[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18964-18970]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2799, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, 
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2004

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 326 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 326

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the State of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2799) making

[[Page 18965]]

     appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: the 
     first proviso under the heading ``National Telecommunications 
     and Information Administration, Salaries and Expenses''; in 
     section 201, all after ``prescribed by the Act''; the final 
     proviso under the heading ``Federal Communications 
     Commission, Salaries and Expenses''; the final proviso under 
     the heading ``Federal Trade Commission, Salaries and 
     Expenses''; section 603; and section 607(a) and (b). Where 
     points of order are waived against part of a paragraph or 
     section, points of order against a provision in another part 
     of such paragraph or section may be made only against such 
     provision and not against the entire paragraph or section. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate 
only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 326 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 2799, the FY 2004 appropriations bill for the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related 
Agencies. H. Res. 326 provides 1 hour of general debate in the House on 
the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution 
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and waives 
points of order against provisions in bill for failing to comply with 
clause 2 of rule XXI, except as specified in the rule.
  The rule also accords priority in recognition to Members who have 
preprinted amendments in the Congressional Record. This will simply 
encourage Members to take advantage of the option in order to 
facilitate consideration of amendments on the House floor and to inform 
Members of the details of pending amendments.
  Finally, the bill provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 326 is a typical open rule to be considered for 
general appropriations bills. This rule does not restrict the normal 
open amending process in any way, and any amendments that comply with 
the standing Rules of the House may be offered for consideration. While 
a vast number of amendments are not expected, the rule permits those 
Members who have amendments every opportunity to offer them.
  I want to begin by noting the good work of the Committee on 
Appropriations' subcommittee in bringing this legislation to the floor. 
The gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and his subcommittee are to 
be commended for setting the funding priorities of these departments 
and agencies despite a number of challenging funding limitations.
  That said, while I do not agree with every provision in the bill, 
this rule will provide House Members with every opportunity to offer a 
number of amendments to improve this important appropriations bill.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. Speaker, there will be sufficient time during general debate to 
discuss the specific provisions in this bill, but I did want to point 
out a couple of provisions within this appropriations bill that 
recognize the post-9/11 commitment of this House to ensure that law 
enforcement across the Nation has the resources necessary to combat 
crime in America while meeting the new challenge of international 
terrorism.
  This includes $4.64 billion in funding for the FBI, $424 million 
above the FY 2003 level, to support efforts to improve counterterrorism 
and counterintelligence efforts and to continue fighting violent crime, 
drugs, corporate fraud and cyber-crime.
  In addition, the bill includes $2.16 billion for the DEA, which is 
$237 million above the FY 2003 funding, to establish a Drug 
Intelligence Fusion Center to allow agencies to share real time 
investigative data and support the creation of new positions.
  In terms of providing for law enforcement at the State level, this 
bill provides $3.5 billion to assist States and localities in fighting 
crime. This includes $500 million for the Byrne formula program, $400 
million for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program, $462 million 
for juvenile delinquency prevention and accountability programs, $388 
million for violence against women, prevention and prosecution, $174 
million to eliminate DEA analysis backlogs, and $400 million to 
reimburse States for criminal alien detention costs.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule ensures an open amendment process for 
consideration of the funding legislation for the Departments of 
Commerce, State, Justice, and the Judiciary. I urge my colleagues to 
support the rule so we may begin debate on this important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Committee on Appropriations has done 
the best it could with this spending bill, but the actions of the 
Republican leadership have created major holes, failures that will 
leave Americans vulnerable to terrorist attacks at home and to 
political abuses here in Washington.
  First of all, this bill is yet another example of how Republicans are 
mortgaging America's security in order to pay for tax breaks for the 
wealthiest few. Simply put, Republicans have spent trillions of dollars 
on tax breaks, and now they do not have enough money for law 
enforcement. They gave expensive tax breaks to the small, elite group 
of Bush Pioneers and Rangers who fund Republican campaigns, and now 
this bill shortchanges local law enforcement and the successful COPS 
Program.
  Mr. Speaker, local police officers are on the front lines of homeland 
defense, so the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has an amendment to 
give police the support they need. To pay for it, all you have to do is 
ask millionaires to take slightly smaller tax breaks than they are 
already getting next year. It is a reasonable trade; about 200,000 
millionaires would give up just $5,000 of the over $88,000 in tax 
breaks they are getting next year, and all Americans would benefit from 
critical law enforcement investments.
  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the bill leaves America's preeminent law 
enforcement agencies subject to partisan political abuse. Fortunately, 
Republicans will not have to ask millionaires to forgo further tax 
breaks in order to solve this problem, but they will have to stand up 
to the growing threat America faces from misuse of power by this one-
party government.
  Last Friday, a Republican Member of this House used his power as a 
committee chairman to send the police after Democrats, Members of 
Congress who had done nothing more than ask for more time to read a 
brand-new piece of legislation.
  For many of us, that recalled an incident just 2 months ago. Then, 
Texas Republicans in Austin and in Washington tried to use Federal 
security officials as their own personal political police force. The 
Homeland Security agency, charged with tracking down

[[Page 18966]]

terrorists, was enlisted to help Texas Republicans trying to track down 
Democratic lawmakers who had done nothing more than employ a 
parliamentary tactic in a legislative dispute, a tactic used by 
Republicans in the U.S. Senate, as well as Abraham Lincoln, in order to 
defend their constituents against an outrageous political power grab.
  The FAA, whose core mission is to keep airplanes and their passengers 
safe in the air, was misused to track down a Democratic legislator's 
private airplane. And once Republicans found the Democratic 
legislators, they urged the FBI and the U.S. Marshals to arrest them 
despite the clear fact that they had violated neither State nor Federal 
law.
  Justice Department officials say they did nothing wrong, but 
newspapers reported that an FBI agent in Corpus Christi, Texas, tried 
to find the Democratic legislators and spoke of ``ongoing 
surveillance.''
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this was not the first evidence of 
Republican misuse of the Justice Department. In May, a distinguished 
member of the Texas House of Representatives, Representative Richard 
Raymond of Laredo, withdrew his voting rights complaint from the 
Justice Department after receiving reliable information that a powerful 
Republican in Washington had interfered with it. Instead, 
Representative Raymond had to go to a Federal Court to defend the 
voting rights of his Hispanic constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, we face a serious problem when the Department of Justice 
has been so politically abused that Americans no longer trust its 
ability to defend their voting rights; and there is only one way to 
restore the integrity of the Justice Department, through a 
comprehensive investigation that lays out all the facts before the 
American people and then acts to ensure the Department can never be 
abused again.
  That is what the Department of Transportation did this month. They 
quickly conducted a thorough investigation and released to the Congress 
their full 800-page report. And, just as importantly, they strengthened 
their rules, instituting a new regulation, that at least one newspaper 
has named after one of the Texas Republicans, to ensure that 
politicians could never again misuse America's air safety resources.
  In contrast, the Homeland Security officials released only a partial, 
heavily edited report, less than 100 pages in length, and they are 
still stonewalling with the help of Republicans on the Select Committee 
on Homeland Security.
  Unfortunately, the Justice Department and some House Republicans have 
followed that sorry example. It has been 10 weeks since Texas 
Republicans tried to misuse the FBI, the U.S. Marshals and the 
Department of Homeland Security for partisan purposes. For several 
weeks, Justice Department officials tried to keep secret their internal 
investigation, and they still have not released any information to 
Congress.
  Meanwhile, the Republicans on the Committee on the Judiciary, many of 
whom often led the charge to investigate a Democratic administration, 
have turned a blind eye to the Justice Department's stonewalling.
  Mr. Speaker, this entire episode has brought discredit to the House 
of Representatives and to many of America's premier Federal security 
agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the FAA, the 
FBI and the entire Department of Justice.
  In Ohio, the Columbus Dispatch has written of an ``egregious'' misuse 
of Federal resources. The San Antonio Express-News has called it 
``offensive for a Member of Congress to manipulate a Federal agency to 
track down political foes in a strictly political situation.'' And as 
the Houston Chronicle wrote today of Chairman Thomas' attempt to use 
the police against Democratic Members last week, ``The latest incident 
again betrays a particularly disturbing tendency of the party in power, 
the Republicans, to regard police agencies as enforcers, not only of 
the law, but of the majority's political will.''
  That is why I have offered an amendment to this bill that would 
institute a new rule at the Department of Justice to protect it against 
political abuse. Unfortunately, Republicans on the Committee on Rules 
blocked it last night.
  So, once again, the Republican Members of this House face an 
important substantive choice on the critical parliamentary vote known 
as ``the previous question.'' They can stand with their leadership and 
vote ``yes'' and protect Texas Republicans who misused Federal law 
enforcement earlier this year. That is basically what happened last 
Friday, when Republicans refused to vote for a resolution, saying it 
was wrong to call the police against your political opponents. But I am 
hoping that today Republican Members will follow a different role model 
and begin to restore some integrity to the House of Representatives.
  More than 30 years ago, a Republican, Senator Barry Goldwater, went 
to Richard Nixon and told him the hard truth, that he had abused his 
power in the Washington scandal and that it was time for him to resign 
the Presidency. Today, on the previous question vote, Republican 
Members can follow that courageous example. They can stand up against 
abuse of power and they can say that the Justice Department belongs to 
the people of America, not to any political party.
  All it takes is a ``no'' vote on the previous question. I urge my 
Republican friends to do the right thing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The Chair would like to remind 
Members not to wear communicative badges while under recognition in 
debate.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear, what the amendment is all about 
that I sought to offer, but which the Republicans ruled out of order in 
the Committee on Rules last night.
  We had this situation in Texas involving a dispute, a partisan 
political dispute, over the attempt by Republicans in our legislature 
to redraw congressional district lines a second time in the decade. 
They had been drawn, of course, 2 years ago by a Federal Court after 
the legislature refused to act.
  What happened was that a powerful Member on the other side of the 
aisle, one who is often seen on this floor, contacted the Justice 
Department and inquired, would it be all right, would it be 
appropriate, for the Justice Department to dispatch U.S. Marshals and 
to dispatch the FBI to track down Members of the Texas legislature who 
had broken a quorum?
  Now, when a powerful Member of this institution makes an inquiry like 
that to the Justice Department, it is a suggestion, a very strong 
suggestion, that the Justice Department should get after it and should 
use the assets and the resources of the Justice Department.
  In fact, we do know that an FBI agent in Texas made a phone call up 
to Ardmore, Oklahoma, perhaps he was encouraged in this inquiry by a 
powerful Republican on the other side that the Justice Department 
should be involved, to find out about the status of the legislators, to 
find out whether they were there and what was going on. We do know also 
that an inquiry was made to the U.S. Attorney's office in San Antonio, 
Texas, about the propriety of the U.S. Attorney's Office being 
involved.
  Now, these are matters that have been in the public domain. This is 
not something anyone is making up. A very powerful Republican on the 
other side tried to involve the Justice Department in a partisan 
political dispute, and that is what my amendment would go to. After 
all, the FAA just recently had to change its procedures because that 
same powerful Republican Member contacted the FAA and caused the FAA to 
have 13 of its employees over an 8-hour period use Federal resources to 
try and track down those same Democrats who had gone to Oklahoma.
  Now, what did the FAA do? They did the right thing. They instituted a 
rule

[[Page 18967]]

saying, Well, it was a little gray area in the past, but we will make 
sure we never do this again; and no powerful person on the other side 
of the aisle will be able to pick up the phone and cause us to be 
involved in a political dispute and use our resources for that purpose.
  That is all we are asking be done by the Justice Department, to take 
the same actions the FAA has already taken, the Department of 
Transportation has already taken. But, no, my friends on the other side 
do not want to encourage the Justice Department to do the right thing.
  We cannot, Mr. Speaker, become a police state. Just as a powerful 
committee chairman called the police to track down and to break up a 
meeting of Democratic Members of this body last Friday, and just as 
another powerful Member on that side tried to use the FBI and the 
Marshal's Service and the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FAA and the 
Department of Homeland Defense to become a police state. That should 
not be permitted.
  We are not some Third World power. We are not some ``banana 
republic'' where we use the police to settle political disputes. Shame 
on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett), a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I join him in this effort to see that the previous question is 
defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, America witnessed a vivid example of how 
tyranny can begin in this country. The same Republican leadership here 
in the United States Congress that has blocked the Armed Forces Tax 
Fairness Act, that has blocked relief for working families on the child 
tax credit, that same Republican leadership was so eager to thwart the 
opposition that the chairman of one of the committees called in the 
police to break up the Democratic opposition organizing some 
alternatives to an important piece of legislation.
  This is how tyranny can begin in America, and it is certainly not 
unique to what happened. This is further evidence of the extremism 
occurring in this Congress.
  It is very tied to what my colleague from Texas has been talking 
about that occurred in the State of Texas. Indeed, it has nothing and 
everything to do with what happened in the Texas legislature. Nothing, 
in the sense that all we were trying to do in the United States 
Congress was not to walk out, but to walk into participation, just as 
we have done with the child tax credit, to say that working families 
ought to have an opportunity to get their taxes cut also and get this 
credit for their children.

                              {time}  1115

  We wanted to participate, not to walk out. So it has nothing to do 
with Texas in that sense, where legislators legitimately broke a 
quorum; but it has everything to do with what happened in Texas with 
regard to the misuse of law enforcement resources, of becoming a police 
state.
  In Texas, what happened is that immediately after this lawful action 
by the State legislators, the majority leader of the Republican Party, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), here in the House, came out and 
said, call out the G-men. He opined that this was a proper matter for 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for the U.S. Marshals Service, for 
the United States Attorneys Office; and ever since he voiced that 
opinion that these people ought to be involved in a political dispute 
in Texas in order to advance his power grab, his political interests, 
we have been trying to find out from John Ashcroft how much of those 
resources were allocated. And guess what? We have not gotten one bit of 
information from them, unlike the Federal Aviation Administration, 
which has disclosed the truth and revised its procedures, recognizing 
that the FAA has a little bit more to do with air safety than advancing 
the political interests of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the 
Republican Party.
  The Homeland Security Department provided us a half truth. They only 
wanted to look at one incident, not how all of their resources were 
used. But the Justice Department has gone them several better, by 
providing no truth, no answers with regard to how these Justice 
Department resources were misused, and that is why the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost) is advancing this effort today, because we need to 
know that information.
  In America, our freedoms will not be taken from us all at once, but 
they can ebb away; and when we see police-state tactics here in the 
Congress, for the first time in the memory of this institution; when we 
see a powerful figure like the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) 
summoning in the G-men to use them for political purposes; when we see 
the Department of Homeland Security diverted from protecting us against 
terrorism into using their resources for personal political ends, that 
is something Americans should be very concerned about.
  I was pleased to see the Houston Chronicle today editorialize on this 
very matter [``Not Police Matter: Leave Law Enforcement Out of 
Legislative Tussles,'' Houston Chronical, July 22, 2003], saying that 
we should leave law enforcement out of these legislative disputes, 
whether it is in Austin, Ardmore, or the United States Capitol. By 
following the lead of my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), and defeating the previous question, we will advance this 
concern; not just fighting amongst each other, but fighting for 
something important.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to bring the body's 
attention to an amendment that was added in the full committee over the 
objections of the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee. 
It was an amendment added by our colleague, the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Tiahrt), that barely passed, but should not have. It was not the 
subject of hearings. It has no support from law enforcement. It has no 
support from Attorney General Ashcroft. And it has no support from the 
major association that represents licensed firearms dealers. It really 
serves to protect only the most corrupt gun dealers at the expense of 
all other legitimate gun dealers.
  Specifically, this amendment provides protection to phantom dealers. 
These are people who sign up as dealers to be able to buy guns 
wholesale, but without the intention of reselling them, so they are 
really not businesses, as such, and should not be buying guns 
wholesale. Normally, they distribute them for illegal purposes. It 
permits recalcitrant dealers to ignore police requests for assistance. 
Nearly all licensed dealers perform this duty quickly and accurately to 
law enforcement, but there are about 8 percent of crime guns that 
cannot be traced because licensed dealers refuse to cooperate with 
police. This would legally allow them to refuse to cooperate with the 
police and allows licensed gun dealers not to cooperate in making gun 
traces. That clearly is counter to people's public safety.
  It allows felons to retain Federal firearms licenses. It denies 
Congress and the public crime gun data that the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, and Firearms needs. It ends the oversight of used firearms 
sales, and it requires destruction of records that now the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation needs.
  All of these things, I think, undermine the public's need to protect 
itself from felons, from people with a history of mental illness, from 
people who are involved in the illegal transfer of firearms. We had 
somebody that provided the firearm that was used by the snipers that 
killed many people in the Washington area. They went back to the dealer 
and found that there were over 100 firearms that they had no record of. 
Well, they do not keep records because they do not want people to know 
that they either sold to felons or to people who are minors, or they do 
not want to pay taxes, or whatever the reason. But clearly, they should 
be having records. This would

[[Page 18968]]

enable them to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement.
  So I want to make the Members aware of the fact that this amendment 
is in this bill, and it is a bad amendment.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise in strong support of H.R. 2799, the 
bill providing appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
State, and the Judiciary.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent a district that lies along the U.S.-Mexican 
border. For many years, the region along the 2,000 mile stretch with 
Mexico has been ignored. The bill before us today will make tremendous 
strides to recognize the importance of increased resources to our 
southwest border.
  This bill before us includes 168 additional positions for the United 
States Marshal Service for areas of high-priority need. It also 
recognizes that the areas along the southwest border are in the 
greatest need for these positions.
  My district in El Paso lies within the western district of Texas. 
This judicial district has been one of the greatest impacted by a 
criminal caseload over the last decade. The majority of these cases are 
being heard in the El Paso Division of the Western District. The number 
of Federal cases filed in El Paso County alone has increased from 443 
to over 2,100 cases since 1994. Last year, the El Paso Division 
received our second Federal judgeship. Currently pending before the 
Senate is a confirmation of an additional two Federal judges.
  Mr. Speaker, needless to say, our caseload is being addressed and 
more of our cases are being heard. This also increases the work of our 
judges which, in turn, means more work for our Marshal Service. 
Currently, our marshals are reporting inoperable workload levels in the 
southwest border districts.
  This bill would provide much-needed relief for our United States 
Marshal Service along the southwest border districts. I urge all of my 
colleagues to support the rule and to support passage of this bill.
  In addition to that, this bill also includes funding for the State 
Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which the President, in the last two 
cycles, has zeroed out. Last year we were able to provide $250 million, 
and this year, $400 million.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to 
support this rule and this bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman from 
Texas that in order to support the rule he is going to have to support 
the previous question to get to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding me this time. I will be very, very brief.
  I am going to support this rule. I am going to support it because the 
rule speaks to a bill that the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) 
and I worked on very hard to make the best of a very difficult 
allotment to the committee. The gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) 
was very fair, as I will explain during general debate, about meeting 
certain needs. There were some shortcomings in the bill that hopefully 
will get better.
  But, most importantly, I support the rule because the rule supports 
some very difficult decisions that the committee made in terms of 
amendments; and the rule could have, as in past occurrences, played 
around and fooled around with those decisions by the committee. It did 
not. It supports the committee work; and, therefore, I stand in support 
of the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. McCarthy).
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition 
to this rule because it protects language added in the committee that 
severely restricts the ATF's ability to investigate sham gun dealers.
  This ill-advised provision was never the subject of a hearing and has 
no support from law enforcement. Our gun laws are already riddled with 
loopholes that make it difficult for the ATF to do their job. And now 
we are going to make it even more difficult by preventing the bureau 
from requiring firearm dealers to conduct a physical inventory, from 
denying licenses to dealers whose sales fall below certain levels, and 
from demanding that certain dealers provide documentation for all used 
guns sold in a specific period.
  Why would we vote to make it easier for bad-apple dealers to sell 
guns illegally? Just a few months ago, this body provided them 
protection against lawsuits, and now we are going to make it even more 
difficult to ensure that gun dealers are not transferring guns 
illegally.
  We keep hearing from the gun lobby that we need to enforce the laws 
on the books instead of passing new laws. Well, at this pace, we are 
not going to be able to enforce any laws on the books. There will not 
be any laws to enforce.
  It is clear to me that the gun lobby will not be happy until our gun 
laws are rolled back to the era of Jesse James and the Wild West. I 
wonder if they realize that for every gun that illegally falls into the 
wrong hands, lives are at risk, especially our law enforcement 
officers.
  I urge the defeat of this rule so that we can strike the 
irresponsible language from the bill and, for once, look at the impact 
of rolling back our gun safety laws instead of bowing to the gun lobby.
  Let me say that we are still fighting gun violence in this country, 
and we are also fighting terrorism on the home front. Why would we make 
it easier for those that might be terrorists in this country to be able 
to go and buy their firearms? I do not understand what this Congress is 
doing. We are supposed to be protecting our constituents. We are 
supposed to be protecting our neighbors. This is going on constantly. I 
urge the defeat of the rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), in her 
statement today in saying I think this rule protects an ill-advised 
provision that ironically makes our country less safe at a time when we 
are worried about terrorism and countering terrorism. The fact of the 
matter is, terrorism exists all over this country for those who live in 
the inner cities and are subjected to the random gun violence that 
plagues many of our neighborhoods.
  When people talk about homeland security in America, they are not 
talking about al Qaeda; they are talking about the gun dealers who 
knowingly sell guns in untold numbers, knowing full well that those 
guns can easily be resold in the back of a trunk of a car in downtown 
Washington, D.C. And what does this provision in this rule allow? This 
provision in this rule allows us to roll back those few safeguards that 
we already give law enforcement, to ensure that those guns that are 
sold are sold in a legal and proper manner.
  We often hear from the NRA, well, we are for law-abiding people being 
able to purchase law-abiding permits and guns. Well, apparently not, 
under this language, because what essentially they will do is make this 
language a criminal's delight, because they will not have to cover 
their tracks, because there will not be any tracks for them to cover 
under this legislation, which eliminates any inventory provision for 
gun dealers to be able to ensure that the guns that they sell are guns 
that are sold legally and lawfully.
  The fact of the matter is that this legislation is protected under a 
rule that is supposed to be about appropriation bills, but, in this 
case, is about protecting an authorization for a loophole that puts our 
public at risk, puts our law enforcement at risk, and contradicts 
everything that we are standing for on this floor when it comes to 
protecting the American public.

[[Page 18969]]



                              {time}  1130

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues, what the rule 
does is routine in appropriations bills. We protect the product of the 
committee and have an open amending process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to join my good friend and colleague 
in echoing so many of his very eloquent comments.
  I rise today in opposition to the rule for H.R. 2799, the Commerce-
Justice-State appropriations bill. While this bill contains many good 
provisions, I, like my colleagues, are deeply disappointed that this 
bill prevents the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from 
enforcing laws already on the books. The bill's language is a major 
step backwards when we should be doing more to ensure that guns are 
kept out of the hands of criminals.
  A 1998 ATF study showed that over 50 percent of firearms used in 
crimes were traced back to just 1.2 percent of the Nation's 104,000 gun 
dealers. One delinquent dealer in Tacoma, Washington, was missing 78 
firearms listed on the store's inventory, including the rifle used by 
the D.C. area snipers last year.
  To address this problem, I have introduced H.R. 1540, the Crackdown 
on Deadbeat Gun Dealers Act, to increase ATF inspections of gun 
dealers, not eliminate them.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us today undercuts the current 
enforcement provisions and prevents the ATF from doing its job. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose this rule. Let us do the right thing for the 
people of America.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As I explained at the beginning of this debate, Mr. Speaker, today 
Republican Members have the opportunity to begin to restore some 
integrity to the House of Representatives. All they have to do is vote 
no on the important parliamentary procedure known as the previous 
question.
  If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow 
the House to vote on my amendment to ensure that the Justice Department 
can never again be abused for partisan political purposes.
  I wish this were not necessary, Mr. Speaker. But earlier this year 
Texas Republicans tried to treat the Justice Department as the 
enforcement arm of the Republican Party. And so it is vital to the 
integrity of the Justice Department that we force it to do what the 
Transportation Department has already done, institute what at least one 
newspaper has called the ``DeLay Rule'' to protect it from future 
political misuse.
  To be clear, a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not block 
the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. It will only allow the 
House to ensure Americans that Federal law enforcement belongs to the 
people and not to a political party. But a ``yes'' vote will stop my 
amendment and it will send the signal that this Republican House 
refuses to protect the Department of Justice against partisan misuse.
  So I urge my Republican colleagues to join Democrats in opposing the 
previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to remind those of my 
colleagues on the minority side of the aisle, who said they would urge 
their colleagues to support the rule, that you will not get a chance to 
do that unless they pass the previous question.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous 
question.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
H. Res. 326, the rule governing floor debate on H.R. 2799, the 
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary Appropriations Bill for FY 
2004. Although this is an open rule, several important amendments 
offered by my Democratic colleagues did not receive a waiver on points 
of order.
  I personally proposed four amendments to H.R. 2799 that improved 
valuable programs administered by the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State. The first amendment mandated that no funds be used by the 
Department of Justice to conceal or destroy physical and electronic 
records and documents related to any use of Federal agency resources in 
the Texas redistricting controversy. The second amendment stopped 
funding to any project that prohibited projects that promote the 
participation of women in international peace efforts. The third 
amendment prohibited funding programs that prevented the study of 
``good time'' for persons incarcerated for non-violent crimes. The 
final amendment prohibited funding any attempt to prevent the Small 
Business Administration from providing technical assistance to small 
businesses participating in the rebuilding of Iraq and Afghanistan.
  These are but a few of many valuable amendments that were not 
provided waivers to points of order under this rule. Yet again, party 
politics has influenced the decision making of the rules committee to 
the detriment of several programs that add value to the lives of 
American citizens, American businesses, and people around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this amendment and I encourage all of my 
colleagues to do the same.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Frost is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 326--Rule on H.R. 2799, Fiscal Year 2004 
                 Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order and before 
     any other amendment if offered by Representative Frost of 
     Texas or a designee. The amendment is not subject to 
     amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for 
     a division of the question in the committee of the whole or 
     in the House.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:

   Amendment to H.R. __, as Reported (Commerce, Justice, State, and 
   Judiciary Appropriations Act, 2004) Offered by Mr. Frost of Texas

       At the end of title I (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following 
     findings:
       (1) Both newspaper accounts and Federal agency 
     investigations have uncovered convincing evidence that on May 
     12, 2003 House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and other Republican 
     officeholders in the State of Texas repeatedly contacted 
     several Federal agencies, including the Federal Aviation 
     Administration (Department of Transportation), the Air and 
     Marine Interdiction Coordination Center (Department of 
     Homeland Security), and the Department of Justice, seeking to 
     improperly involve Federal personnel and resources in a state 
     political dispute.
       (2) In reaction to these events, the General Counsel and 
     the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation 
     immediately conducted a thorough investigation of these 
     improper activities. In a letter it transmitted to Senator 
     Joseph Lieberman on July 11, 2003, the Inspector General 
     concluded that the Federal Aviation Administration's 
     guidelines required ``considerable strengthening'' to prevent 
     future situations in which government officials such as 
     Representative DeLay might attempt to misuse Federal Aviation 
     Administration resources for political purposes. On July 15, 
     2003, the Federal Aviation Administration issued a new 
     internal guideline, known as the ``DeLay Rule'', requiring 
     Federal Aviation Administration employees to inquire about 
     the purpose of an inquiry before they provide outside parties 
     with flight information.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, 
     following the example of the Department of Transportation, 
     the Department of Justice should implement promptly new 
     guidelines to ensure that its resources and personnel are 
     never again improperly used for partisan purposes.

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.

[[Page 18970]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 199, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 401]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--199

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Andrews
     Berkley
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Dunn
     Ferguson
     Gephardt
     Hensarling
     Hunter
     Keller
     Meek (FL)
     Payne
     Peterson (PA)
     Saxton


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1220

  Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. FORD, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Messrs. FARR, McGOVERN, 
BERMAN, OLVER, PASTOR, TIERNEY and RUSH changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California changed his vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________