the next administration, and various
administrations going forward, there should be a congressional
framework for settlements. I have offered legislation that is
bipartisan in that regard. I am not opposed to creating a congressional
framework. I just think that we don't want to have unintended
consequences here if we can avoid it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I want to express my strong support for
Chairman Goodlatte's amendment. The words he has chosen have been
chosen very carefully. A donation or contribution is just that. It is a
gift. It is a donation. If the money is paid in compensation for an
injury as a result of a claim, it is not covered. So the
[[Page H3734]]
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has written this very
carefully and very narrowly to address a very real problem. I strongly
support the gentleman's amendment and have worked with him and his
staff on it.
I really, genuinely appreciate the good work that your staff has
done, Mr. Chairman, in working with you to find common ground.
This is one of those areas that I believe we are doing good public
policy. I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and urge its
adoption.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time
just to say this is an important principle, not only to address the
abuse that has taken place in the executive branch, but to protect the
prerogatives of the Congress on both sides of the aisle.
These are funds that, if they are not expended for the specific
purpose of providing compensation to victims, relief to victims in
these lawsuits, those funds should go back to the General Treasury of
the United States, and they should be appropriated by the Congress--in
fact, by this very subcommittee of the House Committee on
Appropriations--to make sure that the people's will is exercised with
regard to the expenditure of these funds.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for any inspection under section 510 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 880) with respect to
narcotic drugs in schedule III, IV, or V of section 202 of
such Act (21 U.S.C. 812), or combinations of such drugs,
being dispensed pursuant to section 303(g)(2) of such Act (21
U.S.C. 823(g)(2)) for maintenance or detoxification
treatment.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Oregon and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, that is a rather imposing title to deal
with a relatively simple concept.
We have a national epidemic dealing with opioid painkillers.
Prescription drug overdoses are a serious problem. We find people who
become addicted. We are finding that, in a routine matter of course,
this drug dependence often leads to heroin, and we are watching a chain
of events.
In Oregon, we found that 15 percent of young Oregonians between 18
and 25 abused prescription pain relievers last year. I mentioned that
chain of causality. We are finding that people in this sequence often
use heroin as a substitute when the pills get too expensive or the high
is no longer high enough. It is easy to switch to heroin.
It is not just a problem in Oregon. We have seen the CDC chart heroin
deaths doubling between 2010 and 2012 in 28 States.
Opioid addiction can be devastating, but there is a drug that can be
used to safely and effectively treat this addiction. For more than 12
years, buprenorphine has been a critical weapon in our fight against
opioid addiction. It can be taken on an outpatient basis. It is easy to
administer.
But we have seen artificial barriers to treatment. In fact, we have
made it harder for doctors to prescribe these schedule III addiction
treatment drugs even though it is comparatively easy to prescribe the
schedule II drugs that cause addiction in the first place, such as
Vicodin and OxyContin. And the schedule III drugs, we are finding that
there are audits that are taking place by DEA.
{time} 2300
Doctors who complete the 8-hour certification process have been
approached by DEA agents in my community before they even write a
single prescription. They report hostile and intimidating behavior from
agents who demand inspections of their prescription records at random,
unscheduled intervals. As I say, these are doctors who can simply write
a prescription for powerful narcotics without having to worry about
random DEA inspections.
We need to allow doctors to treat their patients with compassion and
with the care they deem appropriate. They shouldn't have to worry about
DEA agents having a super overlay of attention.
We need to encourage opportunities to make sure that doctors can
treat patients and be able to withdraw them from the symptoms. And I
would respectfully suggest that the DEA should focus their efforts on
chasing criminals, the pill mills, and the drug dealers, not doctors
who have worked hard to be part of the solution.
This amendment solves the problem by ensuring no funds are available
to DEA to enforce inspections of the physicians who prescribe
buprenorphine and allow them to proceed with the treatment of patients
without fear of getting into trouble with the Federal Government while
helping hundreds of at-risk patients who want to beat their addiction
in a healthy, effective way.
The irony is the powerful addictive drugs don't have as much
interference and oversight. The opportunity to have drugs at schedule
III--not schedule II--that can be used to treat it is much more
difficult and intrusive for medical professionals. That is not right.
I would respectfully suggest that we adopt this amendment to correct
the situation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding,
and I rise to join him in opposition to this amendment.
Madam Chair, this amendment would undermine diversion control and
thereby potentially increase drug abuse by creating a significant
loophole in the system of controls established by the Controlled
Substances Act.
The amendment would cause this highly problematic result by
effectively exempting DEA registrants who dispense drugs for addiction
treatment from being subject to administrative oversight under the CSA.
At present, buprenorphine is the only schedule III-V controlled
substance contained in a drug that has been approved by the FDA for
drug addiction treatment.
While it is also true that the amendment would not preclude DOJ/DEA
from obtaining a criminal search warrant to obtain the foregoing types
of records, this does not come close to being an adequate substitute
for the administrative inspection authority. Obtaining a criminal
search warrant must be predicated on evidence sufficient to establish
probable cause that the registrant has committed a criminal violation
of the Controlled Substances Act.
The very point of the administrative inspection authority that
Congress provided under the CSA 45 years ago was to have a robust
system of administrative oversight that would help to prevent
regulatory violations before they occurred, and even more so, before
criminal violations occurred. This is because Congress recognized that
controlled substances, when abused, can have dangerous and sometimes
deadly consequences, and thus that the widespread problem of drug abuse
in the United States cannot be solved exclusively through criminal
provisions of the Controlled Substances Act.
It also bears mentioning that this drug is highly subject to
diversion, as it is a narcotic drug that is much sought after by many
persons who are addicted to opiates and/or who seek to abuse opiates
for nonmedical purposes.
Indeed, the heightened risk of diversion associated with dispensing
of this drug to a drug-addicted patient population actually warrants
greater scrutiny, not less scrutiny, than with many other categories of
prescribed controlled substances.
So I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. CULBERSON. I join the chairman in urging my colleagues to oppose
this amendment on many grounds. It is a technical issue that should be
dealt with by the authorizing committees. This is not an appropriate
place to handle it.
[[Page H3735]]
I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), who has
personal experience and knowledge in this area as a physician, and who
can speak to this in opposition as well.
Mr. FLEMING. I thank my good friend for yielding.
Madam Chairman, years ago, one of the positions I served was as a
director for drug addiction and alcoholism, and one of my duties was as
a methadone doctor.
This drug is really a new form of methadone. It can be applied and
can be employed in the treatment of heroin addiction. But at the end of
the day, it too is highly addictive. It is a scheduled drug, and it is
abused. So it deserves the same kind of safeguards and protections and
oversight as any other addictive drug.
And so if my friends really want to see this used as an effective
tool and not itself become a dangerous drug out on the open market
being diverted and perhaps even sold on the black market, I suggest
that we oppose this amendment and let's continue the good, strong
oversight that we have under the CSA.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would strongly urge my colleagues to talk to
treatment professionals in their communities. My concern is that we
don't have as much vigorous oversight for things that are much more
highly addictive--we see them more abused--and that this extra overlay
for something that is less dangerous and can in fact be useful for
treatment, I think, is an area that deserves oversight.
I respect my friends in terms of their opinions, but I would urge
them to have the conversations I have had with the people who are
getting wrapped around the axle with the DEA.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, with that, I would urge all Members to
oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Carter of Texas
Mr. CARTER of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to
propose or to issue a rule that would change the Chief Law
Enforcement Officer certificate requirement in a manner that
has the same substance as the proposed rule published on
September 9, 2013 (786 Fed. Reg. 55014).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. I rise with an amendment to limit unnecessary
burdens on firearm owners and law enforcement officers.
The Second Amendment's intent is clear: firearm ownership ``shall not
be infringed.'' However, the ATF has proposed a rule requiring an
additional layer of approval from local law enforcement officers to
purchase suppressors and other firearms regulated by the National
Firearms Act. This rule broadly expands existing requirements and
further burdens local law enforcement officers who are already
overworked and understaffed.
The ATF knows full well that there are cities and jurisdictions that
refuse to give approval for political reasons.
{time} 2310
Action films are fun to watch, but they are wrong about suppressors.
Suppressors dampen the sound of a firearm, but do not make guns silent.
They simply are a form of hearing protection for the shooter, for other
human beings, and for any hunting dogs that are around.
Suppressors increase safety while shooting, allow people to easily
hear and react to range safety instructions and to other sportsmen.
My amendment ensures Americans' rights are protected and does not
eliminate background checks. It will protect suppressor suppliers;
manufacturers; tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue; thousands
of jobs nationwide; and, more importantly, the Second Amendment rights
of a law-abiding gunowner.
I urge support for this commonsense provision, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman from Texas would join me in a quick
colloquy.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. I would be happy to.
Mr. FATTAH. This is the amendment relative to trust and gun trust and
whether there needs to be a background check or not?
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. This is the amendment that requires an
additional approval by a law enforcement officers for purchases of
certain either weapons or suppressors.
Mr. FATTAH. Right. Now, in this instance, in 2006, our information is
that there were 4,600 of these applications, and then that grew to
40,000 in 2012 and then 72,000 in 2013 and 90,000 in 2014.
Are those numbers relatively accurate, as best as you know?
Mr. CARTER of Texas. If the gentleman will yield, those numbers could
be accurate. I cannot contest those numbers.
However, it has been made absolutely clear, both by target shooters
and by hunters, that suppressors make for a more accurate weapon, less
damage on the shooter, less damage on the people and animals around the
shooter, a better ability to be safe with your fellow hunters.
Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Judge.
Reclaiming my time, I rise in opposition to this. It is clear, given
the majority that we have, that we won't be on a successful vote count
on this.
I do want to make the point, right, that the Second Amendment, as it
was ruled on by the Supreme Court, says that there can be reasonable
regulation, and so that is our job. That is where we come into this
picture at. We are supposed to be the reasonable regulators. We are
supposed to decide where and when and under what circumstances there
should be some speed bump.
The question here is, for these types of circumstances, where someone
is going to have a weapon in which discerning that it has been fired,
you are going to be less able to do it, whether that is something where
someone should have to have a small speed bump on the way to getting
it.
Now, it doesn't seem like there is a major hurdle here because we
have jumped from 4,600 of these in 2006 to 90,000 in 2014.
I don't know, unless we are going to just have a universal access to
them, there doesn't seem to be a major impediment.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Because an application was made doesn't
necessarily mean that the law enforcement people dealt with it and
approved that application. Now, if you are telling me these are 90,000
approved applications, I understand your argument.
One of the issues seems to be finding a law enforcement agency in the
modern society we live in that actually has some knowledge of the
individual that is making the request and is willing to process it.
Mr. FATTAH. Judge, I will just say this then, reclaiming my time,
that everybody, even those who are not involved in law enforcement,
understands the challenge of having a firearm in which the sound is
suppressed.
We just had an incident in one of our Capitol buildings where someone
tried to bring a weapon in. We know that weapons are dangerous. That is
why you can't bring them into the U.S. Capitol.
Making them more accessible in the communities and among the people
that we represent, if we think that is a great thing to do, the
majority will have its way on this. I stand in opposition to it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chair, I only claim time to say that I
serve on this subcommittee with both these honorable gentlemen. I want
to commend them for a great bill.
[[Page H3736]]
The chairman has asked for time. I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. I do want to express my strong support for the
gentleman's amendment. It is an appropriate and necessary additional
protection for Americans' Second Amendment rights.
Judge Carter is exactly right. This is the right place for the bill.
This is the right place for this amendment. He has drafted it very
narrowly and very carefully, and I urge Members to join us in
supporting this very important Second Amendment amendment before the
House.
Mr. CARTER of Texas. To finish, I am honored to serve on this
subcommittee with these two fine gentlemen. They have made a great work
product here, and I am very glad that we were able to all work
together.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Bonamici
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Department of Justice may be used to prevent a State from
implementing its own State laws that authorize the use,
distribution, possession, or cultivation of industrial hemp,
as defined in section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014
(Public Law 113-79).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman
from Oregon and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I rise to offer a bipartisan amendment
with Mr. Massie to restore power to the States to regulate the
cultivation of industrial hemp within their own borders. The House
adopted this amendment last year with strong support from both sides of
the aisle.
This amendment is very simple. It would move our country in line with
industrialized countries around the world that long ago recognized the
importance of industrial hemp as a natural resource, an agricultural
commodity, and a versatile component that is now found in more than
25,000 commercial products.
In fact, not only does this amendment bring America in line with much
of the rest of the industrialized world, it brings America back in line
with our country's history. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew
it. The first drafts of our Constitution and first laws were written on
paper made from it.
During World War II, the USDA encouraged patriotic American farmers
to raise it for the war effort. They even produced a slick promotional
film titled ``Hemp for Victory.'' Now, at least 23 States have passed
laws to allow farmers to grow it, too.
Unfortunately, the Federal Government stands in the way of family
farmers who want to grow hemp. The senseless classification of hemp as
a schedule I drug contributes nothing to public safety; instead, it
robs our farm economies of a potentially multibillion-dollar crop that
is used to make everything from rope to soap.
The amendment would simply allow farmers to grow hemp in accordance
with their own State's laws. The amendment does not eliminate
regulation in hemp cultivation; it simply divests the Department of
Justice and the DEA of their ability to treat hemp like marijuana
because hemp is not marijuana.
So far, 23 States have passed laws to allow farmers to grow hemp.
Right now, farmers in California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia are waiting for
the Federal Government to get out of the way.
Because the Department of Justice refuses to acknowledge what
Washington and Jefferson knew, that hemp is an agricultural commodity
and not marijuana, these State laws take a back seat to Federal
overreach.
I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment, and I
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), my
cosponsor.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I am very excited to report that, thanks to
the farm bill amendment that allowed for pilot programs, we grew many
pilot programs in Kentucky last summer; and this summer, there will be
about 1,800 acres of hemp grown in Kentucky in pilot programs.
{time} 2320
We have venture capital coming to Kentucky. I met with two companies
in Kentucky that are investing in hemp, but the problem is right now
they can only do the pilot programs. Yet they are still going to grow
1,800 acres of it in Kentucky alone. They grow 100,000 acres in Canada.
It is time to let our farmers have this opportunity. We need to take
away the restraint that it is just a pilot program. We have addressed a
lot of the concerns that people had last year before these pilot
programs. Law enforcement are okay with hemp now. They have seen that
it is not its cousin.
With that, Madam Chair, I urge passage and urge my colleagues to vote
for this amendment.
Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chair, the cultivation of cannabis for industrial
purposes is governed by the Controlled Substances Act and permitted
pursuant to the registration requirements found in title 21, United
States Code.
Let's face it, hemp is very closely related to cannabis. And DEA
agents tell us that it is very difficult to detect, determine, and
distinguish between hemp and marijuana, so it only makes their job more
difficult. However, the Agricultural Act of 2014--and Mr. Massie just
referred to this, I believe--permits institutions of higher learning
and State departments of agriculture to grow or cultivate industrial
hemp as defined in the statute for purposes of research conducted under
an agricultural pilot program or other agricultural or academic
research.
In short, we are studying it, we are analyzing it, and we are
evaluating it, but we don't have the results yet of those studies. I
think it would be premature, especially considering the problem with
the rapid expansion of the marijuana industry and the problems which I
will speak about later this evening with marijuana and abuse of
marijuana and the damage to brains of our children and so forth. The
last thing I think that we want to do now is to create more problems
for enforcement for the DEA.
Madam Chairman, if we are going to study it, let's study it, but I do
not believe it is time that we remove these restraints on industrial
hemp.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, may I inquire into the amount of time
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Oregon has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my colleague.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's
courtesy and her leadership on this issue.
Madam Chairman, as a practical matter, industrial hemp is not
marijuana. With less than 0.3 percent THC, it is not a drug. As a
practical matter, it is not hard to distinguish it, and, in fact, it is
sort of a myth that somehow people will use industrial hemp to disguise
the cultivation of marijuana. They don't want that. It cross-
contaminates. It makes it a less effective product.
We have a situation where the rest of the world deals with industrial
hemp, where there are countless products available to purchase today,
it is just that Kentucky farmers or Oregon farmers can't produce it.
Last year the House overwhelmingly passed this amendment. We are
starting down a path towards rationalization.
Twenty-three States have removed the barriers to production of
industrial hemp. The Federal Government should get out of the way.
Congress should
[[Page H3737]]
adopt this amendment and allow it to proceed.
Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chairman, who has the right to close?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Oregon has the right to close
since the gentleman from Louisiana is not on the committee.
Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chairman, I would just say in conclusion that DEA
tells us otherwise, that it is difficult to distinguish. It is a
problem for them. They are the ones who have to enforce this. Also,
there isn't any product that you can get from hemp. Hemp production,
industrial hemp is not abundant in many other ways, whether it is
paper, rope, or what have you. So with that, it is not necessary. It is
not some vital resource that we can't do without. It does create and
complicate problems when it comes to the enforcement of schedule I
drugs such as marijuana.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, as we have heard this evening, it makes no
sense that industrial hemp is legal to have and legal to use in
manufacturing but can't be grown by our own farmers. Right now the
companies that are manufacturing with hemp have to import it from
places like Canada and China. They should be able to grow it in our own
country.
Please support this bipartisan amendment. Industrial hemp is grown
differently from marijuana. It looks different. The enforcers can tell
it apart. Let's let our farmers grow industrial hemp. Please support
this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the DNA analysis and capacity enhancement program
and for other local, State, and Federal forensic activities
for which funds are made available under this Act as part of
the $125,000,000 for DNA-related and forensic programs and
activities, unless such funds are used in accordance with
paragraphs (3) and (4) of section (2)(c)) of the DNA Analysis
Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-546; 42
U.S.C. 14135).
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from Texas and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Chairman, Congress in the last several sessions has done, I
think, an admirable job of dealing with this crime of sexual assault in
the United States. Several pieces of legislation have passed the House,
under several administrations, going all the way back to the Violence
Against Women Act. More recently, under the Debbie Smith Act, SAFER
legislation, here is what is taking place.
We now know because of DNA that old rape kits can be analyzed to
determine who the suspect was that committed that sexual assault,
generally against females, and that is a good development.
Because of that legislation, the Debbie Smith Act was passed; and the
SAFER Act says that Debbie Smith, which grants funds to do rape kit
backlogs, that 75 percent of that money, of those grants, will go to
actually analyze backlog rape kits. Get those backlogs analyzed, go
after the bad guys, find out who committed these crimes, and bring
those 400,000 rape kits up to date by getting them analyzed.
This all sounds good. The problem is the Justice Department doesn't
follow the law. They are not analyzing these cases. There is still a
backlog. They are spending the money, but they are spending it on other
things like research rather than what the law says: analyze those
cases.
Madam Chair, 75 percent of that money is to go to analyze that
backlog of rape cases.
{time} 2330
My amendment just tells the Justice Department to follow previous
law, analyze those cases, use 75 percent of the money that is available
to analyze those cases. That is what the amendment does.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I strongly agree with the gentleman's
amendment and intend to work with him as we move through conference to
address this problem in the way he suggests and make sure the law is
complied with.
I understand the amendment may be withdrawn. Before the amendment is
withdrawn, if I could address the merits of your amendment, I think you
are exactly right. We plussed up funding for rape kits. We want to make
sure that this backlog is taken care of as rapidly as possible. I know
my friend from Philadelphia and the members of this committee share
your concern. We want to make sure the backlog rape kits are cleared
out as rapidly as possible and these criminals are taken off the street
as rapidly as they can be. We want to make sure the Federal law is
complied with, so I will work with you to make sure that through the
oversight authority we have got on this subcommittee that the
Department is enforcing the law as written by Congress and doing so
aggressively.
Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. I concur with your point of view, and I hope that the
amendment is withdrawn. But I think that the maker of the proponent
amendment is correct that we need to move in this direction. We not
only want to make sure that the backlog is ended and that we get bad
people off the street; we also don't want innocent people incarcerated
for crimes they didn't commit. So this is where the science can help.
But you are right that we need to make sure that there is specific
direction. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. CULBERSON. And we can do that through oversight, and we will work
very closely with you, Judge Poe, on this. And I thank you for your
work on this effort. There is no penalty severe enough that can be
imposed swiftly enough on anyone who would injure a woman or a child.
I understand the amendment is going to be withdrawn.
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the chairman, and I also thank the ranking
member.
What the amendment does--and I will work with the committee on this--
is exactly what the ranking member said. In one word, it finds out
``justice.'' We free the innocent and we convict the guilty, but we
can't do it unless these rape kits are analyzed. So I hope the
committee figures out a way to have the Justice Department do what they
are supposed to do that Congress has already told them to do. Good luck
with that.
Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
June 2, 2015, on page H3737, the following appeared: There was
no objection. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ELLISON
The online version should be corrected to read: There was no
objection. The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn. AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY MR. ELLISON
========================= END NOTE =========================
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Justice in violation of--
(1) the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution; or
(2) the memorandum issued by the Attorney General on March
31, 2015, and entitled ``Guidance Regarding the Use of Asset
Forfeiture Authorities in Connection with Structuring
Offenses''.
[[Page H3738]]
Mr. ELLISON (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Minnesota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I offer this amendment with the support of
the chairpersons of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional
Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and
the Progressive Caucus.
This amendment would prevent funding from law enforcement agencies
that engage in discriminatory profiling based on gender, race,
ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin.
It would also prevent the use of funds to repeal the December 14
revised profiling guidance issued by the Department of Justice.
Discriminatory profiling is wrong. It doesn't help prevent crime. It
creates a culture of fear and resentment within our community. It is
contrary to the core constitutional principles, and the Federal dollars
shouldn't be spent perpetuating this activity.
I commend the work of Attorney General Holder to revise profiling
guidance, and I believe that we must do more to close the remaining
loopholes in profiling guidance.
You shouldn't be able to profile at the border. You shouldn't be able
to map people without cause. You shouldn't be able to use national
security as an excuse to engage in prejudicial policing.
And we need comprehensive antiprofiling legislation like the End
Racial Profiling Act introduced by the dean of this Congress, John
Conyers. In the absence of such comprehensive reform, we should at
least prevent Federal funds from being used to discriminate against
citizens.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though
I am not actually in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I think that what we should be for is
effective law enforcement techniques. We know by every empirical
evidence that profiling does not work, and our experts in every aspect
of law enforcement--local, State, and nationally--tell us that it
doesn't work. So I agree with the gentleman and I support his
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I will close and just say that racial
profiling has no place, and we urge a ``yes'' vote for the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with any person whose
disclosures of a proceeding with a disposition listed in
section 2313(c)(1) of title 41, United States Code, in the
Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System
include the term ``Fair Labor Standards Act''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Minnesota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, this is a very simple amendment which says
that the moneys appropriated by the U.S. Congress should go to
contractors who deal fairly with workers and who do not violate the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
This particular amendment is not an allegation; it only applies to
contractors who have been found in violation, who have been forced to
disclose those violations based on the requirements of law and their
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
This amendment would prohibit the Federal Government from using funds
in this bill to hire contractors with wage theft violations.
Madam Chair, we live in a time when it is so hard for workers all
across this Nation to make a living. People go to bed at night
calculating whether they are going to be able to meet their monthly
expenses. If the work that they do can't even be fully paid because
they are victims of wage theft by an unscrupulous employer, I think
that the Federal Government should not be doing business with that
employer.
The fact of the matter is that in this appropriation, we should
reserve Federal money for the millions of contractors who do an honest
contract, who provide the Federal Government with good work. Evidence
suggests that wage theft is widespread and costs workers billions of
dollars every year--greater than the cost of burglaries, robberies,
larcenies, and other sorts of problems.
Wage theft among Federal contractors is also a problem. Federal
contractors are among America's companies that we rely on to discharge
good service. But that service should be within the law; that service
should be honoring the work that workers do. And Federal contractors,
some of them, certainly not all, but some have had a problem in this
area.
A national employment law project found that nearly one in three low-
wage contractors in the D.C. area reported stolen wages.
{time} 2340
A report by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Committee revealed that 35 percent of the largest Department of Labor
penalties for wage theft were levied against Federal contractors.
Now, there are many excellent Federal contractors. These people
should not have to compete with companies that circumvent the
requirements of the law. In total, those Federal contractors who did
had to repay employees $82.1 million in back wages for violations
between 2007 and 2012. Despite these violations, many of these same
companies received Federal contracts again in 2012.
The fact of the matter is that wage theft is wrong, and the people
who engage in it shouldn't receive Federal funds. I hope that all
Members will agree that a dollar earned is a dollar that must be paid
and that the United States of America only wants to do business with
contractors that obey the law.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I share the gentleman's concerns, but
I think his amendment is written so broadly that it is going to have an
impact far beyond anything he actually intended.
For example, if a very large company like Boeing ever failed to pay
somebody overtime on one occasion, the way his amendment is drafted,
this would bar Boeing from ever doing any business with the Federal
Government. It would bar Lockheed, which is responsible for building
the Orion spacecraft for NASA, and they are doing an extraordinarily
good job in doing so.
It is almost inevitable. None of us are perfect. Everybody, somewhere
or somehow, is going to make a mistake. It is just inevitable. In the
way the gentleman's amendment is drafted, the Federal Government could
not hire any company that was ever dealt with in a proceeding that
included the term ``Fair Labor Standards Act.'' It essentially
blackballs any contractor who has ever had any violation of any kind,
anywhere, anytime.
It is too broad. This is not the right place for it. You are going to
do great damage to a lot of very good companies that have had very
minor, one-time violations a number of years ago. I know that is not
the gentleman's intent, but the language before the House that he has
drafted is very broad and has implications far beyond what I know he
has laid out here tonight.
[[Page H3739]]
The bill, as written, would actually, I think, wind up with a lot of
very good companies being unable to do business with the Federal
Government, so I would ask Members to oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I just want to point out that the companies
that the gentleman has identified ought to obey the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Every company that does business with the United States
Government ought to pay its workers fairly.
Federal contracts are lucrative, and Federal contracts make people
rich. At the very least, those companies and those individuals who
benefit from those contracts ought to make sure that their workers get
paid properly.
The fact of the matter is that this is an appropriation from this
year. It doesn't bar them in the future from applying for Federal
contracts again, and if they should prove to have really cleaned up
their acts, we can have a conversation about that.
I am afraid, Madam Chair, that if we do not pass this amendment, we
will be telling all of the honest, hard-working contractors that you
don't need to obey the law, that you can just do whatever.
Companies that don't obey the Fair Labor Standards Act and steal
workers' wages actually gain a competitive advantage on the companies
that do obey the law. I don't think that is anything that any one of us
would like to see happen, so I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this; say
``no'' to wage theft.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I want to reiterate, the way the
gentleman's amendment is drafted, any violation anywhere, anytime in
the history of the company would bar them from ever doing business with
the Federal Government. It is if they ever made a mistake anywhere in
the past.
The amendment is far too broad and far too sweeping, and I urge
Members to oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Black
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to require, pursuant to section 478.124 of title 27,
or section 25.7 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, or
the Office of Management and Budget Statistical Policy
Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal
Statistics and Administrative Reporting, that any person
disclose the race or ethnicity of the person in connection
with the transfer of a firearm to the person.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACK. Madam Chairman, our Founding Fathers did not mince words
when they authored the Second Amendment to our Constitution.
They spoke plainly and with conviction in writing, ``the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' Unfortunately,
this administration hasn't always seen it that way.
Recently, President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives enacted a quiet change to its form 4473--a mandatory
document for most gun transactions--that requires Americans to disclose
their race and ethnicity in order to complete the sale. What is more,
the failure to collect this information is considered an ATF violation
that could result in government penalties for the gun dealer.
By placing an extra barrier of complexity between the law-abiding
citizens and their right to own a firearm, I believe this intrusive
reporting requirement sets up a direct challenge to the Second
Amendment rights enshrined in our Constitution, not to mention the
right to privacy.
Madam Chairman, we all want to see weapons kept out of the hands of
criminals, but an individual's race and ethnicity has nothing to do
with his ability to safely own and operate a firearm. Perhaps that is
why even traditionally left-leaning groups like the ACLU have spoken in
opposition to this requirement.
The fact is the government should be colorblind on all of our rights,
whether it is the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, or the
freedom to keep and bear arms. That is why my amendment states that the
government cannot require gun buyers to disclose their race and
ethnicity at the point of sale. It is really that simple.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this commonsense amendment so
that we can reverse this latest regulatory overreach and ensure that
fairness and privacy are upheld in our Nation's gun laws.
Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe), my lead cosponsor and an ardent defender of the Second
Amendment.
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank Congresswoman Black for this amendment and
for bringing it to the attention of the House tonight.
Madam Chair, this issue came to my attention a couple of years ago
when I was with constituents in my district. They were gun dealers, and
they were complaining and telling me how the administration quietly
began requiring the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives--we call it the ATF--to record a firearms purchaser's race
and ethnicity.
This, Madam Chair, is not law. It is not congressional action. We did
not do this. The ATF, through administration rules, requires the race
of the gun purchaser, and the seller who is selling the gun has got to
check the box and write the race of the gun purchaser.
{time} 2350
If they do not do that or they do it wrong, the ATF can come back
later, look at the records, say ``You left it blank on the race of the
individual,'' and shut the business down.
Now, there are several problems with this new rule by the ATF. In
order to avoid breaking this Federal regulation, the dealers then have
to ask the customers their race, and when people are offended--and they
get offended--they take it out on the dealers themselves. Sometimes
refuse to give their race, and then what is the gun seller to do? Why
is our government racial profiling people who exercise the Second
Amendment? Why are they doing that?
Second, it is none of the government's business the race of a
gunowner. The Second Amendment does not just apply to certain races. It
applies to everybody. It doesn't exclude races and only include certain
races. As the gentlewoman from Tennessee has said, the Federal
Government ought to be colorblind across the board on every issue,
especially when it comes to rights. The Second Amendment applies to
everybody regardless of their race, just like the First Amendment
applies to everybody regardless of their race.
So this amendment would simply tell the Federal Government, it is
none of your business the race of a gun purchaser in the United States.
Stay out of that issue. Just as equally important, you can't shut some
business down if they don't put the right race or they leave the race
block blank. That is none of the Federal Government's business.
I would hope that Members of Congress would support this amendment
and keep the Federal Government from requiring racial profiling in the
purchase of guns under the Second Amendment.
Mrs. BLACK. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. Before we finish with this, you will be able to have a
weapon,
[[Page H3740]]
you will be able to suppress the sound on it, and you won't have to
identify yourself by these characteristics that are attacked in this
amendment, but I want to just kind of set the facts straight.
First of all, this information has been required since 1968. I know
people are excited about it tonight, I know there is a lot of
enthusiasm about ridding the Nation of having this information, but
since the Gun Control Act of 1968, prospective firearm purchasers have
been required to record their race.
Now, sometimes, you know, we hear in law enforcement people trying to
be politically correct and say, well, we don't want you to be too
descriptive of a suspect in a crime, identifying them by race or
something, but, you know, the reason why we have this information has
nothing to do with prohibiting people's Second Amendment rights. This
is about how to track down someone who has done something wrong, who
was the original purchaser of the gun that was used in a crime.
The information is not held by the Federal Government,
notwithstanding the excitement on the House floor tonight. It is held
by the dealer. It is not centralized in any way, but it is a law
enforcement data point. Sometimes we actually need data, we need
information so that if something has been done with a gun that is
unlawful, somebody can figure out who purchased it; and you can also
clarify who these people are, if they have similar names, similar
backgrounds, or whatever may be the case.
So it is just basic information that any law enforcement person would
want to have, the race and ethnic background of the owner of the weapon
that was used in a neighborhood near you to harm one of the people whom
you have been elected to represent, and to decide tonight, well, what
we want to do is strip this information away under some pretense. What
we just heard was an argument that somehow someone was trying to say
that the Second Amendment discriminated against somebody on a racial
basis, and of course anyone can win that straw argument because it is
nonsensical. No one is arguing that.
We are talking about basic information that is needed for law
enforcement purposes that the majority tonight wants to deny from the
ATF. That is something that I would hope the majority wouldn't do, but
they obviously have the votes to do as they please. I will be against
it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Richmond
Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the aggregate amount made available for
``Federal Prison System--Salaries and Expenses'', and by
increasing the amount made available for ``Office of Justice
Programs--Juvenile Justice Programs'' for youth mentoring
grants, by $155,900,000.
Mr. RICHMOND (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Louisiana?
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, which amendment is the gentleman
offering?
Mr. RICHMOND. I only have one amendment, and it is the amendment to
move $155 million from the Bureau of Prisons over to the Juvenile
Justice program.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will continue to read the amendment.
The Clerk continued to read.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from Louisiana and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Chair, I rise today to talk about something that
I would hope is important to both sides of the aisle, and that is our
youth. Here in Congress we talk about how important a lot of things
are: education, public safety, strong communities, freedom, and
prosperity. If we have a goal of keeping our children in school and on
the path to success, cutting Juvenile Justice programs is the wrong way
to go in order to reach it.
We know that supporting programs that keep our children out of jail
is one of the best investments we can make, and it gives us one of our
highest returns on our investment.
On any given day in this country, there are over 70,000 juveniles in
jail around the country. This incarceration is not cheap. We spend
about $6 billion a year on juveniles in prison. Interactions with the
criminal justice system at a young age have a ripple effect that makes
it harder for children to achieve success later.
Students who are arrested early in high school are six to eight times
more likely to drop out of high school. What is more, children who are
incarcerated are almost 40 percent less likely to graduate from high
school and 40 percent more likely to be in prison at the age of 25.
Finally, if someone with an arrest record as a juvenile does graduate
high school, they are still only half as likely to enroll in a 4-year
college.
In short, keeping our children out of jail has benefits to the
children, their families, our communities, and to the Nation as a
whole. This President realized all of this when he made his budget
request. That is why he requested more than $300 million for a variety
of authorized programs aimed at improving public safety and keeping
children on the path to college and careers instead of the path to
prison.
Unfortunately, the bill in front of us calls for devastating cuts to
these vital programs. The funding level in the bill is more than $155
million below the President's request, and even $68 million below last
year's funding level.
My amendment today would simply bring the funding for Juvenile
Justice back in line with the President's request by funding one of the
only programs left available in the bill, and that is mentoring. By
increasing the role and capacity for mentoring programs across the
Nation, we can have a true impact on children in every community.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0000
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I will assert my point of order against
the amendment, depending on what the gentleman intends to do.
Does the gentleman intend to withdraw the amendment?
Mr. RICHMOND. I would like to know what the point of order is. I am
just shifting money from one thing that is already in the budget to
something that is already in the budget.
Point of Order
Mr. CULBERSON. The amendment is subject to a point of order on the
basis that it proposes to increase an appropriation not authorized by
law, Mr. Chairman, and, therefore, is in violation of clause 2(a) of
rule XXI.
Although the original account funding for the Office of Juvenile
Justice contains a number of programs that are unauthorized, it was
permitted to remain in the bill pursuant to the provisions of the rule
that provided for the consideration of this bill.
When an unauthorized appropriation is permitted to remain in a
general appropriations bill, an amendment merely changing the amount is
in order, but the rules of the House apply a ``merely perfecting
standard'' to the items permitted to remain, and do not allow the
insertion of a new paragraph that was not part of the original text
permitted to remain to increase a figure that was permitted to remain.
This amendment proposes to add funding as a reach-back to an
unauthorized program, and the amendment, therefore, cannot be construed
as merely perfecting.
And therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Chair rule the amendment
out of order.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Stivers). Does any other Member wish to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. FATTAH. I understand the spirit of the chairman's statement. I
just
[[Page H3741]]
want to comment that one of the things that we have done is we have
worked over a number of years and doubled the amount of money going
into youth mentoring.
I think that the chairman and I agree with the spirit of your
amendment and that it is a much more worthy investment for the country
to keep our young people on the straight and narrow than to try to
repair, as has been said, a broken adult.
We continue to have an interest in building this part of the
appropriations bill. Notwithstanding the complicated set of rules
relative to the authorized and the non-authorized portion, we continue
to want to work with you as we go forward on this matter.
Mr. CULBERSON. I want to, if I could, express my support for the
ranking member's comments, but I do need to assert the point of order.
Mr. RICHMOND. If the gentleman does not assert the point of order
now, then what I will do is just wrap up and ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my amendment.
Mr. CULBERSON. If the gentleman withdraws the amendment, I withdraw
my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman seek to withdraw the amendment?
Mr. RICHMOND. I was going to close and use the remaining time and
then withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is currently pending.
Mr. CULBERSON. I reserve my point of order. Once the gentleman
withdraws, I will withdraw the point of order, but we do need to
conclude this. We will work together with Mr. Fattah on juvenile
justice to keep young people out of prison.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman withdraw the point of order?
Mr. CULBERSON. I reserve the point of order. I will withdraw its
assertion at this time, but I reserve it pending the gentleman's
conclusion and withdrawal of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's earlier point of order is
withdrawn. A point of order is now reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I would just say I started coaching
Little League at 16, and I continue to do that today, and I continue
also to mentor.
I would just say that as we look at the budget and we try to do
things to bring the budget back into balance, we keep leaving out the
point of return on investment. And if we continue to invest in things
that are going to give us more than a one-to-one return, then we are
actually gaining a benefit that will allow us to cut down the deficit.
And then I would just quickly add in the spirit of bipartisanship and
working together that it is almost like the field of dreams for the
Bureau of Prisons. If you appropriate it, they will spend it. And if
they build it, they will fill it. We don't want to do that when we have
a greater avenue, I think, to put our youth on a better path and not
only save money, but create less victims of crime.
So with that, I would just remind all of our Members that I hope we
continue to work together. And we should really be careful here because
the life you save may be your own.
I thank the chairman for his cooperation, and I ask unanimous consent
to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Meadows
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. _. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to negotiate or enter into a trade agreement that
establishes a limit on greenhouse gas emissions for the
United States. The limitation described in this section shall
not apply in the case of the administration of a tax or
tariff.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. MEADOWS. My amendment would prohibit the administration from
using any funds from this bill to advocate or support a position in
trade negotiations or enter into a trade agreement that would limit
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Basically, the amendment
would prohibit the Obama administration from trying to address
``climate change'' through trade agreements.
The last few years, we have seen the administration intentionally
work around Congress to implement its own agenda.
Mr. Chairman, the hour is late. There are many worthwhile amendments
that need to be debated and heard, and with that, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. I am not sure this is the right place to be imposing on
trade agreements. We would be opposed to this. We won't be seeking a
recorded vote, but we would be opposed to this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the chairman of the
Appropriations subcommittee, who has done great work.
Mr. CULBERSON. I strongly support this amendment. It is important
that these trade agreements not be negotiated in ways that would
supersede the authority of this Congress. Any limitation on greenhouse
gases should be debated in this Congress and enacted by Congress and
should not be any part of any trade agreement.
So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment in the same spirit
that we have got language in this bill that prohibits use of funds to
negotiate or to implement the U.N. arms control treaty, which would
interfere with our Second Amendment rights. We have prohibited that. We
have shut down the U.N. arms control treaty in this bill. Similarly,
let's shut down any attempt to impose greenhouse gas limits on the
United States through a trade agreement.
I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and urge Members to vote
``yes.''
Mr. FATTAH. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I urge support, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
June 2, 2015, on page H3741, the following appeared: The
amendment was agreed to. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GRAYSON
The online version should be corrected to read: The amendment
was agreed to. The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GRAYSON
========================= END NOTE =========================
Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson
Mr. GRAYSON. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with any offeror or any of
its principals if the offeror certifies, as required by
Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of
its principals:
(A) within a three-year period preceding this offer has
been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it
for: commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection
with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public
(Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation
of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the
submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft,
forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records,
making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal
criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property; or
(B) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or
civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of
any of the offenses enumerated above in subsection (A); or
(C) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has
been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount
that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains
unsatisfied.
Mr. GRAYSON (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent
that the reading be waived.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
[[Page H3742]]
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is identical to other
amendments that have been inserted by voice vote into every
appropriations bill considered under an open rule this year and in the
last Congress as well.
My amendment expands the list of parties with whom the Federal
Government is prohibited from contracting due to serious misconduct on
the part of the contractors. Specifically, the list would include
contractors who within a 3-year period preceding an offer have been
convicted or have had a civil judgment rendered against them for fraud,
violation of Federal or state antitrust laws, embezzlement, theft,
forgery, bribery, violation of Federal tax laws, and other items
outlined in section 52.209-5 of title 48 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
{time} 0010
These are all offenses which any contractor doing business with the
Federal Government must disclose to a contracting officer, but oddly
enough, the contracting officer would then be free to ignore these
transgressions and award contracts to offending entities, absent my
amendment.
I commend the authors of this bill for their inclusion of section
523. I still believe, however, that we can improve on this bill by
prohibiting agencies from contracting with those entities who have
engaged in the activities described above.
It is my hope that this amendment will be noncontroversial, as it has
been on every previous occasion and again be passed unanimously by the
House.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am
not opposed to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. FATTAH. I am not opposed to the amendment. I am prepared to
accept the amendment and support it, and I thank the gentleman for
offering it.
I speak even for the chairman in this matter. We are ready to rock
and roll, so we accept the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAYSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hudson
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to treat any M855 (5.56 mm x 45 mm) or SS109 type
ammunition as armor piercing ammunition for purposes of
chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I want to voice my
strong opposition to the Obama administration's continued assaults on
our Second Amendment rights.
I ran for Congress to stand up against this overreach and to keep
Washington bureaucrats' influence out of our lives and their hands off
our freedoms and their hand off our guns. That is why I am offering an
amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill that
would stop President Obama's green tip ammo ban.
As you recall, the ATF recently tried to ban common rifle ammunition
that has been legally used by law-abiding American sportsmen for
decades. It was only after receiving intense pressure from Congress and
more than 80,000 public comments and, frankly, the direct intervention
of Chairman Culberson that the administration stalled their proposed
ban.
As the clock ticks down on this President's second term, the
administration is cooking up more than a dozen gun control regulations
and has left the door open to reconsider future ammo bans.
This determination to unconstitutionally restrict one of our most
fundamental rights and--I would argue--our first freedom has nothing to
do with safety or security and everything to do with government
control.
My amendment, previously introduced as a stand-alone bill by my good
friend and colleague, Chief Deputy Whip Patrick McHenry, from North
Carolina, would put an end to this attack on our Second Amendment
rights by ensuring this popular ammunition remains available and not
subject to any future ATF bans.
Mr. Chairman, like many of my constituents from North Carolina, I
like to spend time outdoors in a deer stand, in a field, or at the
range. I will not stand idly by and allow a unilateral executive fiat
to threaten our right to enjoy this cherished American tradition.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting or shooting sports. Our
right to keep and bear arms is a right that ensures our ability to
protect all of rights. That is why I refer to it as our first freedom.
This fundamental freedom must be defended and protected.
For that reason, I encourage my colleagues in the House to support
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague
from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand with my colleague from
North Carolina in support of this amendment. In the eyes of our
Founding Fathers, the right to bear arms was just as fundamental as the
freedom of speech. The Second Amendment ensures our right, as law-
abiding American citizens, to bear arms to protect ourselves from
enemies, both foreign and domestic.
It is no secret that our Second Amendment rights have been threatened
by the government bureaucrats in the Obama administration. Earlier this
year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives doubled
down on attempting to ban lead projectiles, as they claim the
ammunition is armor piercing.
They proposed a ban on the manufacturing and sale of certain AR-15
ammunition that could have drastically reduced the availability of
ammunition commonly used for sporting and other legitimate purposes.
Because of the strong objections from gunowners and constitutional
conservatives across the country, ATF decided to table their proposal,
at least for now.
Mr. Chairman, our constitutional rights should not be left up to the
whims of Federal bureaucrats in Washington. This amendment simply
ensures that Federal funds cannot be used to ban certain types of
commonly used ammunition, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. They must have some special kind of deer in North
Carolina. They are running around in the woods with bulletproof vests
on.
The idea that a sportsman needs an armor-piercing bullet to go after
a deer, I mean, I don't really buy it; but if the majority is willing
to buy it at this hour of the night, it is fine with me.
On a serious note, for those who are in law enforcement, who are out
in dark alleys, and who have to confront circumstances that they don't
know the exact dangers that they are going to face, the fact that we
want to have weapons that suppress the sound--now, we want to have
bullets that can pierce armor and that we want to make sure that are
under the guise of the Second Amendment, that you can have all manner
of armament, without any type of reasonable speed bumps that might
protect the American public is something that I am not sure that the
majority would want to take such an enthusiastic effort around.
Obviously, they do, and they have decided that this bill is the bill
for it, that this bill is the place where they want to do this
activity, right?
I think it is unfortunate. As for me and for my side, we will be in
opposition, and we will let the majority work its will.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania has 3 minutes
remaining.
[[Page H3743]]
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's rhetorical
question. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that the point is a 5.56 green
tip bullet is not an armor-piercing bullet. The only reason it has been
called an armor-piercing bullet is because of a loophole, and that is
my point.
We have an administration that has just put out a whole list of
regulations that say they want to restrict the rights of people because
they may or may not have a mental illness. They want a whole list, a
whole range of regulations that they would like to roll out in the
final days of this administration to limit, to infringe upon our Second
Amendment rights. What I am saying is we are not going to stand for
that.
The bullet, the round that I am talking about is not an armor-
piercing round; it has never been defined as an armor-piercing round,
but because of a loophole, this administration tried to ban it as such.
Having said that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the chairman.
Mr. CULBERSON. I want to express my very strong support for the
gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment is necessary because
the ATF did come out with a very broad legal framework within which
they were attempting to ban not only 223 ammunition, but potentially
whole other categories of ammunition, and that is just not what the
statute was intended to prevent.
The statute was intended to prevent specific types of armor-piercing
bullets from being used in pistols. The ATF was taking that far beyond
the statute. It was necessary for--as new committee subcommittee
chairman, I was able to step in and persuade the ATF to drop their ammo
ban.
Mr. Hudson's amendment is necessary to make sure it doesn't happen
again in the future, and I urge Members to support his amendment in the
strongest possible terms to defend our Second Amendment rights.
Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 0020
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just hope that none of my good friends on the
other side decide to test this theory about whether or not it can
pierce armor, that you don't take the rhetoric to an extreme here. It
is a fact that there is some concern about what this means for law
enforcement. I know that the majority would want to be seen, and I
think truly is, in support of law enforcement.
Why would we want to put this type of ammunition in guns that we want
to suppress the sound on, in which we want less information about the
purchaser, at a time like this in our Nation I don't actually
understand. But there is obviously some thread that runs through the
other team over here that suggests that this is the time for them to
proceed along this line. I think that the American public will have to
make whatever judgment they want to make about that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Collins of Georgia
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to provide assistance to a State, or political
subdivision of a State, that has in effect any law, policy,
or procedure in contravention of immigration laws (as defined
in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))).
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment, and
I withdraw the point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The point of order is withdrawn.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from Georgia and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with basically a
commonsense amendment on H.R. 2578. I appreciate the hard work that
Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member Fattah, and other members of the
Appropriations Committee have put into this bill.
This bill contains many important provisions to protect law-abiding
Americans and public safety while spending responsibly; however, I want
to make it absolutely clear that no funds appropriated under this bill
are used to assist States and localities whose laws and policies are in
direct contradiction to Federal immigration law and enforcement
efforts. My amendment does just that. It ensures that we do not reward
State and local governments with Federal funds when they ignore the
rule of law.
State and local jurisdictions are implementing policies that directly
contradict U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's statutorily
mandated mission to identify and remove illegal aliens who are
currently incarcerated. At this point, we even have seen some local
sheriffs who choose to follow Federal law and honor ICE detainers
slapped with lawsuits for cooperating, for following the law.
I know we are late. I know there is some discussion about this, but
really this is simple.
Hard-working taxpayers should not have to sit idly by and watch their
tax dollars go to localities that choose to encourage illegal
immigration through their nonenforcement policies. My amendment sends a
clear message that, if localities implement policies in contradiction
to Federal immigration law, they will not be eligible to receive funds
under this act, specifically Federal reimbursement grants under the
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that was offered and accepted last
year. We are offering it again and would ask favorable consideration.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania continue to
reserve his point of order?
Mr. FATTAH. I would like, at this point, unless there are more
comments, to assert the point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania may state his point
of order.
Point of Order
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause
2, rule XXI.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I will at least respond to the
point of order.
This amendment is not in contradiction of current law. In fact, it
simply states that the amendment would not allow funds to be used in
support of holding up law as it is currently written. This is not a law
that is written to circumvent current law. In fact, all it says is that
States and localities who receive the money will actually support
current law. So I am not sure what the point of order is actually
trying to say.
This was put in last year. It was approved. I understand. I
appreciate the gentleman's concern. But, basically, we are saying if
you enforce the law as it is written, which is all we are asking, then
the grant is there. If you choose not to enforce Federal law, then that
is money that will be withheld.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Georgia wish to withdraw
his amendment?
[[Page H3744]]
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Not at this point.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, we will respect the ruling of the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point
of order?
The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that I agree
with the gentleman from Georgia. This does not change existing law. It
simply states that if you expect to receive Federal money, you need to
be in compliance with Federal law. It is pretty straight up.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new
determination as to the status of local law.
The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the
amendment is not in order.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. __. None of the finds made available by this Act may
be used to negotiate or enter into a trade agreement whose
negotiating texts are confidential. The limitation described
in this section shall not apply in the case of the
administration of a tax or tariff.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is akin to an amendment
that was considered just a few moments ago offered by Mr. Meadows. This
amendment is meant to address a problem that has arisen with trade
agreements that has become visible to all of us as Members of this
august body.
What has happened is that the Trade Representative, for no apparent
legal reason, with no apparent legal authority, has taken it upon
himself to negotiate trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific
Partnership in secret--not entirely in secret, just in secret from us
and from members of the American public.
The corresponding provision, the TTIP provision, has been posted by
the European Union, which is our negotiating partner in this on the
Internet.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership itself has been negotiated in secret,
but that has been posted by WikiLeaks, to the embarrassment of our
government in an unnecessary manner.
What we have seen over the past several years is that the Trade
Representative has turned a deaf ear to our concerns as Members of
Congress who must perform our oversight functions whenever we ask for
information about what the Trade Representative is doing on behalf of
the American people.
Three years ago, we had the strange circumstance come up that over
100 Members of Congress, 100 Members of this body, wrote a letter to
the Trade Representative saying: We hear you are negotiating something
called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Would you please give us a copy?
And the answer came back: No. We are not going to give you a copy.
For the past 5 years, the Trans-Pacific Partnership has been
negotiated in secret. Only in the last few months, Members of Congress
have been able to see it under the most extreme conditions imaginable.
I was actually the first person to be able to see it, and the Trade
Representative came to my office with his staff and offered to show it
to me, but I couldn't take any notes.
{time} 0030
I couldn't discuss it with my own staff. I couldn't even discuss it
with other Members of this body. And of course I couldn't make copies
or otherwise help myself to record what I had seen, much less speak to
my constituents about it, much less speak to the media about it, much
less speak to the public about it.
Respectfully, secret laws are un-American laws; secret agreements are
un-American agreements. There is no such thing recognized under our
Constitution as a ``secret statute'' or a ``secret treaty.'' But that
is, in effect, what we have been experiencing without any legal
authority whatsoever on behalf of the Trade Representative.
Now, I am not saying the Trade Representative needs to stop
negotiating these agreements; not at all. What I am suggesting is that
we lift the veil of secrecy that has been dropped over these
negotiations so that we can't see them, the American people can't see
them, but foreign governments can see them.
Why is it that we have confidentiality? Why is it that we have a
classified information system? Generally speaking, it is not to keep
Americans from seeing this information; it is to keep foreigners from
seeing this information. And here the world has been turned upside
down, and we have a situation where foreigners get to see it, but even
the highest members of our own government--our Senators, our
Congressmen--we don't get to see it. That is absolutely unacceptable;
it is un-American.
The only way to come up with agreements that satisfy the needs of
this country is through an open, fair, transparent process. That is
what this simple amendment will accomplish. It says: None of the funds
made available in this act, which includes funds made to the Trade
Representative, may be used to negotiate or enter into a trade
agreement whose negotiating texts are confidential.
It is time for a little sunlight. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
It is time for the Members of this body to take control of our
constitutional responsibilities, not to let the Trade Representative or
any member of the executive branch tell us to stuff it when we need to
find out things in order to be able to do our jobs properly.
Wouldn't it be a better system if we were able to tell a trade
representative what we think, what our constituents think, what the
members of the American public think about these documents before they
are simply dropped on us?
This is a simple commonsense amendment. There is no existing legal
authority that allows the Trade Representative to do what he has been
doing. I say the time is up and we should insist that these agreements,
which will determine the course of economic history in America for the
next 20 or 30 years, are agreements that are negotiated in public with
our approval and with our input.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida I know has
worked in the past as an attorney and represented clients and
undoubtedly has settled cases before. And those settlement agreements,
those negotiations, when you were designing those agreements, Mr.
Grayson, I know were not something that you wanted to disclose. You
wanted to negotiate those settlements in private with your client
confidentially, because had the world seen what you were working out,
that would have damaged your client's ability to negotiate a fair
settlement with the other party in the case.
As here, with trade promotion authority, the countries with which the
Trade Representative is negotiating, Japan, for example, I doubt the
Japanese want the Australians to see what the Japanese are agreeing to.
That is just common sense. I doubt that the Koreans want the Japanese
to see what the Koreans are attempting to agree to.
So it is perfectly understandable that the agreement itself would be
confidential until it is finalized. Members of Congress can go see the
agreement, but the Korean-American Trade Agreement is going to be
confidential until it is finally settled because Korea doesn't want
Japan or Australia or Vietnam to see what they are negotiating, in the
same way you did not want your clients, the agreement you were
attempting to negotiate on behalf of your client, you didn't want to do
that in the open sunshine. Sunshine is a good thing, but there are
times when a negotiation like this on a trade agreement is just common
sense. You are not going to want the other countries that you are
competing against to see what kind of a deal you are fixing to work out
with the United States.
[[Page H3745]]
The Members of Congress can see it, of course, as we should, and the
agreement itself must be available to the public to view 90 days before
the President can even sign the agreement, and the Congress is going to
have this debate. In fact, I understand that this trade promotion
authority agreement that is under discussion, the new law that Congress
is proposing, would for the first time give either House of Congress a
veto over the agreement with a majority vote. So the House could decide
on our own to veto a particular trade agreement by majority vote; the
Senate could veto a trade agreement by majority vote.
The only part of the deal so far that is confidential is the ongoing
negotiation, which is exactly the way you handled and protected your
client's best interest as an attorney. I am quite confident as an
attorney you handled your client's litigation in a way that was
professional and confidential, and I imagine you never disclosed a
pending settlement agreement that was being negotiated, you never
released that publicly, did you ever, Mr. Grayson?
Mr. GRAYSON. Is the gentleman yielding to me?
Mr. CULBERSON. Did you ever release a negotiated settlement agreement
to the public before it was finalized?
Mr. GRAYSON. Is the gentleman yielding to me?
Mr. CULBERSON. No. Answer my question, yes or no.
Mr. GRAYSON. Well, I can't answer your question unless you are going
to yield to me.
Mr. CULBERSON. That is why I am asking a question. I am asking you,
did you ever release the terms of a settlement agreement you were
negotiating before it was final?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas controls the time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Yes. And I am asking a question.
I was an attorney myself. I defended businesses in civil litigation,
and any settlement agreement that we worked on was done confidentially.
And I would ask Mr. Grayson, did you ever disclose a confidential
settlement negotiation publicly when you were negotiating on behalf of
your client?
Mr. GRAYSON. Is the gentleman yielding the balance of his time to me?
Mr. CULBERSON. No, I am not yielding the balance of my time. I am
just asking a question.
I am quite confident Mr. Grayson always kept those negotiations
secret. That is all that is being kept secret here. And it is actually
not secret because Members of Congress can go read the text of the
trade agreement that is being negotiated. And if any of us have any
sort of an objection, that is a good time to raise it, to tell the
Trade Representative that we think this or that provision is going to
either be in violation of Federal law or cause a problem for American
industry and we think you ought to drop it.
So you have actually got an opportunity to have your 2 cents' worth
heard during the course of the negotiation. So I would urge Members to
oppose Mr. Grayson's amendment for the same reason that Mr. Grayson
always kept his settlement negotiations confidential on behalf of his
clients.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 15 seconds
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for another minute
beyond my 15 seconds.
Mr. CULBERSON. I object. We are limited to 5 minutes and it is 12:30
at night.
The Acting CHAIR. There is an objection. The gentleman has 15
seconds.
Mr. GRAYSON. First of all, I represent the American public here, not
the American private. When I was an attorney, I represented private
interest, just as you did. Now I represent the public. The reason we
refer to the American public as the public is because the public's
business needs to be public. That means no secret negotiations, no
secret acts, no secret agreements, nothing but the public interest in
public.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Grayson's answer confirms
that he did not ever disclose a negotiated settlement before it was
final, and that is just common sense. And here, under trade promotion
authority, the trade agreement, as it is being negotiated, needs to be
kept confidential. But any Member of Congress can go in and see it and
have our voices heard, object, suggest changes to it, as it is being
negotiated. And then once it is finalized the text must be made
available to the public 90 days before the President signs the
agreement, and then either House of Congress can void the agreement by
a majority vote. We are going to have this debate, and I urge Members
to oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. 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. Rohrabacher
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of
the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and
Wisconsin, or with respect to either the District of Columbia
or Guam, to prevent any of them from implementing their own
laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or
cultivation of medical marijuana.
Mr. ROHRABACHER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
{time} 0040
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Today, I ask my colleagues to make a practical as well as a
principled vote. My amendment would prohibit any Federal funds from
being used to supersede State law in those States that have legalized
the use of medical marijuana.
Let's be clear. The intent of this amendment is to make it illegal
for Federal employees to engage in efforts to enforce Federal law that
makes the medical use or distribution of medical marijuana illegal in
States where the use of marijuana for medical purposes has been made
legal.
The practical aspect of this vote is based on the realization that,
at a time of severely limited resources, it makes sense to target
terrorists, criminals, and other threats to the American people rather
than use Federal law enforcement resources to prevent suffering and
sick people from using a weed that may or may not alleviate their
suffering.
There are many examples--yes, anecdotal--in which the use of
marijuana has helped end severe suffering.
Trying to prevent this use of marijuana once it has been legalized by
a State government is a travesty, an inexcusable waste of our limited
resources. That is the practical reason to vote for my amendment.
As for the principle, we Republicans claim to base our decisions on
individual freedom, on states' rights as mandated by the 10th Amendment
to the Constitution, and especially on the doctor-patient relationship.
Don't bother to use rhetoric about those principles on other issues
if you vote for the Federal Government to supersede individual rights,
states' rights, and the doctor-patient relationship when it comes to
marijuana.
[[Page H3746]]
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield myself 10 seconds.
Stop this waste of limited Federal law enforcement resources. Stop
the roughshod use of the Federal bureaucracy from busting down doors to
prevent sick people from using a substance that his or her doctor
believes might alleviate his or her pain.
Vote for the Rohrabacher amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
First of all, I hear constantly of this idea about individual rights,
about the 10th Amendment, et cetera. This was all settled back in 2005
in the Supreme Court with Gonzales v. Raich, which was a 6-3 victory in
favor of the government's having preemptive rights when it comes to the
drug laws, the CSA. That has been settled. We can claim this over and
over again, but bring it back to the Court and see if you can change
that.
Now, how is this affecting us in real life? It is now legal in
Colorado, but Nebraska and Oklahoma are now suing Colorado. Why? It is
because of all of the problems that are developing across the State
borders--again, interstate commerce, a big problem.
Let's talk about the huge problem that marijuana represents. First of
all, it has no accepted medical use.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FLEMING. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
There are synthetic marijuana equivalents that are useful--yes,
indeed--but the drug itself, which is the smokeable part of it, is not
safe and has not been accepted.
Here is the thing. It is known to have brain development alterations;
schizophrenia and other forms of mental illness, psychosis; heart
complications; and an increased risk of stroke.
A study recently found that even casual users experience severe brain
abnormalities found on MRIs and that pot smoking leads to the loss of
ambition; to lower IQs; and that it impairs attention, judgment,
memory, and many other things.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, Congress needs to represent the States that
they were elected in. It is time that we represent them here in the
United States Congress to allow medical marijuana laws in those States
that have been approved by the voters and approved by their
legislatures--39 States, the District of Columbia, and Guam. That is 41
total, the majority of the American population. It is a states' rights
issue.
Support this amendment.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 2\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the supporters of this amendment claim
that this is a states' rights issue. However, it is not that simple,
not hardly. Drug manufacture and use is inherently an interstate
problem.
For example, we need look no further than at one of the two States
where marijuana has been legalized. The Colorado Department of Revenue
has reported that 45 percent of marijuana sales in the State were to
out-of-State ID holders.
Indeed, earlier this year, Colorado Governor Hickenlooper said, ``If
I could've waved a wand the day after the election, I would have
reversed the election and said, `This was a bad idea.' ''
In fact, Colorado is now being sued by Nebraska and Oklahoma, which
claim Colorado has created a ``dangerous gap'' in the control of
marijuana and that marijuana is flowing from Colorado to neighboring
States.
However, Mr. Chairman, of far greater concern to me is the increased
availability of marijuana to children, which will inevitably result
from a loosening of restrictions on this dangerous drug.
Though my colleagues may not like it, marijuana remains a schedule I
narcotic because it has a high potential for abuse and no legitimate
medical use. In fact, Mr. Chairman, statistics show that 78 percent of
the 2.4 million people who began using marijuana last year were aged 12
to 20.
There is little doubt that this drug poses a significant danger to
our children, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for his
leadership on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, of course, I rise in support of this bipartisan
amendment.
In States with medical marijuana laws, patients now face uncertainty
regarding their treatment, and small-business owners, who have invested
millions in creating jobs and revenue, have no assurances for the
future.
It is way past the time for the Justice Department to stop its
unwarranted persecution of medical marijuana and to put its resources
where they are truly needed. There is no way that Members of Congress
should tell people who live in States where these laws have been passed
that what their doctors prescribe, which could prevent pain, should not
be allowed.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the time, and I appreciate all of the work
that Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. Farr have done, and I am happy to join
with them.
Mr. Chairman, Justice Brandeis said the States are the laboratories
of democracy. That is what they are doing here. Some of the arguments
we have heard are ``Reefer Madness'' 2015. It is over. One of the
gentlemen said children are doing marijuana at age 12. That will show
you how good the laws are doing right now.
If we had more money going into heroin and not marijuana, we could
stop people from dying, and that is what we should be doing. Tell
Montel Williams, who has MS, that marijuana doesn't work. Tell cancer
patients that it doesn't help them with nausea. Tell people that it
doesn't work.
It works. It helps. It is the States.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, by the way it has been talked about by some
on the other side, to be clear, this amendment does not legalize
marijuana. It simply ensures that the Federal Government doesn't waste
its limited resources in prosecuting men and women who are acting in
compliance with State and medical marijuana laws. That is all it does.
It is very reasonable that States have enforcement priorities in this
area, and we want our Federal resources geared towards crime that we
view as more important. Have them go after the meth lab. Have them go
after the heroin ring.
{time} 0050
Colorado has had legal medical marijuana for nearly a decade. Some in
our State are for it; some are against it. It is our right as a State
to determine that. That is why I support this amendment.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Nevada
(Ms. Titus).
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about standing up for
states' rights and protecting businesses, doctors, and patients who are
acting legally under the medical marijuana laws of some 41 States and
territories, including Nevada. Congress needs to catch up with State
legislatures, and the Federal Government needs to stop wasting money
busting good citizens who are trying to do the right thing.
Mr. FLEMING. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chair, who has the right to close?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has the right to
close.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is correct. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLEMING. May I inquire how much time I have remaining?
[[Page H3747]]
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 2 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 15 seconds remaining.
Mr. FLEMING. Let me say, first of all, this whole idea of medical
marijuana is a big joke. It is an end run around the laws. There are
more pot shops in California than there are Starbucks or McDonald's;
okay?
Now, is it really a medical treatment? Well, the AMA says no. The
American Society of Addiction Medicine says no. Even the American
Glaucoma Society, which is of course in charge of glaucoma treatment,
says that this is not a medical treatment for glaucoma. So there is no
single approved use of marijuana for medical diseases.
The whole idea about medical marijuana is to get around the laws on
legalization or illegalization of marijuana. But make no mistake about
it, the most common addiction diagnosis for young people admitted to
drug treatment centers is addiction to marijuana. The rate is 9 percent
addiction rate in adults; it is 17 percent in young people.
We all know the studies show very clearly that the States that are
more permissive have higher addiction and abuse rates than any others.
We also know that NIDA tells us that it is a developmental disease.
What does that mean? It means the younger a child is exposed to it, the
more likely that child will later become an addict to something else,
like methamphetamine, prescription drugs, heroin. So if you support
this, which is really the legalization of marijuana, then you are
really supporting allowing our children to be harmed and addicted to
this terrible drug.
Now, I am all in favor of research, and we are in discussions with
DEA about allowing it in some way, whether we go to a 1a category to
allow such research. Some suggest that it may have some benefit for
seizures. That is yet to be seen. Some suggest that it may be
beneficial to those who have spastic muscle disease, but there is
absolutely no proof of that.
So with that, I urge everyone to oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the doctor's remarks, the
truth is that almost no research has been put into marijuana in terms
of its medical efficacy. You have epilepsy and a whole host.
Mr. FLEMING. Will the gentleman yield on that?
Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. FLEMING. Okay. I am not going to dominate the gentleman's time.
This has been under study for over 40 years. My university, the
University of Mississippi, has been legally growing pot for over 40
years and studying it, so it has been studied.
Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, I know a little bit about this
subject. The bottom line is that in terms of its medical viability, in
terms of epilepsy and a lot of other issues, there is some need for a
real study of this, not just about the way that we have proceeded so
far. I think that this amendment and what is happening in the States
should be allowed to go forward.
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) for an opportunity to close on this subject. At that point
then I would yield back the remainder of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman may not yield blocks of time and must
remain on his feet.
Mr. FATTAH. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Rohrabacher.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman may not yield blocks of time.
Mr. FATTAH. I yield such time as he may consume, as long as he
doesn't go over 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I appreciate that from my colleague.
Look, our Founding Fathers didn't want criminal justice to be handled
by the Federal Government. I don't know what government you want to
have in our country, but most of us here don't believe that the Federal
Government--neither did our Founding Fathers--is an all-wise system,
that the Federal Government is the only government that has wisdom to
make the decisions for the families.
This is absolutely absurd to think that the Federal Government is
going to mandate all of these things even though the people of the
States and other doctors, many other doctors, would like to have the
right to prescribe to their patients what they think is going to
alleviate their suffering. No, we should not get in the way. As I said
in the first debate, it is sinful for us to try to get in the way
between a doctor and his patient, saying, Oh, no, the Federal
Government knows better.
This is a states' rights issue. This is the issue of what our
Founding Fathers had in mind for this country, where the decisions
would be made like this. They didn't want the Federal Government to
have a police force that can bust in people's doors. No. They wanted to
have individual freedom, personal choice. They want parents to take
care of their kids. They didn't want an all-controlling nanny State to
control our lives. That is what this country was supposed to be all
about. I thought that is what Republicans were supposed to be all
about, and I hope my Republican colleagues will start reexamining
whether or not they believe in the fundamental principles of limited
government and individual freedom that we have always talked about.
So I would ask my colleagues to join me, reaffirm what our Founding
Fathers had in mind, which is freedom, states' rights, limited
government, and people making choices about their own lives and being
responsible for their families and not shoving that off on the Federal
Government.
Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming the balance of my time, I think I hear that
echo again about the right to be left alone.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just say this. I just wish you would have
talked to the very doctors and people I know that have been suffering,
and they have gone to their doctor and asked for help, and the doctors
have said, ``Yes, medical marijuana will help you''--to believe that
the Federal Government can stop that.
I have met people whose suffering has been alleviated. Some veterans
I know have gone through seizure after seizure, and they were only
helped by medical marijuana. If we have a heart, if we have our
beliefs, let's make sure that we stand for freedom in this vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson
Mr. GRAYSON. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be
used to compel a person to testify about information or
sources that the person states in a motion to quash the
subpoena that he has obtained as a journalist or reporter and
that he regards as confidential.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has nothing to do with
medical marijuana. It was passed last year by a vote of this body of
225-183; in other words, it passed by a majority of 42 votes.
{time} 0100
The purpose of this amendment is to raise the possibility of a
Federal shield law that corresponds to protections already in place in
49 States but not at the level of the Federal Government.
Again, to be clear about this, 49 States have a Federal shield law.
The Federal Government does not--at least up to this point.
[[Page H3748]]
A shield law is designed to protect a reporter's privilege: the right
of news reporters to refuse to testify on information and sources of
information obtained during the news gathering and dissemination
process. In short, a reporter should not be forced to reveal his or her
sources under penalty of imprisonment.
This issue has come up in court cases at the Federal level and the
Supreme Court level, beginning with the 1972 case of Branzburg v.
Hayes. In that case, a reporter wished to inform his readers about the
nature of the drug hashish, and he realized that the only way to go
about that was to actually find and interview people who had actually
used the drug hashish, so he did that.
After he published his article, relying upon two confidential
sources, he was subpoenaed by the police to provide his sources so that
they could be arrested, compromising their identity and compromising
his journalistic integrity. So he was forced to choose whether he would
conceal his sources and go to prison or he would reveal his sources and
have them go to prison, simply because he wanted to inform the public
about this matter of concern.
Some of us may remember the case of Valerie Plame, who was publicly
identified as a covert operative. Reporters were continually asked to
name the sources used in their reporting, and one reporter was jailed
for 85 days for refusing to disclose sources in that government probe.
At this point, under current law, journalists are in a quandary--an
unnecessary and unhealthy quandary. They realize that they need to
protect their sources, but that right is codified only at the State
level and not yet at the Federal level.
So what I am seeking to do, as I did last year with the assistance of
this House, is to offer the journalists the protection they should have
in order to do their jobs properly.
Freedom of the press is not just an important principle, but it is
part of the foundation of American law. The Constitution and the First
Amendment provide for freedom of speech and of the press. It is
completely incongruous to say that we have freedom of the press, but
the Federal Government could nevertheless subpoena sources and put
reporters in prison if they don't comply.
I think that we should have settled this issue years if not decades
ago. We did settle it last year successfully in this body, but we are
here today to try to address it once more.
Respectfully, I submit this amendment as a much-needed and long
delayed clarification that the Federal Government treats the issue of
freedom of the press just as respectfully and just as importantly as
the great majority of our States do--49 out of 50.
I ask for support of this amendment from my esteemed colleague, the
gentleman from the Seventh District of Texas, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is
drafted far too broadly. And I would point out that in a grand jury
proceeding--those that occur in the District of Columbia, for example,
are done under the auspices of the Department of Justice, and that is a
Federal grand jury proceeding. A journalist would not have the
privilege of protecting the confidentiality of his sources because in a
grand jury everything that is discussed is absolutely confidential.
I also, frankly, think it is astonishing that under Mr. Grayson's
amendment a journalist has the ability to self-certify what is
confidential and what is not. I certainly agree with the principle of a
strong and free press, but Mr. Grayson's amendment is written far too
broadly and, frankly, would not provide protection to a journalist in a
grand jury setting. I think he has neglected that problem.
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chair of
the Judiciary Committee, to also speak in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for
joining me in opposition to this amendment.
Shield laws for reporters are not a bad concept at all, but this is
hardly the way to go about doing it. No State has a law like this
language here, where it is so vague that virtually anyone in the United
States claiming to be a journalist or reporter--and, by the way,
nowadays, when lots of people maintain blogs or posts on the Internet,
they could easily claim to be a journalist or reporter--would be
covered by this.
So no one intends to have that broad an exception that would allow
anyone to evade the requirements that they respond to a legitimate
subpoena for investigation by law enforcement, a violation of the law.
This is far too broad. It is something that clearly should be handled
by the authorizing committee, the Judiciary Committee, which worked on
this for a long period of time and has struggled with that very
definition of journalist or reporter that the gentleman from Florida
simply glosses over in this.
And then, to give further exception to simply say that that
individual who first claims they are a journalist or reporter and then
says, Oh, yeah, that is confidential, that would breed criminal
misconduct because criminals would be before the court claiming that
they were reporters and that they regarded their information as
confidential and, therefore, do not have to respond to a subpoena.
This is a very harmful, very bad way to go about providing protection
to legitimate journalists and reporters and should be defeated. I urge
my colleagues to join me in voting against it.
Mr. GRAYSON. This is the same parade of horribles that we heard last
year before this body voted in favor of the Grayson amendment. It is
almost the same, word for word.
Last year, we heard that this somehow would allow people to self-
certify. Well, in fact, anybody who self-certifies falsely in front of
a grand jury is looking at a lot more than 83 days in jail. They are
looking at 5 years in Federal prison. They would be prosecuted for
perjury if they claimed to be a journalist and weren't actually a
journalist--a fact that I pointed out last year before this amendment
was actually passed.
I also want to point out that there is no distinction between a grand
jury and an actual jury for this purpose. Forty-nine States all agree
that there is no distinction whatsoever. So it is simply false to say
that this doesn't apply to grand jury proceedings. It certainly would
apply and does apply to all grand jury proceedings at the State level.
And there is nothing vague about this provision at all. In fact, the
wording that has been referred to here, that the information has been
attained as a journalist or reporter, is exactly the same wording that
was in the Grayson amendment last year that passed with a margin of 42
votes.
So none of these old attacks, these unsuccessful attacks, are
anything new and deserve any more credence than they received from a
majority of this body last year.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, with that, I would urge Members to
oppose the amendment and urge Members to vote ``no'', and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. 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. McClintock
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that I
offer with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of
the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,
[[Page H3749]]
Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent any of them
from implementing their own laws that authorize the use,
distribution, possession, or cultivation of marijuana on non-
Federal lands within their respective jurisdictions.
Mr. McCLINTOCK (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not an endorsement of marijuana. I
have never used it. My wife and I raised our children never to use it.
And I believe that local schools ought to assure that every American is
aware of the risks and dangers that it may pose.
This amendment addresses a much larger question: whether the Federal
Government has the constitutional authority to dictate a policy to
States on matters that occur strictly within their own borders. I
believe that it does not. But even if it does, I believe that it should
not.
In 1932, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis described the beauty of
the 10th Amendment this way. He said: ``A State may, if its citizens
choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic
experiments without risk to the rest of the country.''
{time} 0110
That is exactly what States like Colorado and Oregon have done with
legalization and what many more have done with aspects of it. They
believe that the harm that might be done by easier access to this drug
is outweighed by removing the violent underground economy that is
caused by prohibition.
I don't know if they are right or wrong, but I would like to find
out, and their experiment will inform the rest of the country.
Now, the Federal Government has a legitimate authority to protect
neighboring States by forbidding transport across State lines, which
this amendment protects; but, at the same time, it protects the right
of a State's citizens to make this decision within their own
boundaries.
It is not necessary to become embroiled in the debate over marijuana.
These States are having that debate and establishing their laws.
The question is over the right of their people to have these debates,
to make these decisions, and for the rest of the Nation to observe and
benefit from the outcome for good or ill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana
for 5 minutes.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
My friend Mr. McClintock makes the point that this should be an
experiment within the States, and certainly, that is something that has
been a long-held goal and value, but we already have that ongoing.
Today, Colorado, as everyone knows, has legalization of marijuana,
notwithstanding what is going on with the Federal Government and its
laws, and the information is rolling in, and the information is bad.
The black market is worse than ever when it comes to drugs. Interstate
commerce has increased, not decreased.
Again, as I stated before, two States, Oklahoma and Nebraska, are now
suing Colorado over the bleedover of problems that are occurring. The
strength of marijuana is much stronger today in Colorado than it has
ever been. The problems are much worse. We are actually seeing related
deaths, accidents; and we have even had an overdose death now with the
stronger forms of marijuana.
Look, if this is about allowing doctors to work with their patients,
let's admit it. We don't allow, as a society, doctors to just do
anything with any patient. We do have some guidelines and restrictions.
Furthermore, children are the end result of bad decisions in all
this. We know that the more it is in the homes, the more it is going to
get into the brains and bloodstream of children.
Again, I will mention the number of problems that are developing from
it are growing, mostly from what we are seeing in Colorado. Studies
show that MRI scans show, even in casual users, profound brain changes.
We see that the area that deals with ambition is being greatly
affected, thus, the ambition killer sort of knowledge that we have and
understand about this drug.
IQ, studies show a lowering of IQ.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FLEMING. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), the cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from California for bringing forward
this amendment.
I say to my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, I am actually from
Colorado, and I don't recognize the Colorado that you are talking
about.
I come from the Colorado where underage marijuana use is down since
legalization. I am from the Colorado where we have driven criminal
cartels that seek to prey on our children every day out of business.
I am from the Colorado where our violent crime rates are down and
where we continue to regulate dispensaries to make sure they are not
schools; rather than have a corner street dealer who doesn't care if
they are selling to a 14-year-old, we moved that away and regulated it
in a way to make sure that minors don't have access to marijuana. That
is the Colorado that I am from. I welcome you to come visit. I welcome
you to visit.
You know what, I don't have to convince you. I don't have to convince
the State of Louisiana that they should do anything. I just wish that
you would leave my sovereign State of Colorado alone.
Let our people and our State government decide what we want to do
with regard to marijuana, rather than the Federal agents going around
trying to arrest people for doing activities that are fully legal under
State law. That is all I ask.
I am not going to send Federal troops into Louisiana to arrest people
from whatever you do down there, smoking crayfish. You want me to ban
that and send Federal troops down there? I bet maybe smoking crayfish
ain't good for you. I don't know. What if it is fried? It might clog
your arteries, huh? I bet that is not good for you.
You want me to send Federal troops down there? Is that what you want?
Do you want me to send Federal troops to Louisiana to stop you from
eating fried crayfish?
Mr. FLEMING. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POLIS. Yeah, I would like your answer. Yes or no?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
All Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the gentleman
from Louisiana if he wants us to send Federal troops to Louisiana to
stop them from eating fried crayfish. I am happy to yield for an
answer.
Mr. FLEMING. If the gentleman is yielding to me, I would point out
that the Colorado he describes does not exist.
Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, I am from Colorado. I know Colorado
inside and out, and we have been tremendously successful in reducing
the abuse of marijuana among minors.
Again, it shouldn't be up to us to convince him, just as I don't have
to eat their darn fried crayfish--I don't want it. I don't want it. Get
the Federal law enforcement apparatus to leave our State alone.
That is all this amendment does, is respect the sovereign will of the
people of my great State of Colorado to have innovative policies to
reduce the abuse of marijuana.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 3 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from California has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
[[Page H3750]]
Mr. FLEMING. I yield myself another minute.
What we are finding out from Colorado, we are learning a lot of
lessons. One is the way that marijuana is now getting into baked goods,
gummy bears. There is a huge spike in emergency room visits, children
who are overdosing on marijuana.
Know that if you look, if you actually read what the media says and
what the studies show is there are increasing problems in Colorado, not
decreasing problems.
Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLEMING. I'm sorry, but I can't yield.
Mr. POLIS. The gentleman is inaccurate with regard to his
characterization of my State.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend. It is the gentleman
from Louisiana's time.
Mr. POLIS. Parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Louisiana yield for a
parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. FLEMING. I do not yield.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman does not yield. The time is
controlled by the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. FLEMING. Back to the constitutionality, we may all have different
opinions about this, but it has been settled.
The Supreme Court in 2005, Gonzales v. Raich, 6-3, said that the
Federal Government does have a right to enforce drug policies and for
good reason because we know that drugs cross State lines. It is an
interstate commerce issue. What happens in one State affects the other
States.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. FLEMING. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the arguments we are hearing from Mr.
Fleming are the arguments that ought to be heard in the States. I would
remind him this measure does not affect marijuana laws involving any
conceivable Federal jurisdiction.
It does not affect Federal districts or territories. It does not
affect Federal jurisdiction over interstate commerce, including the
Federal Government's responsibility to interdict transport among
States.
It does not affect the Federal jurisdiction over Federal land. It
does not affect Federal jurisdiction over the importation of marijuana
from abroad. It only affects jurisdiction that is strictly and solely
the rightful province of the States as pertains to their affairs
strictly and solely within their own borders.
At some point, Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves: Do we believe in
the 10th Amendment or do we not? Do we believe in federalism or do we
not? Do we believe in the architecture of our Constitution or do we
not? Do we believe in freedom or do we not?
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. FLEMING. And who has the right to close?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has the only time
remaining. The gentleman from California yielded back the balance of
his time.
Mr. FLEMING. Again, my good friend from California would suggest
that, really, Federal laws have no application, that we should just
turn all laws and law enforcement over to the States. That simply isn't
the case.
Again, yes, the Federal Government does have jurisdiction. It is
called the CSA, the Controlled Substances Act, and it has been around
for a long time, and it is enforced by the DEA and many other agencies.
I would just say that the gentleman is just flat wrong on that and that
the Supreme Court came down on my side.
Again, we can have different opinions, but that is where we are
today. I would suggest that perhaps we get the Supreme Court to rule
differently if we believe differently.
{time} 0120
But again, what is important to me is not the law. What is important
to me is what is happening to the children of our Nation, especially
Colorado: overdosages, brain changes, loss of IQ, memory loss, and
cognitive impairment.
Marijuana smoke has four times the tar of cigarette smoke. Who really
believes that we are not going to see an epidemic down the road of lung
cancer related to marijuana?
As far as use for medical purposes, again, we don't have a single
approved specific use of marijuana for medical purposes. And for
heaven's sakes, we know that up to 17 percent of people who use it
become addicted to it. So the first rule for us as physicians--and I
have been a doctor for 40 years--is first do no harm. Well, we are
doing a lot of harm with marijuana by legalizing it and liberalizing
its use.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Perry
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to take any action to prevent a State from
implementing any law that makes it lawful to possess,
distribute, or use cannabidiol or cannabidiol oil.
Mr. PERRY (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to
dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to talk about what this amendment is
not, as much as to talk about what it is. This amendment in no way
federally legalizes marijuana. It does not allow for the recreational
use of marijuana, and I maintain that I am still opposed to the
recreational use of marijuana. What it does is it simply prevents the
Federal Government from interfering in States that have legalized CBD
and CBD oil.
CBD--cannabidiol is how you pronounce it--is an extract from hemp.
CBD oil has been known to reduce the amount or duration of seizures in
those suffering from epilepsy or other seizure disorders. CBD oil
contains no THC, the active psychotropic ingredient that makes people
high. It contains none.
Numerous families in my district have children with epilepsy, and
they are out of options. They have tried all the FDA-approved drugs,
and they sit and they watch their children fade away. And that is their
option. They can either do that, they can break the law, or they can
move somewhere where they can get CBD. Some have had to move to States
where it is legal. They have had to split their families apart to care
for their children.
Mr. Chairman, 17 States--most recently, Texas, where the good
chairman resides--have legalized CBD. These States have made the choice
to help children with epilepsy and seizure disorders. Parents who want
to treat their children should not be hindered by Federal prohibition.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold), my good friend.
Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, last week I had an opportunity to sit down with Sophie
Weiss, an inspiring young girl from Illinois. In many ways she is a
very normal girl who enjoys spending her days playing with her sisters,
but she also suffers from a severe form of epilepsy
[[Page H3751]]
that does not allow her to respond to the traditional medication.
Because of this, she suffers through upwards of 200 seizures each and
every day. Mr. Chairman, she can't read. She is 9 years old. Her 6-
year-old sister reads to her. She can't do this because she blacks out
and she seizes hundreds of times each and every day.
Unfortunately, Sophie's story is not unique, and there are girls just
like Sophie in every State and every district across our country.
Mr. Chairman, we have already found lifesaving seizure relief for
some families. In Illinois, CBD oil is legal and has shown to
drastically reduce the frequency of seizures. But because of antiquated
laws and Federal bureaucracy, this relief is unavailable to many.
Over and over again, the Federal Government has stood in the way of
access to lifesaving care for these children. Why would we allow even
one child, Mr. Chairman, to suffer while waiting for other options to
be approved? If this natural therapy can help even one family, ensuring
access to it is a must.
Mr. Chairman, I came to Washington to fight for commonsense,
bipartisan reform that will improve the day-to-day lives of the people
that I represent, and that is exactly what this amendment does. Quite
simply, it ensures that States that already have legalized CBD oil can
do so without Federal interference.
Helping these families is a reform that we should all be able to get
behind. Regardless of political party, we can agree that the
government's role is not to prevent families from getting access to
lifesaving treatment.
Mr. Chairman, as a father looking at these children who suffer from
thousands of seizures, who literally can't live their lives normally,
is something that we can and must change. This amendment offers hope to
thousands of individuals and their families, and I urge my colleagues
to help children like Sophie in their districts by adopting this
commonsense amendment.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, some of the things that have been said about this are
quite true. First of all, it is pronounced--I can't even say it myself.
We will say CBD oil for short.
It is not psychoactive, although it is an extract from the plant of
marijuana. There have been anecdotal reports that it reduces seizures
in kids who have severe seizure disorders, so-called Charlotte's Web.
It is actually on fast-track evaluation by the FDA both for safety and
for effectiveness. Actually, the early reports are disappointing.
Despite the anecdotal reports, they are not finding, thus far, the
benefits that have been promised. Also, they are finding, in some
cases, pretty severe side effects.
One of the things that hasn't been discussed on this issue is, just
as we don't allow people or encourage people, at least, to eat mold in
order to get penicillin as an antibiotic for disease, it doesn't make
any sense to give a raw plant as a medication. What we do in health
care by using the scientific method is to extract the component, make
sure we have a precise measurement, fully study it for safety and for
efficaciousness, and then we prescribe it under the direction of a
physician.
The CBD oil right now is not being produced. It is not in a pill or
injectable form or even in a liquid form. It is sort of grown on the
side, and people are sort of experimenting with it to see whether it
works.
What I would say to my colleagues is let's let this thing play out.
Let the FDA finish its fast-track evaluation. If they find it to be
efficacious and safe, let them put it in the proper measurement form.
Let's make sure we know what all the side effects are. As far as I am
concerned, we would make it a nonscheduled drug.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1 minute
remaining. The gentleman from Louisiana has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by my colleague from Pennsylvania.
Again, I think this is a similar thrust to the previous debate, so I
won't prolong it. But we need to be exploring relief for families in
which no other relief is available and for individuals in which no
other relief is available. This provides an opportunity for potential
relief. We should explore it.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has the right to
close.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, what my colleagues are suggesting here is
that we just pull a plant from someplace or something off the shelf and
we give it to children, something that has not been a practice in
probably 100 years.
{time} 0130
We just don't do it that way. That is why we spend millions, if not
billions, of dollars of research to be sure that what we give the
public is going to be healthy for them and safe for them.
You may recall a drug that was prescribed for pregnancy, nausea and
pregnancy, which was approved back in Europe but not approved here, and
we found out that babies were born without arms and legs as a result.
Saving children in America--why? Because we waited to be sure that not
only was it efficacious, but it was safe.
So I would say to my friends, my heart is in the same place. I want
to see treatment for children who may have severe seizure disorders. We
have it on a fast track. We may be months away.
But I don't think turning this over to parents and others who may
fiddle with it and experiment with it, in essence, making our children
guinea pigs, is the right way to go.
There are centers that are doing these studies, and certainly
children can go and talk to those doctors, get on their studies, and
get the trials. But I would again warn people that the preliminary
results are not good, and in some cases we are seeing adverse side
effects.
So I think we need to stay with the scientific method. We need to
stay with the discipline that has made us the leader in the world when
it comes to health care. We should not depart from something that has
been proven right.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), my friend.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank Mr.
Perry for his work on this.
I have a friend in my district who has been seen on TV many times
because they have to carry their child to Colorado for this treatment.
And I have had extensive discussions not only with people in Georgia
who need this treatment for their kids, but with the sheriffs of my
district as well. I certainly wouldn't support the cannabis oil and the
use of cannabis oil and those type of things if my local sheriffs were
not in favor of it.
You might be interested to know that the Georgia Sheriffs'
Association actually endorsed a piece of legislation a couple of years
ago that would allow the use of cannabis oil for these children with
seizures.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, some things have been said about the side
effects of this. These are not the same side effects as with people who
smoke marijuana. This is not smoke. This is an oil extract, usually
given with the care of a doctor. It is not some weed grown along the
road; it is actually classified in the therapeutic temp category
because the plant has very scientific properties.
I understand and I respect the gentleman from Louisiana very much.
When he says that he is concerned
[[Page H3752]]
about the side effects for these children, understand children are in
hospice, they are looking at their final days, their parents are
looking at their final days. They take the oil extract and they start
on the road to recovery. The side effect is the choice of death or
life.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Perry
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. _. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement the United States Global Climate
Research Program's National Climate Assessment, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment
Report, the United Nation's Agenda 21 sustainable development
plan, or the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of
Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order
12866.
Mr. PERRY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prevents funds from being
used for the implementation of the United States Global Climate
Research Program's National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation's
Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the May 2013 Technical
Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis
under Executive Order 12866.
Mr. Chairman, this administration and others before it have taken
unilateral actions that push a climate change agenda that hinders our
own domestic business and industry.
Programs such as the United States Global Climate Research Program's
National Climate Assessment and Agenda 21 drive burdensome regulations
on unsound science, such as the new ozone rules set to take effect this
October, the waters of the United States, and regulations on coal-fired
power plants.
I wonder why do we want to fund programs, panels, and treaties that
create propaganda, propaganda that looks to drive industry out of this
country.
With that, I urge passage of this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although
I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to object, but I am in
opposition to the amendment. So as long as the chairman will yield me
half of the time, I think we are fine.
Mr. CULBERSON. Of course.
Mr. FATTAH. Go right ahead.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I do want to express my support for the
gentleman's amendment. I think it is very important that we restrict
this or any other President's ability to enter into agreements that
would interfere with our rights as Americans, would interfere with the
laws as enacted by Congress. And that is the intent of your amendment,
to ensure that the laws enacted by Congress or by the legislatures of
the several States reign supreme and no President can enter into any
kind of an agreement. We are not going to subject ourselves to the law
of the U.N. or any of these other agreements in here. So I strongly
support the gentleman's agreement.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Fattah).
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. And just as strongly
as the chairman supports it, I oppose it. Even though I supported your
last amendment, this one is headed in the wrong direction.
We have a need to deal with the challenges around our stewardship of
the planet Earth and the questions around climate and working with our
international neighbors.
I want to commend the administration for getting an agreement with
China around some of these issues. It is necessary for our children and
our grandchildren and great-grandchildren that we act as proper
stewards. It is our obligation, at least in most of our religious
teachings, that we have a responsibility to be good stewards.
So we can't ignore even for the point of profits. You mentioned how
this might interfere with business interests. It is beyond the question
of business interests. We need clean water, clean air, we need a
climate that is capable of human habitation, at least until we can have
Europa as a second exit opportunity. This is the only planet for human
beings that we know of and we, therefore, have a responsibility.
And the President under our Constitution is the carrier of our
international activities in terms of the conduct of foreign policy, not
this President or some other President, but the President of the United
States has that burden and that responsibility under our Constitution.
So I would hope that the House would vote this down. I know we won't.
But I also know that there will be another day in which this
legislation will have to be considered in a format in which it won't be
just the House majority making these decisions.
And thank God for that, because even the House majority could be
wrong every once in a while, as proven by this amendment.
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect the thoughts of my good
colleague and good friend from Pennsylvania. I also want to remind him
that we went through this last session. This very same amendment passed
by vote. And while we do absolutely have the requirement and
responsibility for the stewardship of the planet, I just want to remind
everybody here, in case you don't know, we have these new ozone rules
coming out, set to come out, or be codified in October. Yet from this
administration's EPA, ozone levels have plummeted 33 percent since
1980. That is reported from the current administration's EPA. Let me
just repeat that: ozone levels have plummeted 33 percent since 1980
because of the good work we have done. Yet in a downturn economy where
the economy is actually contracted in the first quarter, we seek to
force more unnecessary rules that are unvetted by this Congress, this
people's House, on the businesses of America and also things like
United Nations Agenda 21.
{time} 0140
I just feel like those rules and those regulations should come at the
vetting of this body instead of by the United Nations. What is good for
America should be handled by Americans.
I thank the chairman for his support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Department of Justice to enforce the Fair
Housing Act in a manner that relies upon an allegation of
liability under section 100.500 of title 24, Code of Federal
Regulations.
Mr. GARRETT (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
[[Page H3753]]
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from New Jersey and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.
I rise today to offer an amendment that stops the Justice Department
from using one of the most dangerous and illogical theories of all
time, the theory of disparate impact.
In short, disparate impact allows the government to allege
discrimination on the basis of race or other factors based solely on
statistical analyses that find disproportionate results among different
groups of people.
In recent years, the Justice Department has increasingly used this
dubious theory in lawsuits against mortgage lenders, insurers, and
landlords and has forced these companies to pay multimillion-dollar
settlements.
What is wrong with that, one might ask? Under disparate impact, one
could never have intentionally discriminated in any way and even have
strong antidiscriminatory policies in place and still be found to have
discriminated.
For example, if mortgage lenders use a completely objective standard
to assess credit risk, such as the debt-to-income ratio, they can still
be found to have discriminated if the data show different loan approval
rates for different groups of consumers.
To be clear, I have zero tolerance for discrimination in any form;
and, if there is intentional discrimination, we must prosecute to the
fullest extent of the law. The Justice Department's use of disparate
impact, however, tries to fight one injustice with another.
On a more practical level, disparate impact will make it difficult,
if not impossible, for lenders to make rational economic decisions
about risk. Lenders will feel pressured to weaken their standards to
keep their lending statistics in line with whatever the Justice
Department's bureaucrats consider nondiscriminatory.
We have seen the damage risky lending can do to our economy. It is
truly reckless for our government now to be encouraging those dangerous
and shortsighted practices. Ironically, disparate impact forces
lenders, insurers, and landlords to constantly take race, ethnicity,
gender, and other factors into account or risk running afoul of the
Justice Department.
Mr. Chairman, even an accusation of discrimination could have a
devastating impact on a small business. Therefore, on balance,
disparate impact will make it more difficult and expensive for families
to buy a home, and it will result in more discrimination, not less.
For these reasons, both philosophical and practical, I ask my
colleagues to reject this misguided theory by supporting this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, this is obviously an important signal from
the majority to Americans of color, whether they be Asian Americans,
African Americans, Hispanic Americans, or Native Americans, that the
one thing that they don't want is to enforce the fair housing laws and
that they don't want to have a circumstance in which, even though the
impact of a set of policies means that you are excluded, that somehow
there should not be any redress for that.
We went through this debate last year. I am going to ask for a
recorded vote on this as I think it is an important indication of the
nature of inclusiveness that is being offered to America by the House
majority.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I think it is an indication of something. It is an indication of
whether this House is more concerned about actually filing true
intentional discrimination or is just creating fear in this area by
saying that we are going after discrimination based upon disparate
impact.
It is about whether this House is more concerned about making things
easier for all races, for all ethnicities, for all ethnic groups to be
able to buy homes and to live and prosper and enjoy a new home or make
it more difficult to be able to buy that first home.
Allowing the Justice Department to use disparate impact will do just
that. It will make it more difficult for those individuals who now find
it difficult to buy a home because lenders will not be able to use the
proper risk analysis to make those decisions and, therefore, will be
less likely to make those loans.
For those reasons and for the other philosophical and practical
reasons I have already stated, I encourage my colleagues to support
this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, the gentleman said for practical and other
philosophical reasons.
I guess, if you looked at Major League Baseball and if you didn't see
anybody of color, you could assume that there was a disparate impact
until Jackie Robinson showed up, but American baseball is a lot better,
and I think that our country is a lot stronger because of the diversity
that exists.
I think the fair housing laws have played an important role in at
least the idea that we think that you shouldn't have a circumstance in
which, no matter what the set of policies, if you are a different color
or ethnic background, you shouldn't apply.
I think it is something that we have rejected as a nation. I hope we
reject this amendment, and I will seek a recorded vote on it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Marino
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the Department of Justice's clemency initiative
announced on April 23, 2014, or for Clemency Project 2014, or
to transfer or temporarily assign employees to the Office of
the Pardon Attorney for the purpose of screening clemency
applications.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds from this bill
from being used to transfer or detail employees to the Office of the
Pardon Attorney to support the administration's so-called clemency
project.
The President possesses the constitutional authority ``to grant
reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.''
However, in the first 5 years of his administration, President Obama
granted fewer pardons and commutations than any of his recent
predecessors.
Last year, the Deputy Attorney General took the unprecedented step of
asking the defense bar for assistance in recruiting candidates for
executive clemency, specifically for Federal drug offenders. The
Justice Department intends to beef up its Office of the Pardon Attorney
to process applications for commutations of sentence for Federal drug
offenders.
The Justice Department is also accepting pro bono legal work from the
ACLU and other defense attorney organizations for this initiative. This
amendment would prohibit that.
The Constitution gives the President the pardon power, but the fact
that the President has chosen to use that power solely on behalf of
drug offenders shows that this is little more than a political ploy by
the administration to bypass Congress.
This is not, as the Founders intended, an exercise of the power to
provide for ``exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt,'' but the use
of the pardon
[[Page H3754]]
power to benefit an entire class of offenders duly convicted in a court
of law.
{time} 0150
It is also just the latest example of the executive overreach by this
administration, and I urge support of my amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. I seek time in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. The executive branch, the President of the United States,
has the responsibility to review applications for pardons and clemency,
and this would interfere with the executive branch's responsibility in
that regard. I think that it would also hamper our ability to move this
bill to a position of final passage and signature by the President. I
am opposed to it.
I am glad the gentleman from Pennsylvania was able to have an
opportunity to offer it and air his point of view, but I think when we
have a President perhaps of a different party, there will be less
enthusiasm for trying to unnecessarily interfere in the proper role of
the executive, which clemencies and pardons are in the purview of the
President; and detailing employees of the executive branch, for the
Republican Party that is for normally streamlining and making nimble
and allowing managers to set priorities and to move personnel around,
to suggest that they somehow now are against this, I assume there is
some particular reason, and it couldn't be anything other than on the
merits I am certain.
I thank the gentleman, and I would stand in opposition to the
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 3 minutes
remaining, and the other gentleman from Pennsylvania has 3\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I would share with my good friend from
Pennsylvania, no matter who is in the White House, Republican or
Democrat, my enthusiasm is always at an all-time high, particularly
when it comes to following the law.
The President does have the authority to pardon, but not to, as he
has done here, zeroed in on a specific class of individuals who broke
the law, and that is people who use drugs, sell drugs, made profits
from drugs, and were duly found guilty and sentenced. This is just a
way for this administration to bypass the drug laws that they don't
agree with.
This administration is known for that. If they don't agree with
something, they just try to bypass it, as they have done numerous times
with Congress. But, fortunately, the United States Supreme Court has
slapped this administration down numerous times because of bypassing
Congress and making decisions that are not in its authority.
So let's be realistic about this. This isn't an issue of politics,
from my perspective. I do say it is an issue of politics from the
administration's perspective.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Culberson), the chairman, if he needs the time.
Mr. CULBERSON. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to express my support for the gentleman's
amendment. I am concerned about the efforts of this White House to
repeatedly ignore the laws enacted by Congress. If we didn't have this
track record from this President who has made a deliberate effort to
evade the laws written by Congress and attempted to bypass them at
every opportunity--the President has lost a record number of cases
before the Supreme Court.
I believe, Mr. Marino, the Supreme Court has ruled against the
President unanimously on repeated occasions when the White House has
attempted to avoid a statute and refused to enforce it, and Mr. Marino
brings to the table tonight experience as a prosecutor, very valid
concerns about granting clemency to a whole category of people rather
than as in the case of a pardon, which is on an individual basis.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, we have, and it must be just inherent
for politicians, selective amnesia. We kind of remember what we want to
remember, and we forget what we want to forget.
Now, it has been uttered on the floor of the House that no President
has done some broad swath of clemencies or pardons. Well, it was
President Ford who offered and President Carter who implemented a
clemency or amnesty for hundreds of thousands of people who had evaded
the draft during the Vietnam war.
This has nothing to do with the implementation of the laws set by our
Congress. This right to the Presidency of pardons and clemency is given
in the Constitution. The point here is that it is just another effort,
this consistent drumbeat about our President.
This will not be the law at the end of the day when this bill is
passed. I oppose it, and there is no President that is going to sign
away their executive authority. It would diminish the power of the
Presidency. And perhaps for the majority if they were to gain this
Presidency again--and I am sure they will on some election--they
wouldn't want to diminish the power of the Presidency. I think it is
just ill-fated and it is focused at a particular effort at this moment,
but it does not represent a historical fact that a President has not
provided broad exemption or clemency or pardons in our past.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MARINO. How much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. MARINO. I am sure in my remarks my colleague is not referring to
any comment that I made that no other President has done something of
this nature. I came to Congress in 2011. Really, my concern is what is
happening with this administration, not past administrations. I am
dwelling on the future and the rule of law.
It is very clear what this administration is doing when it comes to
the rule of law or the lack of rule of law. Once again, this
administration does not like the drug laws. It has a very difficult
time with the criminal laws that are on the books.
I was a prosecutor for 18 years at the State level and the Federal
level. I have seen what takes place concerning drugs. I have put people
in prison for selling drugs; I have put people in prison for hurting
people who they sell drugs to; and I have taken the position where some
people did not deserve to go to prison based on several factors. But
the individuals that I sent to prison, and I think, overwhelmingly,
according to the criteria that this administration has set, they are
talking about individuals that have a sentence of 10 years or less,
that is quite a sentence to pardon, because those individuals who have
been sent to prison, in my experience, for 5 and 6 and 10 years are
major drug dealers.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill, insert:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration to enforce:
1) Amendment 40 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef
Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico published in the Federal
Register on April 22, 2015 or any other effort of the same
substance, or
2) Red Snapper Management Measures published in the Federal
Register on May 1, 2015 or any other effort of the same
substance that establishes an-4 annual catch limits or annual
catch targets for Red Snapper that would result in the
commercial fishing for Red Snapper in the federal waters of
the Gulf of Mexico lasting longer than five times the number
of days recreational fishers are allowed to catch and retain
at least two such fish each day in such federal waters.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Georgia?
[[Page H3755]]
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Georgia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chair, first I would like to thank
the Parliamentarians for helping us work with this language. I would
like to especially thank both the majority and the minority staff for
giving me the courtesy of presenting this. I know it is late, and we
certainly hoped to close by 2 a.m.
It is the third day of what has been designated as the 10-day red
snapper season for a man or woman who simply wants to take their child
fishing in the Gulf of Mexico.
{time} 0200
The commercial fishermen get to fish 365 days a year. The charter
boat anglers get to fish 45 days a year.
What this amendment does is it says that the National Fisheries
Service cannot enforce a rule that was adopted that is, quite honestly,
probably going to court. And then it says that as they go forward and
they pass the rules in the future, the recreational fishermen should
receive at least 20 percent of the number of days as the commercial
fisherman does with regard to the red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico.
That is effectively what it does. It still allows them to set the
seasons. It does have some restriction in that they just can't take
from the recreational fishermen. They have to give the recreational
not-for-hire and for-hire 20 percent of the number of calendar days
that they give the commercial fishermen to fish for red snapper in the
Gulf of Mexico.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia because I need to
ask a question about this.
You say that the commercial catch limits for fishing days are 360
days a year? And I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Yes, sir. They can fish year-round for
red snapper. It is different for different species. This is tailored
specifically to this species.
Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, we are talking red snapper, right? I
yield to the gentleman.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Yes, sir.
Mr. FATTAH. But for the recreational fisherman, taking your sons out
to fish for the day, there is a limit of 10 days?
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Yes, sir. This is the third day of the
10-day season for the Federal waters for the recreational fishermen in
the Gulf of Mexico.
Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, in spirit, I support this. I don't
know what the unintended consequences are. So I would be prepared to
accept it, as long as we can dig into it and make sure there are no
unintended circumstances.
I know this is a very parochial matter. I think you should be able to
take your kid out fishing. I don't think that profit is the only
motivator in the world. I don't know why it would be so arbitrary a cut
line.
At this point I would like to work with the chairman on this. I would
be prepared to accept it at this time. If we find some major problem
with it, we will jump up and down about it then.
Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. I completely agree, and I join my ranking member in
accepting this amendment and working with you. If there is something we
didn't spot or anticipate, we will work it out. But I think the
gentleman has got a good amendment, and I would agree, I would
recommend we would accept it.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that
as a dad, honestly, I would like to say thank you for doing this. And
certainly, if there are unintended consequences, I would look forward
to working with you to resolve those unintended consequences.
Again, as a father of a son named Wells and a daughter named Carmen
and a lovely wife named Vivien, I just want to say thank you.
Mr. FATTAH. My wife is a fly fisher. We are not doing red snapper.
But I understand the spirit of it, and we will take it at that, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Graves of Louisiana) having assumed the chair, Mr. Stivers, Acting
Chair 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. 2578) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Hudson (at the request of Mr. McCarthy) for today until 6:45 p.m.
on account of attending a funeral.
____________________