[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18971-19009]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 326 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2799.

                              {time}  1225


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2799) making 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, with Mr. 
Hastings of Washington in the chair.

[[Page 18972]]

  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes.
  I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 2799, the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and related agencies 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. This bill provides funding 
for programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their 
homes and communities, to the conduct of diplomacy around the world, to 
predicting the weather from satellites in outer space. The bill before 
the House today reflects a delicate balance of needs and requirements. 
We have drafted what I consider a responsible bill for fiscal year 2004 
spending levels for the Departments and agencies under the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction. We have had to carefully prioritize the 
funding in this bill and make hard choices about how to spend scarce 
resources.
  The bill before the House today recommends a total of $37.9 billion 
in discretionary funding, which is $700 million above the enacted level 
for fiscal year 2003 and $237 million above the President's request. 
For the Department of Justice, the bill provides $20.15 billion in 
discretionary funding, which is $1.15 billion above the request.
  The bill includes funding for Federal law enforcement agencies to 
perform traditional law enforcement duties and fight terrorism. The 
bill also provides more than $1 billion above the request to support 
State and local law enforcement crime-fighting efforts. It includes 
$4.64 billion for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an increase of 
$424 million above fiscal year 2003 and the same as the President's 
request. This funding will support almost 2,500 new agents and analysts 
in the FBI to improve counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts 
and to continue fighting violent crime, drugs, corporate fraud, and 
cybercrime.
  The bill includes $80 million for high-priority FBI technology needs 
and funding above the request for language translation and training 
programs. $2.16 billion is provided for the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, an increase of $237 million above fiscal year 2003 and 
$57 million above the comparable request to fight drug crime. The 
amount includes a transfer of the interagency crime and drug 
enforcement program under the DEA to consolidate drug law enforcement 
efforts, $25 million to establish a drug intelligence fusion center to 
allow agencies to share realtime investigative data, and funding above 
the request to support 939 new positions, including 434 new DEA and FBI 
agents. $3.5 billion is provided for proven State and local law 
enforcement crime-fighting programs, which is $1.2 billion above the 
request.
  When combined with funding provided in the homeland security bill, 
the committee is providing more than $2 billion above the request for 
State and local crime control and domestic preparedness funding. The 
bill restores funds for programs that were proposed to be eliminated, 
including $500 million for the Byrne formula program, $400 million for 
the local law enforcement block grant program, and $400 million for 
SCAAP.

                              {time}  1230

  The bill also includes $179 million dollars for DNA backlog 
elimination and crime lab upgrades, which is very important to the 
administration; and $388 million for violence against women prevention 
and prosecution programs, and $462 million for juvenile delinquency 
prevention and accountability programs.
  For the Department of Commerce, the bill provides $5.3 billion, a 
decrease of $475 million below the 2003 level, which is largely a 
result of the reduction of lower-priority spending in NOAA, and 
elimination of funding for the Advanced Technology Programs. The bill 
includes $319 million for the Economic Development Assistance Programs 
to assist communities struggling with long-term economic downturns, as 
well as sudden and severe economic hardship, the same level as 2003; 
$1.24 billion for the Patent and Trademark Office to reduce the growing 
backlog in patent processing, $57 million above 2003; $494 million for 
the international trade agencies to negotiate and verify free trade 
agreements, $38 million above 2003; $3.05 billion for the National 
Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, including $786 million for 
the National Weather Service to improve forecasting.
  The Judiciary: The bill provides $5.2 billion for the Federal 
Judiciary, $304 million over fiscal year 2003 and $236 million above 
the request, to process an all-time-high number of criminal and 
bankruptcy cases in and of offenders under supervision of probation 
officers. The bill continues funding for the renovation of the Supreme 
Court building and Judiciary's critical, vital security requirements.
  For the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the 
recommendation includes $8.4 billion, an increase of $570 million over 
2003 and $223 million below the request. The committee's 2004 
recommendation for foreign affairs agencies is $2.26 billion above the 
fiscal year 2000 level. This is an historic increase of 37 percent in 
just 4 years.
  Within this total we are providing $1.5 billion, the full request, 
and $200 million above fiscal year 2003, for worldwide security 
improvements and replacement of vulnerable facilities. The Department 
is making great strides to expand and improve the worldwide security 
construction program, and that is good news for the safety and security 
of thousands of Americans and foreign nationals who represent us all in 
the diplomatic frontlines overseas. The bill also includes funding to 
support over 600 new positions to improve diplomatic security, border 
security, and diplomatic readiness.
  For the related agencies, the bill includes $2.2 billion, $83 million 
above the current level; $746 million for the Small Business 
Administration, an increase of $14 million over 2003, for important 
lending and assistance programs for the Nation's businesses; $183 
million for the Federal Trade Commission fully funding the Commission's 
National Do-Not-Call list to protect Americans from intrusive 
telemarketing calls; $338.8 million for the Legal Services Corporation; 
$841.5 million for the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect 
American investors and implement the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, this is a quick summary of the 
recommendation before the committee today. The bill gives no ground in 
the ongoing efforts to fight crime and terrorism and restores the 
needed help to State and local law enforcement and to address their 
most pressing needs. The bill also includes funds to protect our 
diplomats working overseas, increases funding for international trade 
agencies to negotiate and verify free trade agreements to protect 
American jobs. It is our best effort to make a difficult choices to 
match needs with scarce resources.
  I want to personally thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), 
the ranking member, who has been very effective and a valued partner 
and colleague on this bill. I appreciate his principled commitment and 
thorough understanding of the programs in the bill.
  I also want to thank members of the subcommittee for their help, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Kirk), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Kennedy), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  I also want to particularly thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), full committee chairman, and also the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey),

[[Page 18973]]

ranking member, for their help. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) 
has been as fair as one could possibly be, and quite frankly I think he 
has been an outstanding chairman of the full committee. No one can 
complain about his leadership.
  I also want to thank the subcommittee staff for their relentless 
efforts in producing this bill. The staff did a fantastic job with what 
was a very difficult allocation, and we should commend them. I first 
want to say thanks to Mike Ringler, the clerk of the committee, who 
leads long nights and made sure everything flowed smoothly as the 
process went forward. I also want to thank his wife and his family for 
the time away.
  I want to thank John Martens, whose wife recently had a baby and he 
was part of it, and is always running on full steam even though he has 
long nights and has been away from home during this period of time.
  I also want to thank Christine Ryan Kojac, who has been instrumental 
in putting together the Commerce section of the bill. She has done a 
lot of work to help the country that most people will never even know 
about.
  I also thank Leslie Albright, who has fought to make sure funding for 
the Department of Justice and FBI remains adequate to protect the 
country. Again because of her efforts, bad things will not happen; 
people may not know why, but it is because of good work that Leslie has 
done.
  I also want to thank Anne Marie Goldsmith and Alan Lang, the 
subcommittee's detailees who have stepped into the subcommittee and 
done terrific jobs. Both have been able to use their backgrounds to 
significantly contribute to the subcommittee and have always had a good 
attitude.
  I also want to thank Dan Scandling and Janet Shaffron, on my staff, 
and J.T. Griffin and Neil Seifring, in my personal staff, for their 
efforts.
  Finally, I want to thank Rob Nabors of the minority staff who has 
been there with Mike every step of the way as the team has been working 
on this bill. Also David Pomerantz, Lucy Hand, and Nadine Berg from the 
Democratic staff who were willing to pitch in.
  It is a good bill, Mr. Chairman, and I would urge all Members to 
support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to start off where the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) left off, and that is thanking both staffs for the 
work they have done. This is a difficult bill. It is a bill that at 
times is loved by many and at times either disliked or feared by some.
  So the staff, as we all know, day after day and night after night, 
put together the work that they do. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) has mentioned some names, and I want to just reinforce those 
names and thank both the majority staff and the minority staff for the 
work they do.
  On my staff I would like to pay special tribute to Rob and David for 
the fact that they just, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) 
said, in a relentless way never give up in making sure that things are 
done properly; and on my staff, Lucy, Nadine, Pete, and everyone else 
who is back in the office and works towards making this the product 
that it is to date.
  I would also like to join my chairman in thanking the gentleman from 
Florida (Chairman Young) for his leadership and his understanding and 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), my ranking member, for the 
support he gives us in allowing us to go forward with this particular 
bill.
  But this could not be done, none of this, if we did not have the kind 
of support that we have from the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), 
who is such a shy guy that he actually left the floor so he would not 
hear me praise him, but he is back.
  When we look at the way that we handle politics in this country, when 
we look at the way we legislate in this country, it is assumed by many 
people, especially in the media, that if we come from different parts 
of the country and if we have different political philosophies that we 
will never get along and never work together. The gentleman from 
Virginia and I may be living proof that if we believe in fairness and 
honesty in dealing with each other, we can in fact work together; and I 
am here to thank him publicly for taking a very difficult, I believe 
and our side believes, allocation and meeting to a large extent the 
needs that our side had and the concerns that we had. He was able to 
reallocate dollars, to move dollars around, and to do it understanding 
that in order to have a bill that has bipartisan support, as I am sure 
this one will be at the end of the day, we do that by understanding the 
needs that he has and the needs that I have, which are representative 
of both sides of the aisle.
  So I want to thank the gentleman for understanding that and for 
working with us on this.
  The process, as I say, was fair and a fair distribution of very 
limited resources. I have to compliment the chairman especially for 
some of the work that we did such as the fully funded Federal Bureau of 
Investigations, FBI, which has been involved in a great part of our war 
against terrorism and has needed our support and has received our 
support.
  On the other hand, because the FBI is engaged in the war on 
terrorism, it has unfortunately, unfortunately and I hope only 
temporarily, turned away from some of its other duties in the past, 
such as the fight on drugs. It is not fighting the drug war the way it 
used to in the past. And for that reason, I am also happy with the fact 
that we were able to fully fund and go $43 million above the 
President's request for the Drug Enforcement Administration, the DEA, 
to make up for the FBI's deemphasizing on illegal drugs.
  The Office of Justice Programs, OJP, this bill restores $1.2 billion 
for key State and local law enforcement grant programs including Byrne 
grants, $650 million dollars; the local law enforcement block grant, 
$400 million; State Criminal Alien Assistance program, $400 million. In 
addition, those cultural and science and education organizations such 
as UNESCO and others that we deal with in the international community 
have been fully funded; and we, in fact, in some of these can once 
again join these organizations to play our role in the international 
community.
  The international organizations, also, that handle peacekeeping and 
that are involved in peacekeeping efforts throughout the world, that 
has been fully funded at the request of $1 billion and $550 million 
respectively. Worldwide security programs, full funding of the request 
at $1.5 billion.
  The Legal Services Corporation, I want once again to thank the 
chairman for caring for some of the issues that so many Members care 
for, and the Legal Services Corporation, LSC, is one of them. In the 
past, we were forced to come to the House to try to amend the bill to 
bring it back to last year's funding. The chairman has chosen in his 
tenure as chairman of the committee to make sure that we do not do 
that, that the bill is dealt with in committee, the agency is dealt 
with in committee, and in fact, this year with $10 million above the 
President's request; and I thank him for that.
  Obviously, as we have said before, it has been a difficult 
allocation, and therefore there are some issues that are still pending 
and that are difficult. The most important one is the Community 
Oriented Policing Service, the COPS hiring program, which is 
underfunded this year. It has been funded properly in the past. It 
continues to be an important program, and part, Mr. Chairman, of what 
we are doing here today is hoping that with our support of this bill 
and our continuing working together with the chairman in a bipartisan 
fashion that as this bill goes to conference, some of the issues that 
are still not properly addressed will be addressed. I am confident that 
the COPS program enjoys a bipartisan constituency both here and in the 
Senate that will allow it to get the kind of dollars that it needs.
  There are, and I can go on, some other issues that still need to be 
addressed, but on the whole, this bill, I believe, merits our support 
and this approach merits our support.

[[Page 18974]]

  I am also happy at the fact that a key amendment that was important 
to all of us is in the bill, is protected by the rule and, I think, 
makes a serious statement about the bipartisan effort in our committee.
  As I said before, I fully support this bill, and I would hope that at 
the end of the day, both sides of the aisle see it as the gentleman 
from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and I do and give it their full support.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, the gentleman that I said 
gives us the kind of support that we need on our side to function.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I will be supporting 
this bill, and I appreciate the approach taken by the subcommittee 
chairman in putting the bill together. He has, I think, been most fair 
and balanced in dealing with all of the pressures that were on him, and 
he has certainly been fair with us.
  Let me say, however, having said that, that I think the allocation 
provided to this subcommittee was totally inadequate. And as the House 
by now has come to understand, I have had a series of amendments trying 
to limit the size of the tax cut which will be going to people who make 
more than $1 million a year in order to free up some additional 
investments in programs such as education, health care and the like.
  We tried to do the same thing on this bill, but again, the Committee 
on Rules refused to make that amendment in order. And so we will not be 
able to offer and have considered by the House the amendment that would 
have used a tiny portion of those revenue resources to folks who make 
over $1 million a year in order to fund a number of law enforcement 
activities that we thought were very important.
  I do want to mention one provision which is in this bill, which was 
adopted on a bipartisan basis in the committee, which I am very pleased 
about. As I think most Members know, there is considerable controversy 
about just how much of the Nation's airwaves ought to be owned by the 
media giants of this country.
  The existing regulations had provided that no single corporation 
could own television stations that reached more than 35 percent of the 
national audience. The FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, in 
my view ill-advisedly, changed that to increase the percentage of 
national viewership that could be reached by a single corporate entity 
in the broadcasting business to 45 percent.
  There is a great deal of consternation about that across the country, 
and I think that consternation is rooted in the fact that the public is 
beginning to understand that five media conglomerates, Viacom, Disney, 
AOL Time Warner, Newscorp and General Electric now control a 70 percent 
share of homes that are watching during prime time.
  There are 91 major cable networks, 80 percent of which are owned by 
the same media conglomerates. Cable news networks are all owned by AOL 
Time Warner (CNN), Newscorp (Fox News), and General Electric, which is 
MSNBC and CNBC. The top 20 Internet news sites are also largely owned 
by the same media giants.
  So, in my view, that is a severe threat to democracy. I am pleased 
that the committee adopted on a 40 to 25 vote the amendment that would 
assure that we would return to the initial 35 percent limit, rather 
than expanding it to the 45 percent limit that the FCC tried to foist 
on the country.
  I want to make clear, this amendment does not go beyond television 
ownership. It does not get into issues such as cross-ownership between 
newspapers and television. I personally wish it did, because I do not 
like any of it. But the fact is that we have to be disciplined in 
deciding how much we can choose to take on at the same time without 
losing the whole argument.
  So we have chosen to confine ourselves to this, the most egregious 
portion of the FCC rules, in an effort to protect local values, in an 
effort to protect local diversity of media voices.
  I am very pleased that the committee has taken this position, and I 
would hope very much that the House would stand behind it as we move to 
conference with the Senate.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to highlight a section of the 
Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary bill that affects the 
citizens of LaSalle Parish, Louisiana. The bill contains provisions 
that separately direct the Office of Federal Detention Trustee and the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons to meet bed space needs using excess State 
and private prison capacity, if these facilities meet the agency's 
standards. In my home State of Louisiana, there is an empty private 
prison in Jena, that is located near the Federal Bureau of Prisons 
facilities at Oakdale and Pollock and near the U.S. Marshals Justice 
Prisoner and Alien Transportation System, which is commonly known as 
``CON-AIR.''
  I believe that Federal use of the Jena prison is a wise use of our 
government's resources. The folks in the LaSalle Parish are hard-
working people that are committed to their community. Reopening this 
empty prison is of utmost importance to me, and I will continue to do 
everything within my power to see that it occurs.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises to express his support 
for H.R. 2799, a bill making appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary for FY 2004. In particular, 
this Member would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), Chairman of the Subcommittee and the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for their hard work under 
difficult budget circumstances.
  As a member of the House Caucus to Fight and Control Methamphetamine, 
this Member strongly supports the inclusion of $60 million for 
Methamphetamine Enforcement and Clean-Up, otherwise known as the ``hot 
spots'' program. These funds are critical in State and local efforts to 
combat the scourge of methamphetamine that is sweeping across our 
country.
  This Member also appreciates the Subcommittee's commitment to 
Nebraska's efforts to fight a growing plague in Nebraska--the 
manufacture, trafficking and abuse of methamphetamine. The Nebraska 
State Patrol will continue the work began with the $500,000 
appropriation from FY 2003, with an emphasis on funding for the cleanup 
of clandestine labs. In 1999, approximately 37 labs were discovered in 
Nebraska. By 2002, the problem had increased exponentially to 372 which 
in turn has placed a huge burden on Nebraska law enforcement. The 
Nebraska State Patrol will also use the funds for the State crime lab 
to investigate methamphetamine cases and to continue a drug treatment 
program for methamphetamine addicts.
  Furthermore, this Member is pleased that $615 million is included in 
the bill for the popular and vital Byrne grant program. This 
appropriation is a top priority for Nebraska law enforcement. The Byrne 
grant program is critical in crime fighting efforts--and especially 
helpful to Nebraska law enforcement in fighting crimes related to drug 
use. Clearly, methamphetamine alone is the driving force behind the 
increase in crime in Nebraska.
  The bill also includes important funds for the Juvenile 
Accountability Block Grants (JAIBG). These funds have been used 
throughout the State, and specifically assisted Douglas, Sarpy, and 
Lancaster counties in developing juvenile drug courts. Almost 50 young 
people have graduated from the drug courts over the last two years. In 
addition, Douglas and Lancaster counties have also utilized funds to 
develop computerized information systems and local graduated sanctions 
programs.
  An additional program of importance to Nebraska law enforcement is 
the Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) program. This Member is 
pleased that funds are provided for this program. Nebraska is part of 
the regional Mid-States Organized Crime Information Center (MOCIC). The 
RISS program provides Nebraska law enforcement with a secure nationwide 
state-of-the-art information sharing system that uses web technology, 
allowing officers to access criminal activity information around the 
country in real time. Additional services include, but are not limited 
to, analytical assistance, high-tech surveillance equipment loans, 
intelligence publications, investigative funds, computer forensics and 
specialized training. As members of the MOCIC, many law enforcement 
agencies in Nebraska are able to share critical crime-fighting 
information that these agencies would otherwise

[[Page 18975]]

not be able to access. As today's criminals become more mobile and 
technologically advanced, law enforcement's demands for RISS services 
continues to grow.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this Member urges his colleagues to 
support H.R. 2799.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise to state my 
disappointment with and strong opposition to this bill.
  It is one thing to make government more lean; it is another thing to 
cut jobs year in and year out at facilities all over the country--not 
because there is fat to cut at these facilities, but because the 
Subcommittee allocation simply doesn't provide enough money to go 
around.
  Under the bill as it stands, important scientific facilities in my 
district in Colorado--the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--
will see approximately 200 jobs lost, maybe more. NOAA's labs in 
Boulder will see a cut of 40 percent in funding in FY2004--that's 
nearly cutting its budget by half in one year! I don't have as precise 
information on NIST, but I am told NIST stands to lose roughly 300 jobs 
between its labs in Maryland and Colorado--fully 10 percent of its 
staff.
  The bill doesn't fund mandatory cost-of-living increases for both 
NIST and NOAA--so funds for these increases come out of programs and 
out of the salaries of workers who are left without jobs. Further, the 
bill does not include funding for safety, maintenance and major repairs 
required at NIST's campus in Colorado. Without quality laboratory 
facilities, NIST cannot provide the standards and measurement support 
industry requires. The bill includes just two-thirds of base funds for 
NOAA's Space Environment Center in Colorado, which suffered similar 
shortfalls last year.
  Perhaps most insulting of all--the bill would provide no funds for 
NOAA's facility in Colorado to pay its $4.5 million in rent. Conferees 
cut out funding for the rent in last year's bill at the last minute--
which is maybe more understandable, as we all know that sometimes odd 
things happen in conference in the middle of the night. But this cut is 
far more egregious. It is one thing when programs are trimmed back--it 
is another when cuts in a bill literally take the clothes off our 
employees' backs. NOAA is a Federal agency. How can the Federal 
Government not pay its rent? How is NOAA supposed to meet this 
shortfall? Its workload remains the same, but NOAA's resources and 
workforce are getting progressively smaller.
  I thought our goal is to create jobs! This bill will put hundreds of 
Federal employees out of work!
  And the bill hurts the private sector too. It cuts by two-thirds the 
Manufacturing Extension Program, which assists thousands of small and 
medium-sized manufacturers across this country. This bill entirely 
eliminates the Advanced Technology Program, which helps small high-tech 
start-up companies bring research results to the proof-of-concept 
stage.
  With manufacturing jobs being lost every month and high-tech 
companies struggling, now is not the time to turn our backs on the 
manufacturing community and our small high-tech entrepreneurs.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I must completely oppose this bill. Unless the bill 
is greatly improved in conference, it will continue a pattern of 
bleeding these agencies dry--agencies that do so much to support our 
Nation's economy and the public's well-being. As the bill stands, it 
does not deserve the approval of the House.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2799, 
making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for Fiscal Year 2004. I am 
pleased to report that it is consistent with the levels established in 
H. Con. Res. 95, the House concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 2004, which Congress adopted on April 10.
  H.R. 2799 provides $37.9 billion in new budget authority [BA] and 
$40.989 billion in outlays for fiscal year 2004--a reduction of $1.287 
billion in BA and an increase of $500 million in outlays from fiscal 
year 2003. Although budget authority in the bill declines by 3.3 
percent from the previous year, it is $241 billion above the 
President's request.
  The bill therefore complies with section 302(f) of the Budget Act, 
which prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an appropriations 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlays 
established in the budget resolution.
  The bill contains $1.125 billion in BA savings--$1.095 in BA and $383 
million outlays from changes in mandatory spending, and $30.5 million 
in rescissions of previously enacted BA. It does not designate any of 
the appropriations provided by this bill as an emergency.
  In conclusion, I commend Chairman Young and Subcommittee Chairman 
Wolf for their hard work and can appreciate the tough decisions that 
accompanied the crafting of this bill, especially given the current 
fiscal climate. It is my hope that Chairman Young and Subcommittee 
Chairman Wolf will continue to weigh both the state of our economy and 
the safety of our Nation when they represent the House in conference 
with the Senate.
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2004 
Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill and commend Chairman Wolf 
for a fair and balanced bill that funds the Justice Department, the 
Commerce Department, the Judiciary and the State Department.
  I want to particularly commend the Chairman for a hearing that the 
Subcommittee held on May 22, 2003 regarding the impact of Chinese 
imports on U.S. companies. As a result of that hearing the bill today 
includes funding increases for our trade agencies so that they can 
better enforce existing trade agreements. Many witnesses at the hearing 
testified that their businesses were being overwhelmed by low-priced 
Chinese imports that are causing them to down-size and lay-off workers.
  The Commerce Department must be more responsive to U.S. companies, 
and particularly those small- and medium-sized businesses, who are 
being harmed by imports. In my district, I have heard from many small- 
and medium-sized manufacturers who say they have had to lay-off workers 
because of Chinese imports.
  According to a recent National Association of Manufacturers report, 
Ohio has lost 97,100 manufacturing jobs between July 2000 and December 
2002. This represents an 8.9 percent decline in just over two years. 
Ohio had the third largest loss of manufacturing jobs behind California 
and Texas. I urge officials of our trade agencies to take notice of 
this manufacturing crisis in Ohio and in the U.S.
  I will also work with the Chairman to seek restoration of funding for 
the Manufacturing Extension Program to last year's level as the bill 
moves forward. This program has been important in allowing small- and 
medium-sized manufacturers to modernize and remain competitive in the 
global marketplace.
  I commend the Chairman further for the restoration of funds for State 
and local law enforcement efforts to fight crime in our local 
communities. This funding has allowed for the initiation of an 
important project in Stark County, Ohio to link the communications 
systems of all law enforcement agencies within the county. This will 
prevent the tragedy that occurred last year when an officer in one part 
of the county was shot even though agencies in the other part of the 
county knew an armed and dangerous man was on the loose.
  I urge support of this important appropriations bill that funds our 
local, national and international security needs.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Fiscal 
Year 2004 Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act. I commend the gentleman from 
Virginia, Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Serrano for their hard work 
on this legislation.
  This important spending bill provides critical funding for state and 
local law enforcement's crime fighting initiatives. I am particularly 
pleased that H.R. 2799 provides $500 million for the Byrne formula 
grant program. Byrne formula grants have long proven to be an important 
aid to law enforcement agencies and I know that Nebraska law 
enforcement officials have put this funding to good use.
  In Nebraska, these funds support the multi-jurisdictional drug task 
forces that are invaluable in the state's efforts to combat the influx 
of methamphetamine (meth) in our communities. In addition, Byrne grants 
have enabled effective inter-agency and multi-jurisdiction cooperation, 
information sharing, and technology improvements.
  According to the Nebraska Clandestine Lab Team, the number of 
methamphetamine labs busted in the state increased from 18 in 1998 to 
almost 250 last year. I cannot overstate the negative impact this 
dangerous drug is having on rural communities in my district. Given the 
vital role Byrne grants play in helping law enforcement officials fight 
meth production, I appreciate the committee's commitment to this 
important program.
  As a Member of the Congressional Caucus to Fight and Control 
Methamphetamine, I strongly support the $60 million in funding for the 
Methamphetamine Enforcement and Clean-Up program included in H.R. 2799. 
This legislation sends a strong message to our local law enforcement 
agencies that the federal government is a partner in fighting the meth 
scourge in our communities.
  Finally, I want to thank the committee for their commitment to the 
Nebraska State Patrol

[[Page 18976]]

to carry out their comprehensive strategy for combating methamphetamine 
in Nebraska. These additional resources will enhance the efforts 
already in place in Nebraska to address the presence of clandestine 
labs, distribution of methamphetamine and the need for treatment.
  I congratulate the Committee on bringing this legislation to the 
floor today, and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2799.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no amendment to the bill 
may be offered except: pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their 
designees for the purpose of debate; the amendments printed in the 
Congressional Record numbered 1 through 13; the amendments that have 
been placed at the desk; and two amendments offered by the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin), each regarding the United States Trade 
Representative and labor standards.
  Each amendment may be offered only by the Member designated, or a 
designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed or placed at the 
desk, or a designee, shall be considered read, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H. R. 2799

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, namely:

                     TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         General Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration of the 
     Department of Justice, $106,664,000, of which not to exceed 
     $3,317,000 is for the Facilities Program 2000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed 43 
     permanent positions and 44 full-time equivalent workyears and 
     $10,172,000 shall be expended for the Department Leadership 
     Program exclusive of augmentation that occurred in these 
     offices in fiscal year 2003: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed 31 permanent positions, 33 full-time equivalent 
     workyears and $3,464,000 shall be expended for the Office of 
     Legislative Affairs: Provided further, That not to exceed 15 
     permanent positions, 20 full-time equivalent workyears and 
     $1,875,000 shall be expended for the Office of Public 
     Affairs: Provided further, That the latter two aforementioned 
     offices may utilize non-reimbursable details of career 
     employees within the caps described in the preceding two 
     provisos: Provided further, That the Attorney General is 
     authorized to transfer, under such terms and conditions as 
     the Attorney General shall specify, forfeited real or 
     personal property of limited or marginal value, as such value 
     is determined by guidelines established by the Attorney 
     General, to a State or local government agency, or its 
     designated contractor or transferee, for use to support drug 
     abuse treatment, drug and crime prevention and education, 
     housing, job skills, and other community-based public health 
     and safety programs: Provided further, That any transfer 
     under the preceding proviso shall not create or confer any 
     private right of action in any person against the United 
     States, and shall be treated as a reprogramming under section 
     605 of this Act.


                   identification systems integration

       For necessary expenses for the nationwide deployment of a 
     Joint Automated Booking System and for the planning, 
     development, and deployment of an integrated fingerprint 
     identification system, including automated capability to 
     transmit fingerprint and image data, $20,677,000.


                   legal activities office automation

       For necessary expenses related to the design, development, 
     engineering, acquisition, and implementation of office 
     automation systems for the organizations funded under the 
     headings ``Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities'', 
     and ``General Administration, Salaries and Expenses'', and 
     the United States Attorneys, the United States Marshals 
     Service, the Antitrust Division, the United States Trustee 
     Program, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the 
     Community Relations Service, the Bureau of Prisons, and the 
     Office of Justice Programs, $30,136,000: Provided, That, of 
     the funds made available under this heading, $22,000,000 
     shall not become available for obligation until September 15, 
     2004, and shall remain available until September 30, 2005.


                       narrowband communications

       For the costs of conversion to narrowband communications, 
     including the cost for operation and maintenance of Land 
     Mobile Radio legacy systems, $103,171,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2005: Provided, That the 
     Attorney General shall transfer to the ``Narrowband 
     Communications'' account all funds made available to the 
     Department of Justice for the purchase of portable and mobile 
     radios: Provided further, That any transfer made under the 
     preceding proviso shall be subject to section 605 of this 
     Act.


                         Counterterrorism Fund

       For necessary expenses, as determined by the Attorney 
     General, $1,000,000, to remain available until expended, to 
     reimburse any Department of Justice organization for: (1) the 
     costs incurred in reestablishing the operational capability 
     of an office or facility which has been damaged or destroyed 
     as a result of any domestic or international terrorist 
     incident; and (2) the costs of providing support to counter, 
     investigate or prosecute domestic or international terrorism, 
     including payment of rewards in connection with these 
     activities: Provided, That any Federal agency may be 
     reimbursed for the costs of detaining in foreign countries 
     individuals accused of acts of terrorism that violate the 
     laws of the United States: Provided further, That funds 
     provided under this paragraph shall be available only after 
     the Attorney General notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     in accordance with section 605 of this Act.


                   Administrative Review and Appeals

       For expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and 
     clemency petitions and immigration-related activities, 
     $193,530,000.


                           Detention Trustee

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Detention Trustee who 
     shall exercise all power and functions authorized by law 
     relating to the detention of Federal prisoners in non-Federal 
     institutions or otherwise in the custody of the United States 
     Marshals Service, $810,125,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the Trustee shall be responsible for 
     managing the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System 
     and for overseeing housing related to such detention; the 
     management of funds appropriated to the Department of Justice 
     for the exercise of any detention functions; and the 
     direction of the United States Marshals Service with respect 
     to the exercise of detention policy setting and operations 
     for the Department: Provided further, That any unobligated 
     balances available in prior years from the funds appropriated 
     under the heading ``Federal Prisoner Detention'' shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation under the 
     heading ``Detention Trustee'' and shall be available until 
     expended: Provided further, That the Trustee, working in 
     consultation with the Bureau of Prisons, shall submit a plan 
     for collecting information related to evaluating the health 
     and safety of Federal prisoners in non-Federal institutions 
     no later than 180 days following the enactment of this Act.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, $56,245,000, including not to exceed $10,000 to meet 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character.

                    United States Parole Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Parole 
     Commission as authorized, $10,609,000.

                            Legal Activities


            Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities

       For expenses necessary for the legal activities of the 
     Department of Justice, not otherwise provided for, including 
     not to exceed $20,000 for expenses of collecting evidence, to 
     be expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for 
     solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; and 
     rent of private or Government-owned space in the District of 
     Columbia, $620,533,000, of which not to exceed $10,000,000 
     for litigation support contracts shall remain available until 
     expended, and of which not less than $1,996,000 shall be 
     available for necessary administrative expenses in accordance 
     with the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act: Provided, That 
     of the total amount appropriated, not to exceed $1,000 shall 
     be available to the United States National Central Bureau, 
     INTERPOL, for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, upon a determination by the Attorney General that 
     emergent circumstances require additional funding for 
     litigation activities of the Civil Division, the Attorney 
     General may transfer such

[[Page 18977]]

     amounts to ``Salaries and Expenses, General Legal 
     Activities'' 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 previous proviso shall be 
     treated as a reprogramming under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
       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 $4,028,000, 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, $128,133,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, not to exceed $112,000,000 of offsetting collections 
     derived from 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, 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 2004, so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2004 appropriation from the 
     general fund estimated at not more than $16,133,000: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding section 1353 of title 31, 
     United States Code, no employee of the Antitrust Division may 
     accept, nor may the Antitrust Division accept, payment or 
     reimbursement from a non-Federal entity for travel, 
     subsistence, or related expenses for the purpose of enabling 
     an employee to attend and participate in a convention, 
     conference, or meeting when the entity offering payment or 
     reimbursement is a person or corporation subject to 
     regulation by the Antitrust Division, or represents a person 
     or corporation subject to regulation by the Antitrust 
     Division, unless the person or corporation is an organization 
     exempt from taxation pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.


             Salaries and Expenses, United States Attorneys

       For necessary expenses of the Offices of the United States 
     Attorneys, including inter-governmental and cooperative 
     agreements, $1,526,253,000; of which not to exceed $2,500,000 
     shall be available until September 30, 2005, for: (1) 
     training personnel in debt collection; (2) locating debtors 
     and their property; (3) paying the net costs of selling 
     property; and (4) tracking debts owed to the United States 
     Government: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     not to exceed $8,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed $10,000,000 of those funds available for 
     automated litigation support contracts shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That, in addition to 
     reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears available to the 
     Offices of the United States Attorneys, not to exceed 10,113 
     positions and 10,298 full-time equivalent workyears shall be 
     supported from the funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     United States Attorneys.


                   United States Trustee System Fund

       For necessary expenses of the United States Trustee 
     Program, as authorized, $166,157,000, 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, $166,157,000 of offsetting 
     collections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 589a(b) shall be retained 
     and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation and 
     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 
     2004, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2004 
     appropriation from the Fund estimated at $0.


      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 5 U.S.C. 3109, $1,205,000.


         Salaries and Expenses, United States Marshals Service

       For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals 
     Service, $678,672,000; of which $17,403,000 shall be 
     available for 106 supervisory deputy marshal positions for 
     courthouse security; of which not to exceed $6,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses; 
     of which not to exceed $4,000,000 shall be available for 
     development, implementation, maintenance and support, and 
     training for an automated prisoner information system and 
     shall remain available until expended; of which $2,000,000 
     shall be available for the costs of courthouse security 
     equipment, including furnishings, relocations, and telephone 
     systems and cabling, and shall remain available until 
     expended; and of which not to exceed $1,371,000 is for 
     constructing United States Marshals Service prisoner-holding 
     space in United States Courthouses and Federal buildings: 
     Provided, That, in addition to reimbursable full-time 
     equivalent workyears available to the United States Marshals 
     Service, not to exceed 4,240 positions and 4,074 full-time 
     equivalent workyears shall be supported from the funds 
     appropriated in this Act for the United States Marshals 
     Service.


                     Fees and Expenses of Witnesses

       For expenses, mileage, compensation, and per diems of 
     witnesses, for expenses of contracts for the procurement and 
     supervision of expert witnesses, for private counsel 
     expenses, and for per diems in lieu of subsistence, as 
     authorized by law, including advances, $156,145,000, to 
     remain available until expended; of which not to exceed 
     $8,000,000 may be made available for planning, construction, 
     renovations, maintenance, remodeling, and repair of 
     buildings, and the purchase of equipment incident thereto, 
     for protected witness safesites; of which not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 may be made available for the purchase and 
     maintenance of armored vehicles for transportation of 
     protected witnesses; and of which not to exceed $5,000,000 
     may be made available for the purchase, installation, and 
     maintenance of secure telecommunications equipment and a 
     secure automated information network to store and retrieve 
     the identities and locations of protected witnesses.


           Salaries and Expenses, Community Relations Service

       For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service, 
     $9,526,000 and, in addition, up to $1,000,000 of funds made 
     available to the Department of Justice in this Act may be 
     transferred by the Attorney General to this account: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     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 previous proviso shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming under section 605 of this Act and shall not be 
     available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.


                         Assets Forfeiture Fund

       For expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. 524(c)(1)(B), (F), and 
     (G), $21,759,000, to be derived from the Department of 
     Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.

                    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; including purchase for 
     police-type use of not to exceed 2,454 passenger motor 
     vehicles, of which 1,843 will be for replacement only; and 
     not to exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a 
     confidential character pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 530C, 
     $4,576,730,000; of which not to exceed $65,000,000 for 
     automated data processing and telecommunications and 
     technical investigative equipment, and not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 for undercover operations, shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2005; of which $490,104,000 shall be for 
     counterterrorism investigations, foreign counterintelligence, 
     and other activities related to our national security; of 
     which not less than $153,812,000 shall only be for Joint 
     Terrorism Task Forces; and of which not to exceed $10,000,000 
     is authorized to be made available for making advances for 
     expenses arising out of contractual or reimbursable 
     agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies 
     while engaged in cooperative activities related to violent 
     crime, terrorism, organized crime, and drug investigations: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $250,000 shall be available for 
     official reception and representation expenses: Provided 
     further, That, in addition to reimbursable full-time 
     equivalent workyears available to the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, not to exceed 28,378 positions and 26,805 
     full-time equivalent workyears shall be supported from the 
     funds appropriated in this Act for the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation.


                 foreign terrorist tracking task force

       For expenses necessary for the Foreign Terrorist Tracking 
     Task Force, including salaries and expenses, operations, 
     equipment, and facilities, $61,597,000.


                              Construction

       For necessary expenses to construct or acquire buildings 
     and sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law 
     (including equipment for such buildings); conversion and 
     extension of federally-owned buildings; and preliminary 
     planning and design of projects; $1,242,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                    Drug Enforcement Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, including not to

[[Page 18978]]

     exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a 
     confidential character pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 530C; and 
     purchase of not to exceed 982 passenger motor vehicles, of 
     which 886 will be for replacement only, for police-type use, 
     $1,601,327,000; of which not to exceed $33,000,000 for 
     permanent change of station shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2005; of which not to exceed $1,800,000 for 
     research shall remain available until expended; of which not 
     to exceed $4,000,000 for purchase of evidence and payments 
     for information, not to exceed $10,000,000 for contracting 
     for automated data processing and telecommunications 
     equipment, and not to exceed $2,000,000 for laboratory 
     equipment, $4,000,000 for technical equipment, and $2,000,000 
     for aircraft replacement retrofit and parts, shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2005; and of which not to 
     exceed $50,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided, That, in addition to 
     reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears available to the 
     Drug Enforcement Administration, not to exceed 8,358 
     positions and 8,018 full-time equivalent workyears shall be 
     supported from the funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     Drug Enforcement Administration.


                      Interagency Drug Enforcement

       For necessary expenses for the detection, investigation, 
     and prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime 
     drug trafficking 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, $556,465,000, 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: Provided further, That any 
     unobligated balances remaining available at the end of the 
     fiscal year shall revert to the Drug Enforcement 
     Administrator for reallocation among participating 
     organizations in succeeding fiscal years, subject to the 
     reprogramming procedures set forth in section 605 of this 
     Act.

          Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
     Firearms and Explosives, including purchase of not to exceed 
     822 vehicles for police-type use, of which 650 shall be for 
     replacement only; not to exceed $18,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; 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, $831,199,000, of which not to 
     exceed $1,000,000 shall be available for the payment of 
     attorneys' fees as provided by 18 U.S.C. 924(d)(2); and of 
     which up to $2,000,000 shall be available for the equipping 
     of any vessel, vehicle, equipment, or aircraft available for 
     official use by a State or local law enforcement agency if 
     the conveyance will be used in joint law enforcement 
     operations with the Bureau and for the payment of overtime 
     salaries including Social Security and Medicare, travel, 
     fuel, training, equipment, supplies, and other similar costs 
     of State and local law enforcement personnel, including sworn 
     officers and support personnel, that are incurred in joint 
     operations with the Bureau: Provided, That no funds 
     appropriated herein shall be available for salaries or 
     administrative expenses in connection with consolidating or 
     centralizing, within the Department of Justice, the records, 
     or any portion thereof, of acquisition and disposition of 
     firearms maintained by Federal firearms licensees: Provided 
     further, That no funds appropriated herein shall be used to 
     pay administrative expenses or the compensation of any 
     officer or employee of the United States to implement an 
     amendment or amendments to 27 CFR 178.118 or to change the 
     definition of ``Curios or relics'' in 27 CFR 178.11 or remove 
     any item from ATF Publication 5300.11 as it existed on 
     January 1, 1994: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated herein shall be available to investigate or act 
     upon applications for relief from Federal firearms 
     disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c): 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 in fiscal year 2004: Provided further, That no 
     funds appropriated under this or any other Act may be used to 
     disclose to the public the contents or any portion thereof of 
     any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to 
     section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, or required 
     to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (7) of section 
     923(g) of title 18, United States Code, except that this 
     provision shall apply to any request for information made by 
     any person or entity after January 1, 1998: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds provided in this Act or any other Act 
     for the enforcement or implementation of section 923(g)(5) of 
     title 18, United States Code, shall be expended in a manner 
     that requires any records regarding the acquisition or 
     disposition of a firearm by a licensee to be submitted to the 
     Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives by the 
     licensee unless the records are specifically required during 
     a bona fide criminal investigation to (1) determine the 
     disposition of one or more firearms which are the subject of, 
     or attendant to, the investigation, or (2) identify an 
     individual offender who is the subject or target of the 
     investigation: Provided further, That no funds made available 
     by this or any other Act shall be expended to promulgate or 
     implement any rule requiring a physical inventory of any 
     business licensed under section 923 of title 18, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That no funds authorized or 
     made available under this or any other Act may be used to 
     deny any application for a license under section 923 of title 
     18, United States Code, or renewal of such a license due to a 
     lack of business activity, provided that the applicant is 
     otherwise eligible to receive such a license, and is eligible 
     to report business income or to claim an income tax deduction 
     for business expenses under the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986: Provided further, That no funds under this Act may be 
     used to electronically retrieve information gathered pursuant 
     to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(4) by name or any personal identification 
     code: Provided further, That subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 28 
     U.S.C. 530C(b)(2), are amended by inserting ``for the Bureau 
     of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,'' after 
     ``Marshals Service,'' in each subparagraph.

                         Federal Prison System


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration, operation, 
     and maintenance of Federal penal and correctional 
     institutions, including purchase (not to exceed 838, of which 
     535 are for replacement only) and hire of law enforcement and 
     passenger motor vehicles, and for the provision of technical 
     assistance and advice on corrections related issues to 
     foreign governments, $4,461,257,000: Provided, That the 
     Attorney General may transfer to the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration such amounts as may be necessary for 
     direct expenditures by that Administration 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/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 $6,000 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, 2005: 
     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 
     authorized by section 501(c) of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980, for the care and security in the 
     United States of Cuban and Haitian entrants: 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, $202,840,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which not to exceed $14,000,000 shall be available to 
     construct areas for inmate work programs: Provided, That 
     labor of United States prisoners may be used for work 
     performed under this appropriation: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed 10 percent of the funds appropriated to 
     ``Buildings and Facilities'' in this or any other Act may be 
     transferred to ``Salaries and Expenses'', Federal Prison 
     System, upon notification by the Attorney General to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate in compliance with provisions set forth in 
     section 605 of this Act.


                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

[[Page 18979]]

     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, 
     including purchase (not to exceed five for replacement only) 
     and hire of passenger motor vehicles.


   Limitation on Administrative Expenses, Federal Prison Industries, 
                              Incorporated

       Not to exceed $3,429,000 of the funds of the corporation 
     shall be available for its administrative expenses, and for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 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.

                       Office of Justice Programs


                           Justice Assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the Missing Children's 
     Assistance Act, including salaries and expenses in connection 
     therewith, the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end 
     the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Public Law 
     108-21), and the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, $209,131,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


               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 Victims of Trafficking and 
     Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-386); and 
     other programs; $1,640,861,000 (including amounts for 
     administrative costs, which shall be transferred to and 
     merged with the ``Justice Assistance'' account): Provided, 
     That all balances under this heading for programs to address 
     violence against women may be transferred to and merged with 
     the appropriation for ``Violence Against Women Prevention and 
     Prosecution Programs'': Provided further, That funding 
     provided under this heading shall remain available until 
     expended as follows:
       (1) $400,000,000 for Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, 
     pursuant to H.R. 728 as passed by the House of 
     Representatives on February 14, 1995, except that for 
     purposes of this Act and retroactive to October 1, 2000, Guam 
     shall be considered as one ``State'' for all purposes under 
     H.R. 728: Provided, That funding shall be available for the 
     purposes authorized by part E of title I of the 1968 Act: 
     Provided further, That no funds provided under this heading 
     may be used as matching funds for any other Federal grant 
     program, of which--
       (A) $80,000,000 shall be for Boys and Girls Clubs in public 
     housing facilities and other areas in cooperation with State 
     and local law enforcement, as authorized by section 401 of 
     Public Law 104-294 (42 U.S.C. 13751 note): Provided, That 
     funds may also be used to defray the costs of indemnification 
     insurance for law enforcement officers;
       (B) $20,000,000 shall be available for grants, contracts, 
     and other assistance to carry out section 102(c) of H.R. 728; 
     and
       (C) $5,000,000 for USA Freedom Corps activities;
       (2) $400,000,000 for the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
     Program, as authorized by section 242(j) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act;
       (3) $2,500,000 for the Cooperative Agreement Program for 
     the improvement of State and local correctional facilities 
     holding prisoners in custody of the U.S. Marshals Service;
       (4) $13,000,000 for assistance to Indian tribes, of which--
       (A) $8,000,000 shall be available for the Tribal Courts 
     Initiative; and
       (B) $5,000,000 shall be available for demonstration 
     projects on alcohol and crime in Indian Country;
       (5) $615,000,000 for programs authorized by part E of title 
     I of the 1968 Act, notwithstanding the provisions of section 
     511 of said Act, of which $115,000,000 shall be for 
     discretionary grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial State 
     and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs;
       (6) $10,000,000 for victim services programs for victims of 
     trafficking, as authorized by section 107(b)(2) of Public Law 
     106-386;
       (7) $70,000,000 for grants for residential substance abuse 
     treatment for State prisoners, as authorized by part S of the 
     1968 Act;
       (8) $892,000 for the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient 
     Alert Program, as authorized by section 240001(c) of the 1994 
     Act;
       (9) $55,000,000 for Drug Courts, as authorized by Part EE 
     of title I of the 1968 Act;
       (10) $1,487,000 for Law Enforcement Family Support 
     Programs, as authorized by section 1001(a)(21) of the 1968 
     Act;
       (11) $1,982,000 for public awareness programs addressing 
     marketing scams aimed at senior citizens, as authorized by 
     section 250005(3) of the 1994 Act;
       (12) $10,000,000 for a prescription drug monitoring 
     program;
       (13) $60,000,000 for implementation of prison rape 
     prevention and prosecution programs; and
       (14) $1,000,000 for a State and local law enforcement hate 
     crimes training and technical assistance program:
     Provided further, That funds made available in fiscal year 
     2004 under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the 1968 Act may 
     be obligated for programs to assist States in the litigation 
     processing of death penalty Federal habeas corpus petitions 
     and for drug testing initiatives: Provided further, That, if 
     a unit of local government uses any of the funds made 
     available under this title 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 nonadministrative public safety service.


                       Weed and Seed Program Fund

       For necessary expenses to implement ``Weed and Seed'' 
     program activities, $51,811,000, to remain available until 
     expended, for inter-governmental agreements, including 
     grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts, with State and 
     local law enforcement agencies, non-profit organizations, and 
     agencies of local government engaged in the investigation and 
     prosecution of violent crimes and drug offenses in ``Weed and 
     Seed'' designated communities, and for either reimbursements 
     or transfers to appropriation accounts of the Department of 
     Justice and other Federal agencies which shall be specified 
     by the Attorney General to execute the ``Weed and Seed'' 
     program strategy: Provided, That funds designated by Congress 
     through language for other Department of Justice 
     appropriation accounts for ``Weed and Seed'' program 
     activities shall be managed and executed by the Attorney 
     General through the Executive Office for Weed and Seed: 
     Provided further, That the Attorney General may direct the 
     use of other Department of Justice funds and personnel in 
     support of ``Weed and Seed'' program activities only after 
     the Attorney General notifies the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     in accordance with section 605 of this Act.


                  Community Oriented Policing Services

       For activities authorized by the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) (including 
     administrative costs), $682,993,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That funds that become available as 
     a result of deobligations from prior year balances may not be 
     obligated except in accordance with section 605 of this Act: 
     Provided further, That section 1703(b) and (c) of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act'') 
     shall not apply to non-hiring grants made pursuant to part Q 
     of title I thereof (42 U.S.C. 3796dd et seq.).
       Of the amounts provided--
       (1) $20,662,000 for community policing training and 
     technical assistance;
       (2) $25,000,000 for the matching grant program for Law 
     Enforcement Armor Vests pursuant to section 2501 of part Y of 
     the 1968 Act;
       (3) $30,000,000 to improve tribal law enforcement including 
     equipment and training;
       (4) $60,000,000 for policing initiatives to combat 
     methamphetamine production and trafficking and to enhance 
     policing initiatives in ``drug hot spots'';
       (5) $28,315,000 for Police Corps education and training: 
     Provided, That the out-year program costs of new recruits 
     shall be fully funded from funds currently available;
       (6) $100,000,000 for a law enforcement technology program;
       (7) $56,924,000 for grants to upgrade criminal records, as 
     authorized under the Crime Identification Technology Act of 
     1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601);
       (8) $174,353,000 for a DNA analysis and backlog reduction 
     formula program, of which--
       (A) not less than $35,000,000 shall be for increasing State 
     and local DNA laboratory capacity; and
       (B) $10,000,000 shall be for discretionary research, 
     demonstration, evaluation, statistics, technical assistance 
     and training;
       (9) $5,000,000 for Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences 
     Improvement Grants under part BB of title I of the 1968 Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 3797j et seq.);
       (10) $40,000,000 for the Southwest Border Prosecutor 
     Initiative to reimburse State, county, parish, tribal, or 
     municipal governments only for costs associated with the 
     prosecution of criminal cases declined by local U.S. 
     Attorneys offices;
       (11) $13,504,000 for an offender re-entry program, as 
     authorized by Public Law 107-273;
       (12) $17,000,000 for a police integrity program;
       (13) $45,000,000 for Project Safe Neighborhoods to reduce 
     gun violence, and gang and drug-related crime;
       (14) $41,105,000 shall be available to the United States 
     Marshals Service, of which--
       (A) $28,519,000 shall be for the District of Columbia 
     Superior Court Office; and
       (B) $12,586,000 shall be for fugitive apprehension task 
     forces with State and local law enforcement; and

[[Page 18980]]

       (15) not to exceed $26,130,000 for program management and 
     administration.


       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 (``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 (``the 1990 Act''); the Prosecutorial Remedies and 
     Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 
     2003 (Public Law 108-21); and the Victims of Trafficking and 
     Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-386); 
     $387,629,000 (including amounts for administrative costs, 
     which shall be transferred to and merged with the ``General 
     Administration'' account), to remain available until 
     expended.
       Of the amount provided--
       (1) $11,897,000 for the court appointed special advocate 
     program, as authorized by section 217 of the 1990 Act;
       (2) $2,281,000 for child abuse training programs for 
     judicial personnel and practitioners, as authorized by 
     section 222 of the 1990 Act;
       (3) $994,000 for grants for televised testimony, as 
     authorized by part N of the 1968 Act;
       (4) $183,334,000 for grants to combat violence against 
     women, as authorized by part T of the 1968 Act, of which--
       (A) $5,200,000 shall be for the National Institute of 
     Justice for research and evaluation of violence against 
     women;
       (B) $10,000,000 shall be for the Office of Juvenile Justice 
     and Delinquency Prevention for the Safe Start Program, as 
     authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Act of 
     1974; and
       (C) $15,000,000 shall be for transitional housing 
     assistance grants for victims of domestic violence, stalking 
     or sexual assault as authorized by Public Law 108-21;
       (5) $64,503,000 for grants to encourage arrest policies as 
     authorized by part U of the 1968 Act;
       (6) $39,685,000 for rural domestic violence and child abuse 
     enforcement assistance grants, as authorized by section 40295 
     of the 1994 Act;
       (7) $4,957,000 for training programs as authorized by 
     section 40152 of the 1994 Act, and for related local 
     demonstration projects;
       (8) $2,981,000 for grants to improve the stalking and 
     domestic violence databases, as authorized by section 40602 
     of the 1994 Act;
       (9) $9,935,000 to reduce violent crimes against women on 
     campus, as authorized by section 1108(a) of Public Law 106-
     386;
       (10) $39,740,000 for legal assistance for victims, as 
     authorized by section 1201 of Public Law 106-386;
       (11) $4,968,000 for enhancing protection for older and 
     disabled women from domestic violence and sexual assault as 
     authorized by section 40802 of the 1994 Act;
       (12) $14,903,000 for the safe havens for children pilot 
     program as authorized by section 1301 of Public Law 106-386; 
     and
       (13) $7,451,000 for education and training to end violence 
     against and abuse of women with disabilities, as authorized 
     by section 1402 of Public Law 106-386.

  Mr. WOLF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remainder of the bill through page 66, line 4, be considered 
as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 34, line 21, through page 66, line 4, 
is as follows:


                       Juvenile Justice Programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (``the Act''), and other juvenile 
     justice programs, including salaries and expenses in 
     connection therewith to be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriations for Justice Assistance, $462,282,000, to 
     remain available until expended, as follows:
       (1) $7,000,000 for concentration of Federal efforts, as 
     authorized by section 204 of the Act;
       (2) $90,000,000 for State and local programs authorized by 
     section 221 of the Act, including training and technical 
     assistance to assist small, non-profit organizations with the 
     Federal grants process;
       (3) $40,000,000 for juvenile delinquency prevention block 
     grants, as authorized by section 241 of the Act;
       (4) $7,000,000 for research, evaluation, training and 
     technical assistance, as authorized by sections 251 and 252 
     of the Act;
       (5) $50,000,000 for demonstration projects as authorized by 
     sections 261 and 262 of the Act;
       (6) $92,282,000 for delinquency prevention, as authorized 
     by section 505 of the Act, of which--
       (A) $12,500,000 shall be for the Tribal Youth program;
       (B) $20,000,000 shall be for a gang resistance education 
     and training program to be coordinated with the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; and
       (C) $25,000,000 shall be for grants of $360,000 to each 
     State and $6,640,000 shall be available for discretionary 
     grants to States, for programs and activities to enforce 
     State laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to 
     minors or the purchase or consumption of alcoholic beverages 
     by minors, prevention and reduction of consumption of 
     alcoholic beverages by minors, and for technical assistance 
     and training;
       (7) $25,000,000 for Project Childsafe;
       (8) $20,000,000 for the Secure Our Schools Act as 
     authorized by Public Law 106-386;
       (9) $20,000,000 for Project Sentry to reduce youth gun 
     violence, and gang and drug-related crime;
       (10) $11,000,000 for programs authorized by the Victims of 
     Child Abuse Act of 1990; and
       (11) $100,000,000 for the Juvenile Accountability Block 
     Grants program as authorized by Public Law 107-273 and Guam 
     shall be considered a State.


                    Public Safety Officers Benefits

       To remain available until expended, for payments authorized 
     by part L of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796), such sums as are 
     necessary, as authorized by section 6093 of Public Law 100-
     690 (102 Stat. 4339-4340); $4,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended for payments as authorized by section 1201(b) 
     of said Act and $3,500,000 for education assistance, as 
     authorized by section 1212 of said Act.

               General Provisions--Department of Justice

       Sec. 101. In addition to amounts otherwise made available 
     in this title for official reception and representation 
     expenses, a total of not to exceed $45,000 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. 102. 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: Provided, That 
     should this prohibition be declared unconstitutional by a 
     court of competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null 
     and void.
       Sec. 103. 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. 104. 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 103 intended to address the philosophical beliefs 
     of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
       Sec. 105. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not 
     to exceed $10,000,000 of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to establish and publicize a program under which 
     publicly advertised, extraordinary rewards may be paid, which 
     shall not be subject to spending limitations contained in 
     sections 3059 and 3072 of title 18, United States Code: 
     Provided, That any reward of $100,000 or more, up to a 
     maximum of $2,000,000, may not be made without the personal 
     approval of the President or the Attorney General and such 
     approval may not be delegated: Provided further, That rewards 
     made pursuant to section 501 of Public Law 107-56 shall not 
     be subject to this section.
       Sec. 106. 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 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 107. Section 114 of Public Law 107-77 shall remain in 
     effect during fiscal year 2004.
       Sec. 108. Authorities contained in the 21st Century 
     Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act 
     (Public Law 107-273) shall remain in effect until the 
     effective date of a subsequent Department of Justice 
     appropriations authorization Act.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice 
     Appropriations Act, 2004''.

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                  Trade and Infrastructure Development

                            RELATED AGENCIES

            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 5 U.S.C. 3109, $41,994,000, 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: Provided further, That not less than 
     $2,000,000 provided under this heading shall be for expenses 
     authorized by 19 U.S.C. 2451 and 1677b(c).

[[Page 18981]]



                     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 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed 
     $2,500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $57,000,000, to remain available until expended.

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                   International Trade Administration


                     Operations and Administration

       For necessary expenses for international trade activities 
     of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and for 
     engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including 
     expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose 
     of promoting exports of United States firms, without regard 
     to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 3703; full medical coverage for 
     dependent members of immediate families of employees 
     stationed overseas and employees temporarily posted overseas; 
     travel and transportation of employees of the United States 
     and Foreign Commercial Service between two points abroad, 
     without regard to 49 U.S.C. 40118; employment of Americans 
     and aliens by contract for services; rental of space abroad 
     for periods not exceeding 10 years, and expenses of 
     alteration, repair, or improvement; purchase or construction 
     of temporary demountable exhibition structures for use 
     abroad; payment of tort claims, in the manner authorized in 
     the first paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise 
     in foreign countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official 
     representation expenses abroad; purchase of passenger motor 
     vehicles for official use abroad, not to exceed $30,000 per 
     vehicle; obtaining insurance on official motor vehicles; and 
     rental of tie lines, $395,123,000, to remain available until 
     expended, of which $13,000,000 is to be derived from fees to 
     be retained and used by the International Trade 
     Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided, 
     That $46,669,000 shall be for Manufacturing and Services; 
     $38,204,000 shall be for Market Access and Compliance; 
     $68,160,000 shall be for the Import Administration of which 
     $3,000,000 is to establish an Office of China Compliance; 
     $217,040,000 shall be for the United States and Foreign 
     Commercial Service of which $1,500,000 is for the Advocacy 
     Center, $2,500,000 is for the Trade Information Center, and 
     $2,100,000 is for a China and Middle East Business Center; 
     and $25,050,000 shall be for Executive Direction and 
     Administration: Provided further, That the provisions of the 
     first sentence of section 105(f) and all of section 108(c) of 
     the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall apply in carrying out these 
     activities without regard to section 5412 of the Omnibus 
     Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4912); and 
     that for the purpose of this Act, contributions under the 
     provisions of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange 
     Act of 1961 shall include payment for assessments for 
     services provided as part of these activities.

                    Bureau of Industry and Security


                     Operations and Administration

       For necessary expenses for export administration and 
     national security activities of the Department of Commerce, 
     including costs associated with the performance of export 
     administration field activities both domestically and abroad; 
     full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate 
     families of employees stationed overseas; employment of 
     Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; payment 
     of tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first 
     paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign 
     countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation 
     expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under 
     the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by 
     22 U.S.C. 401(b); and purchase of passenger motor vehicles 
     for official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use 
     with special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase 
     without regard to any price limitation otherwise established 
     by law, $68,203,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2005, of which $7,203,000 shall be for inspections and other 
     activities related to national security: Provided, That the 
     provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f) and all of 
     section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural 
     Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall 
     apply in carrying out these activities: Provided further, 
     That payments and contributions collected and accepted for 
     materials or services provided as part of such activities may 
     be retained for use in covering the cost of such activities, 
     and for providing information to the public with respect to 
     the export administration and national security activities of 
     the Department of Commerce and other export control programs 
     of the United States and other governments.

                  Economic Development Administration


                Economic Development Assistance Programs

       For grants for economic development assistance as provided 
     by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, and 
     for trade adjustment assistance, $288,115,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of administering the economic 
     development assistance programs as provided for by law, 
     $30,565,000: Provided, That these funds may be used to 
     monitor projects approved pursuant to title I of the Public 
     Works Employment Act of 1976, title II of the Trade Act of 
     1974, and the Community Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1977.

                  Minority Business Development Agency


                     Minority Business Development

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Commerce in 
     fostering, promoting, and developing minority business 
     enterprise, including expenses of grants, contracts, and 
     other agreements with public or private organizations, 
     $29,000,000.

                Economic and Information Infrastructure

                   Economic and Statistical Analysis


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, of economic 
     and statistical analysis programs of the Department of 
     Commerce, $75,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2005.

                          Bureau of the Census


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for collecting, compiling, 
     analyzing, preparing, and publishing statistics, provided for 
     by law, $220,908,000.


                     Periodic Censuses and Programs

       For necessary expenses related to the 2010 decennial 
     census, $260,200,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2005: Provided, That, of the total amount available related 
     to the 2010 decennial census, $112,090,000 is for the Re-
     engineered Design Process for the Short-Form Only Census, 
     $64,800,000 is for the American Community Survey, and 
     $83,310,000 is for the Master Address File/Topologically 
     Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER) 
     system.
       In addition, for expenses to collect and publish statistics 
     for other periodic censuses and programs provided for by law, 
     $180,853,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005, 
     of which $80,082,000 is for economic statistics programs and 
     $100,771,000 is for demographic statistics programs: 
     Provided, That regarding engineering and design of a facility 
     at the Suitland Federal Center, quarterly reports regarding 
     the expenditure of funds and project planning, design and 
     cost decisions shall be provided by the Bureau, in 
     cooperation with the General Services Administration, to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided in this or any other Act under the heading ``Bureau 
     of the Census, Periodic Censuses and Programs'' shall be used 
     to fund the construction and tenant build-out costs of a 
     facility at the Suitland Federal Center.

       National Telecommunications and Information Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, as provided for by law, of the 
     National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
     (NTIA), $14,604,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 
     U.S.C. 1535(d), the Secretary of Commerce shall charge 
     Federal agencies for costs incurred in spectrum management, 
     analysis, and operations, and related services and such fees 
     shall be retained and used as offsetting collections for 
     costs of such spectrum services, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That the Secretary of Commerce is 
     authorized to retain and use as offsetting collections all 
     funds transferred, or previously transferred, from other 
     Government agencies for all costs incurred in 
     telecommunications research, engineering, and related 
     activities by the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences of 
     NTIA, in furtherance of its assigned functions under this 
     paragraph, and such funds received from other Government 
     agencies shall remain available until expended.


    Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction

       For the administration of grants authorized by section 392 
     of the Communications Act of 1934, $2,538,000,  as authorized 
     by section 391 of the Act: Provided, That, notwithstanding 
     section 391 of the Act, the prior year unobligated balances 
     may be made available for grants for projects for which 
     applications have been submitted and approved during any 
     fiscal year.


                   Information Infrastructure Grants

       For grants authorized by section 392 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934, $15,402,000, to remain available until expended 
     as authorized by section 391 of the Act: Provided, That not 
     to exceed $3,097,000 shall be available for program 
     administration and other support activities as authorized by 
     section 391: Provided further, That, of the funds 
     appropriated herein, not to exceed 5 percent may be available 
     for telecommunications research activities for projects 
     related directly to the development of a national information 
     infrastructure: Provided further, That, notwithstanding the 
     requirements of sections 392(a) and 392(c) of the Act, these 
     funds may be used for the planning and construction of 
     telecommunications networks for the provision of educational, 
     cultural, health care, public information, public safety, or 
     other social services: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding

[[Page 18982]]

     any other provision of law, no entity that receives 
     telecommunications services at preferential rates under 
     section 254(h) of the Act (47 U.S.C. 254(h)) or receives 
     assistance under the regional information sharing systems 
     grant program of the Department of Justice under part M of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796h) may use funds under a grant under this 
     heading to cover any costs of the entity that would otherwise 
     be covered by such preferential rates or such assistance, as 
     the case may be.

               United States Patent and Trademark Office


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Patent and 
     Trademark Office provided for by law, including defense of 
     suits instituted against the Under Secretary of Commerce for 
     Intellectual Property and Director of the United States 
     Patent and Trademark Office, $1,138,700,000, to remain 
     available until expended, which amount shall be derived from 
     offsetting collections assessed and collected pursuant to 15 
     U.S.C. 1113 and 35 U.S.C. 41 and 376, and shall be retained 
     and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation: 
     Provided, That the sum herein appropriated from the general 
     fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections are 
     received during fiscal year 2004, so as to result in a fiscal 
     year 2004 appropriation from the general fund estimated at 
     $0: Provided further, That during fiscal year 2004, should 
     the total amount of offsetting fee collections be less than 
     $1,138,700,000, the total amounts available to the United 
     States Patent and Trademark Office shall be reduced 
     accordingly: Provided further, That an additional amount not 
     to exceed $100,000,000 from fees collected in prior fiscal 
     years shall be available for obligation in fiscal year 2004, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     from amounts provided herein, not to exceed $1,000 shall be 
     made available in fiscal year 2004 for official reception and 
     representation expenses.

                         Science and Technology

                       Technology Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Under Secretary for 
     Technology Office of Technology Policy, $7,822,000.

             National Institute of Standards and Technology


             scientific and technical research and services

       For necessary expenses of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, $357,862,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which not to exceed $282,000 may be 
     transferred to the ``Working Capital Fund''.

                     industrial technology services

       For necessary expenses of the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology, $39,607,000, to remain available until expended.


                  Construction of Research Facilities

       For construction of new research facilities, including 
     architectural and engineering design, and for renovation and 
     maintenance of existing facilities, not otherwise provided 
     for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as 
     authorized by 15 U.S.C. 278c-278e, $62,590,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


                  Operations, Research, and Facilities

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of activities authorized by law for 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     including maintenance, operation, and hire of aircraft; 
     grants, contracts, or other payments to nonprofit 
     organizations for the purposes of conducting activities 
     pursuant to cooperative agreements; and relocation of 
     facilities as authorized, $2,180,454,000: Provided, That fees 
     and donations received by the National Ocean Service for the 
     management of the national marine sanctuaries may be retained 
     and used for the salaries and expenses associated with those 
     activities, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided further, 
     That, in addition, $79,251,000 shall be derived by transfer 
     from the fund entitled ``Promote and Develop Fishery Products 
     and Research Pertaining to American Fisheries'': Provided 
     further, That, of the $2,276,705,000 provided for in direct 
     obligations under this heading (of which $2,180,454,000 is 
     appropriated from the General Fund, $79,251,000 is provided 
     by transfer, and $17,000,000 is derived from deobligations 
     from prior years), $363,239,000 shall be for the National 
     Ocean Service, $545,072,000 shall be for the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service, $306,443,000 shall be for Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Research, $713,773,000 shall be for the National 
     Weather Service, $146,334,000 shall be for the National 
     Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, and 
     $201,844,000 shall be for Program Support: Provided further, 
     That no general administrative charge shall be applied 
     against an assigned activity included in this Act and, 
     further, that any direct administrative expenses applied 
     against an assigned activity shall be limited to 5 percent of 
     the funds provided for that assigned activity so that total 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     administrative expenses shall not exceed $243,000,000: 
     Provided further, That any use of deobligated balances of 
     funds provided under this heading in previous years shall be 
     subject to the procedures set forth in section 605 of this 
     Act: Provided further, That none of the funds under this 
     heading are available to alter the existing structure, 
     organization, function, and funding of the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service Southwest Region and Fisheries Science 
     Center and Northwest Region and Fisheries Science Center: 
     Provided further, That funding provided under this heading 
     for ocean and coastal observing system grants shall require 
     an equal match from other non-Federal sources: Provided 
     further, That, hereafter, the Secretary of Commerce may enter 
     into cooperative agreements with the Joint and Cooperative 
     Institutes as designated by the Secretary to use the 
     personnel, services, or facilities of such organizations for 
     research, education, training, and outreach.
       In addition, for necessary retired pay expenses under the 
     Retired Serviceman's Family Protection and Survivor Benefits 
     Plan, and for payments for medical care of retired personnel 
     and their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act 
     (10 U.S.C. ch. 55), such sums as may be necessary.


               Procurement, Acquisition and Construction

       For procurement, acquisition and construction of capital 
     assets, including alteration and modification costs, of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     $794,059,000, to remain available until September 30, 2006, 
     except for funds appropriated for the National Marine 
     Fisheries Service Honolulu Laboratory and for the National 
     Environmental Satellites, Data, and Information Service, 
     which shall remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     of the amounts provided for the National Polar-orbiting 
     Operational Environmental Satellite System, funds shall only 
     be made available on a dollar for dollar matching basis with 
     funds provided for the same purpose by the Department of 
     Defense: Provided further, That none of the funds provided in 
     this Act or any other Act under the heading ``National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Procurement, 
     Acquisition and Construction'' shall be used to fund the 
     General Services Administration's standard construction and 
     tenant build-out costs of a facility at the Suitland Federal 
     Center.


                    Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery

       For necessary expenses associated with the restoration of 
     Pacific salmon populations, $90,000,000.


                   fisheries finance program account

       Funds provided under this heading for the costs of direct 
     loans authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974: Provided, That these funds are available to subsidize 
     gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans 
     not to exceed $59,000,000 only to finance fishing capacity 
     reduction programs, individual fishing quotas, reconditioning 
     of fishing vessels for the purpose of reducing bycatch or 
     reducing capacity in an overfished or over-capitalized 
     fishery, and the purchase of assets sold at foreclosure 
     instituted by the Secretary of Commerce: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds made available under this heading may 
     be used for direct loans for any new fishing vessel that will 
     increase the harvesting capacity in any United States 
     fishery.

                        Departmental Management


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the departmental management of 
     the Department of Commerce provided for by law, including not 
     to exceed $5,000 for official entertainment, $44,662,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed 11 full-time equivalents and 
     $1,621,000 shall be expended for the legislative affairs 
     function of the Department.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $22,000,000.

               General Provisions--Department of Commerce

       Sec. 201. During the current fiscal year, applicable 
     appropriations and funds made available to the Department of 
     Commerce by this Act shall be available for the activities 
     specified in the Act of October 26, 1949 (15 U.S.C. 1514), to 
     the extent and in the manner prescribed by the Act, and, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3324, may be used for advanced 
     payments not otherwise authorized only upon the certification 
     of officials designated by the Secretary of Commerce that 
     such payments are in the public interest.
       Sec. 202. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     made available to the Department of Commerce by this Act for 
     salaries and expenses shall be available for hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 
     1344; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and uniforms 
     or allowances therefore, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-
     5902).
       Sec. 203. Hereafter, none of the funds made available by 
     this or any other Act for the

[[Page 18983]]

     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may be used 
     to support the hurricane reconnaissance aircraft and 
     activities that are under the control of the United States 
     Air Force or the United States Air Force Reserve.
       Sec. 204. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Commerce 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: Provided, That 
     any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 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 the Secretary of Commerce shall notify 
     the Committees on Appropriations at least 15 days in advance 
     of the acquisition or disposal of any capital asset 
     (including land, structures, and equipment) not specifically 
     provided for in this or any other Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act.
       Sec. 205. Any costs incurred by a department or agency 
     funded under this title resulting from personnel actions 
     taken in response to funding reductions included in this 
     title or from actions taken for the care and protection of 
     loan collateral or grant property 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 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 206. The Secretary of Commerce may use the Commerce 
     franchise fund for expenses and equipment necessary for the 
     maintenance and operation of such administrative services as 
     the Secretary determines may be performed more advantageously 
     as central services, pursuant to section 403 of Public Law 
     103-356: Provided, That any inventories, equipment, and other 
     assets pertaining to the services to be provided by such 
     fund, either on hand or on order, less the related 
     liabilities or unpaid obligations, and any appropriations 
     made for the purpose of providing capital shall be used to 
     capitalize such fund: Provided further, That such fund shall 
     be paid in advance from funds available to the Department of 
     Commerce and other Federal agencies for which such 
     centralized services are performed, at rates which will 
     return in full all expenses of operation, including accrued 
     leave, depreciation of fund plant and equipment, amortization 
     of automated data processing (ADP) software and systems 
     (either acquired or donated), and an amount necessary to 
     maintain a reasonable operating reserve, as determined by the 
     Secretary: Provided further, That such fund shall provide 
     services on a competitive basis: Provided further, That an 
     amount not to exceed 4 percent of the total annual income to 
     such fund may be retained in the fund for fiscal year 2004 
     and each fiscal year thereafter, to remain available until 
     expended, to be used for the acquisition of capital 
     equipment, and for the improvement and implementation of 
     department financial management, ADP, and other support 
     systems: Provided further, That such amounts retained in the 
     fund for fiscal year 2004 and each fiscal year thereafter 
     shall be available for obligation and expenditure only in 
     accordance with section 605 of this Act: Provided further, 
     That no later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal year, 
     amounts in excess of this reserve limitation shall be 
     deposited as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury: Provided 
     further, That such franchise fund pilot program shall 
     terminate pursuant to section 403(f) of Public Law 103-356.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Commerce and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004''.

                        TITLE III--THE JUDICIARY

                   Supreme Court of the United States


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the operation of the Supreme 
     Court, as required by law, excluding care of the building and 
     grounds, including purchase or hire, driving, maintenance, 
     and operation of an automobile for the Chief Justice, not to 
     exceed $10,000 for the purpose of transporting Associate 
     Justices, and hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized 
     by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344; not to exceed $10,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; and for 
     miscellaneous expenses, to be expended as the Chief Justice 
     may approve, $55,360,000.


                    Care of the Building and Grounds

       For such expenditures as may be necessary to enable the 
     Architect of the Capitol to carry out the duties imposed upon 
     the Architect as authorized by law, $10,591,000, which shall 
     remain available until expended.

         United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries of the chief judge, judges, and other officers 
     and employees, and for necessary expenses of the court, as 
     authorized by law, $20,665,000.

               United States Court of International Trade


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries of the chief judge and eight judges, salaries 
     of the officers and employees of the court, services, and 
     necessary expenses of the court, as authorized by law, 
     $14,068,000.

    Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For the salaries of circuit and district judges (including 
     judges of the territorial courts of the United States), 
     justices and judges retired from office or from regular 
     active service, judges of the United States Court of Federal 
     Claims, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges, and all other 
     officers and employees of the Federal Judiciary not otherwise 
     specifically provided for, and necessary expenses of the 
     courts, as authorized by law, $4,004,176,000 (including the 
     purchase of firearms and ammunition); of which not to exceed 
     $27,817,000 shall remain available until expended for space 
     alteration projects and for furniture and furnishings related 
     to new space alteration and construction projects.
       In addition, for expenses of the United States Court of 
     Federal Claims associated with processing cases under the 
     National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to exceed 
     $3,293,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Trust Fund.


                           Defender Services

       For the operation of Federal Public Defender and Community 
     Defender organizations; the compensation and reimbursement of 
     expenses of attorneys appointed to represent persons under 
     the Criminal Justice Act of 1964; the compensation and 
     reimbursement of expenses of persons furnishing 
     investigative, expert and other services under the Criminal 
     Justice Act of 1964 (18 U.S.C. 3006A(e)); the compensation 
     (in accordance with Criminal Justice Act maximums) and 
     reimbursement of expenses of attorneys appointed to assist 
     the court in criminal cases where the defendant has waived 
     representation by counsel; the compensation and reimbursement 
     of travel expenses of guardians ad litem acting on behalf of 
     financially eligible minor or incompetent offenders in 
     connection with transfers from the United States to foreign 
     countries with which the United States has a treaty for the 
     execution of penal sentences; the compensation of attorneys 
     appointed to represent jurors in civil actions for the 
     protection of their employment, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 
     1875(d); and for necessary training and general 
     administrative expenses, $613,948,000, to remain available 
     until expended.


                    Fees of Jurors and Commissioners

       For fees and expenses of jurors as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 
     1871 and 1876; compensation of jury commissioners as 
     authorized by 28 U.S.C. 1863; and compensation of 
     commissioners appointed in condemnation cases pursuant to 
     rule 71A(h) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 
     U.S.C. Appendix Rule 71A(h)), $53,181,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the compensation of 
     land commissioners shall not exceed the daily equivalent of 
     the highest rate payable under section 5332 of title 5, 
     United States Code.


                             Court Security

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     incident to providing protective guard services for United 
     States courthouses and the procurement, installation, and 
     maintenance of security equipment for United States 
     courthouses and other facilities housing Federal court 
     operations, including building ingress-egress control, 
     inspection of mail and packages, directed security patrols, 
     and other similar activities as authorized by section 1010 of 
     the Judicial Improvement and Access to Justice Act (Public 
     Law 100-702), $288,941,000, of which not to exceed 
     $10,000,000 shall remain available until expended, to be 
     expended directly or transferred to the United States 
     Marshals Service, which shall be responsible for 
     administering the Judicial Facility Security Program 
     consistent with standards or guidelines agreed to by the 
     Director of the Administrative Office of the United States 
     Courts and the Attorney General.

           Administrative Office of the United States Courts


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Administrative Office of the 
     United States Courts as authorized by law, including travel 
     as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1345, hire of a passenger motor 
     vehicle as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b), advertising and 
     rent in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, $66,968,000, 
     of which not to exceed $8,500 is authorized for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

                        Federal Judicial Center


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Judicial Center, as 
     authorized by Public Law 90-219, $21,440,000; of which 
     $1,800,000 shall remain available through September 30, 2005,

[[Page 18984]]

     to provide education and training to Federal court personnel; 
     and of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

                       Judicial Retirement Funds


                    Payment to Judiciary Trust Funds

       For payment to the Judicial Officers' Retirement Fund, as 
     authorized by 28 U.S.C. 377(o), $25,700,000; to the Judicial 
     Survivors' Annuities Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 376(c), 
     $700,000; and to the United States Court of Federal Claims 
     Judges' Retirement Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 178(l), 
     $2,600,000.

                  United States Sentencing Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For the salaries and expenses necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of chapter 58 of title 28, United States Code, 
     $12,746,000, of which not to exceed $1,000 is authorized for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

                   General Provisions--The Judiciary

       Sec. 301. Appropriations and authorizations made in this 
     title which are available for salaries and expenses shall be 
     available for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 302. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Judiciary in 
     this Act may be transferred between such appropriations, but 
     no such appropriation, except ``Courts of Appeals, District 
     Courts, and Other Judicial Services, Defender Services'' and 
     ``Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial 
     Services, Fees of Jurors and Commissioners'', 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 605 of this 
     Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure 
     except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that 
     section.
       Sec. 303. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     salaries and expenses appropriation for district courts, 
     courts of appeals, and other judicial services shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses 
     of the Judicial Conference of the United States: Provided, 
     That such available funds shall not exceed $11,000 and shall 
     be administered by the Director of the Administrative Office 
     of the United States Courts in the capacity as Secretary of 
     the Judicial Conference.
       Sec. 304. (a) The Supreme Court shall establish a pilot 
     program under which the Court may repay (by direct payment on 
     behalf of the employee) any student loan (up to $6,000 per 
     year) previously taken out by an employee serving as a full-
     time judicial law clerk for the Court.
       (b) The Court shall promulgate such regulations as may be 
     necessary to carry out such a program and notify the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the regulations prior to 
     implementing the pilot program.
       This title may be cited as the ``Judiciary Appropriations 
     Act, 2004''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there points of order against provisions in that 
portion of the bill?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve a point of 
order, on page 47.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman make a point of order?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would reserve points of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may not reserve points of order.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Can I strike the last word?
  The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman were to offer a pro forma amendment, 
then the point of order would come too late.
  Members are advised that any points of order in this portion of the 
bill which we are discussing must be enacted prior to any amendments 
being offered. Therefore, if the point of order is to be made, it must 
be made now.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make any 
points of order in this section.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, two sections of this, on 
page 47 and page 55, lines 19 through 23, there are two sections here 
that are basically legislating on an appropriations bill over which our 
committees has jurisdiction. We have discussed these sections with the 
gentleman from Virginia and have come to an agreement that we will not 
at this point exercise a point of order, but want to work with the 
committee in the future as they draft these bills to work with our 
committee so that we can craft appropriate language to meet our mutual 
goals.
  Is the gentleman in agreement?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I absolutely am. These 
are provisions that have been carried before. The gentleman is the new 
chairman of that committee. Before we do that next year, we will sit 
down with the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing these to our 
attention and for not striking.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to this portion of the bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCY

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   Administration of Foreign Affairs


                    Diplomatic and Consular Programs

       For necessary expenses of the Department of State and the 
     Foreign Service not otherwise provided for, including 
     employment, without regard to civil service and 
     classification laws, of persons on a temporary basis (not to 
     exceed $700,000 of this appropriation), as authorized by 
     section 801 of the United States Information and Educational 
     Exchange Act of 1948; representation to certain international 
     organizations in which the United States participates 
     pursuant to treaties ratified pursuant to the advice and 
     consent of the Senate or specific Acts of Congress; arms 
     control, nonproliferation and disarmament activities as 
     authorized; acquisition by exchange or purchase of passenger 
     motor vehicles as authorized by law; and for expenses of 
     general administration, $3,453,260,000: Provided, That not to 
     exceed 69 permanent positions and $7,311,000 shall be 
     expended for the Bureau of Legislative Affairs: Provided 
     further, That, of the amount made available under this 
     heading, not to exceed $4,000,000 may be transferred to, and 
     merged with, funds in the ``Emergencies in the Diplomatic and 
     Consular Service'' appropriations account, to be available 
     only for emergency evacuations and terrorism rewards: 
     Provided further, That, of the amount made available under 
     this heading, $301,563,000 shall be available only for public 
     diplomacy international information programs: Provided 
     further, That, of the amount made available under this 
     heading, not to exceed $48,000,000 shall be available for the 
     Bureau of International Organization Affairs: Provided 
     further, That of the amount made available under this 
     heading, $3,000,000 shall be available only for the 
     establishment and operations of an Office on Right-Sizing the 
     United States Government Overseas Presence: Provided further, 
     That funds available under this heading may be available for 
     a United States Government interagency task force to examine, 
     coordinate and oversee United States participation in the 
     United Nations headquarters renovation project: Provided 
     further, That no funds may be obligated or expended for 
     processing licenses for the export of satellites of United 
     States origin (including commercial satellites and satellite 
     components) to the People's Republic of China unless, at 
     least 15 days in advance, the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the House of Representatives and the Senate are notified of 
     such proposed action.
       In addition, not to exceed $1,371,000 shall be derived from 
     fees collected from other executive agencies for lease or use 
     of facilities located at the International Center in 
     accordance with section 4 of the International Center Act; in 
     addition, as authorized by section 5 of such Act, $490,000, 
     to be derived from the reserve authorized by that section, to 
     be used for the purposes set out in that section; in 
     addition, as authorized by section 810 of the United States 
     Information and Educational Exchange Act, not to exceed 
     $6,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be 
     credited to this appropriation from fees or other payments 
     received from English teaching, library, motion pictures, and 
     publication programs and from fees from educational advising 
     and counseling and exchange visitor programs; and, in 
     addition, not to exceed $15,000, which shall be derived from 
     reimbursements, surcharges, and fees for use of Blair House 
     facilities.
       In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades, 
     $646,701,000, to remain available until expended.


                        capital investment fund

       For necessary expenses of the Capital Investment Fund, 
     $142,000,000, to remain available until expended, as 
     authorized: Provided, That section 135(e) of Public Law 103-
     236 shall not apply to funds available under this heading: 
     Provided further, That, of the funds made available under 
     this heading, $84,000,000 is for worldwide infrastructure 
     replacement only, which amount shall not become available for 
     obligation until September 15, 2004.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $29,777,000, notwithstanding section 209(a)(1) of the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-465), as it relates to 
     post inspections.


               Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs

       For expenses of educational and cultural exchange programs, 
     as authorized, $345,346,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed

[[Page 18985]]

     $2,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be 
     credited to this appropriation from fees or other payments 
     received from or in connection with English teaching, 
     educational advising and counseling programs, and exchange 
     visitor programs as authorized.


                       Representation Allowances

       For representation allowances as authorized, $9,000,000.


              Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials

       For expenses, not otherwise provided, to enable the 
     Secretary of State to provide for extraordinary protective 
     services, as authorized, $10,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2005.


            Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the Foreign Service 
     Buildings Act of 1926 (22 U.S.C. 292-303), preserving, 
     maintaining, repairing, and planning for buildings that are 
     owned or directly leased by the Department of State, 
     renovating, in addition to funds otherwise available, the 
     Harry S Truman Building, and carrying out the Diplomatic 
     Security Construction Program as authorized, $532,935,000, to 
     remain available until expended as authorized, of which not 
     to exceed $15,000 may be used for domestic and overseas 
     representation as authorized: Provided, That none of the 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for 
     acquisition of furniture, furnishings, or generators for 
     other departments and agencies.
       In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades, 
     acquisition, and construction as authorized, $861,400,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


           emergencies in the diplomatic and consular service

       For expenses necessary to enable the Secretary of State to 
     meet unforeseen emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and 
     Consular Service, $1,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended as authorized, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 may 
     be transferred to and merged with the Repatriation Loans 
     Program Account, subject to the same terms and conditions.


                   Repatriation Loans Program Account

       For the cost of direct loans, $612,000, as authorized: 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974. In addition, for 
     administrative expenses necessary to carry out the direct 
     loan program, $607,000, which may be transferred to and 
     merged with the Diplomatic and Consular Programs account 
     under Administration of Foreign Affairs.


              Payment to the American Institute in Taiwan

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Taiwan Relations 
     Act (Public Law 96-8), $18,782,000.


     Payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund

       For payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund, as authorized by law, $134,979,000.

                      International Organizations


              contributions to international organizations

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to meet 
     annual obligations of membership in international 
     multilateral organizations, pursuant to treaties ratified 
     pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate, conventions 
     or specific Acts of Congress, $1,010,463,000: Provided, That 
     the Secretary of State shall notify the Committees on 
     Appropriations at least 15 days in advance (or in an 
     emergency, as far in advance as is practicable) of any United 
     Nations action to increase funding for any United Nations 
     program without identifying an offsetting decrease elsewhere 
     in the United Nations budget and cause the United Nations to 
     exceed the adopted budget for the biennium 2002-2003 of 
     $2,891,000,000: Provided further, That any payment of 
     arrearages under this title shall be directed toward special 
     activities that are mutually agreed upon by the United States 
     and the respective international organization: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph shall be available for a United States contribution 
     to an international organization for the United States share 
     of interest costs made known to the United States Government 
     by such organization for loans incurred on or after October 
     1, 1984, through external borrowings: Provided further, That 
     funds appropriated under this paragraph may be obligated and 
     expended to pay the full United States assessment to the 
     civil budget of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


        contributions for international peacekeeping activities

       For necessary expenses to pay assessed and other expenses 
     of international peacekeeping activities directed to the 
     maintenance or restoration of international peace and 
     security, $550,200,000: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available under this Act shall be obligated or expended for 
     any new or expanded United Nations peacekeeping mission 
     unless, at least 15 days in advance of voting for the new or 
     expanded mission in the United Nations Security Council (or 
     in an emergency as far in advance as is practicable) (1) the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate and other appropriate committees of the 
     Congress are notified of the estimated cost and length of the 
     mission, the vital national interest that will be served, and 
     the planned exit strategy; and (2) a reprogramming of funds 
     pursuant to section 605 of this Act is submitted, and the 
     procedures therein followed, setting forth the source of 
     funds that will be used to pay for the cost of the new or 
     expanded mission: Provided further, That funds shall be 
     available for peacekeeping expenses only upon a certification 
     by the Secretary of State to the appropriate committees of 
     the Congress that American manufacturers and suppliers are 
     being given opportunities to provide equipment, services, and 
     material for United Nations peacekeeping activities equal to 
     those being given to foreign manufacturers and suppliers: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available under 
     this heading are available to pay the United States share of 
     the cost of court monitoring that is part of any United 
     Nations peacekeeping mission.

                       International Commissions

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to meet 
     obligations of the United States arising under treaties, or 
     specific Acts of Congress, as follows:

 international boundary and water commission, united states and mexico

       For necessary expenses for the United States Section of the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission, United States 
     and Mexico, and to comply with laws applicable to the United 
     States Section, including not to exceed $6,000 for 
     representation; as follows:

                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     $25,668,000.


                              Construction

       For detailed plan preparation and construction of 
     authorized projects, $5,500,000, to remain available until 
     expended, as authorized.


              American Sections, International Commissions

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for the 
     International Joint Commission and the International Boundary 
     Commission, United States and Canada, as authorized by 
     treaties between the United States and Canada or Great 
     Britain, and for the Border Environment Cooperation 
     Commission as authorized by Public Law 103-182, $8,944,000, 
     of which not to exceed $9,000 shall be available for 
     representation expenses incurred by the International Joint 
     Commission.


                  International Fisheries Commissions

       For necessary expenses for international fisheries 
     commissions, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by 
     law, $16,989,000: Provided, That the United States' share of 
     such expenses may be advanced to the respective commissions 
     pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3324.

                                 Other

                     payment to the asia foundation

       For a grant to the Asia Foundation, as authorized by the 
     Asia Foundation Act (22 U.S.C. 4402), $10,376,000, to remain 
     available until expended, as authorized.


                 Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program

       For necessary expenses of Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships, 
     Incorporated, as authorized by sections 4 and 5 of the 
     Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5204-
     5205), all interest and earnings accruing to the Eisenhower 
     Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund on or before September 
     30, 2004, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay 
     any salary or other compensation, or to enter into any 
     contract providing for the payment thereof, in excess of the 
     rate authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5376; or for purposes which are 
     not in accordance with OMB Circulars A-110 (Uniform 
     Administrative Requirements) and A-122 (Cost Principles for 
     Non-profit Organizations), including the restrictions on 
     compensation for personal services.

                    israeli arab scholarship program

       For necessary expenses of the Israeli Arab Scholarship 
     Program as authorized by section 214 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C. 
     2452), all interest and earnings accruing to the Israeli Arab 
     Scholarship Fund on or before September 30, 2004, to remain 
     available until expended.


                    national endowment for democracy

       For grants made by the Department of State to the National 
     Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the National 
     Endowment for Democracy Act, $42,000,000 to remain available 
     until expended.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                    Broadcasting Board of Governors

                 international broadcasting operations

       For expenses necessary to enable the Broadcasting Board of 
     Governors, as authorized, to carry out international 
     communication activities, including the purchase, 
     installation, rent, and improvement of facilities for radio 
     and television transmission

[[Page 18986]]

      and reception to Cuba, $552,105,000, of which not to exceed 
     $16,000 may be used for official receptions within the United 
     States as authorized, not to exceed $35,000 may be used for 
     representation abroad as authorized, and not to exceed 
     $39,000 may be used for official reception and representation 
     expenses of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; and in addition, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not to exceed 
     $2,000,000 in receipts from advertising and revenue from 
     business ventures, not to exceed $500,000 in receipts from 
     cooperating international organizations, and not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 in receipts from privatization efforts of the 
     Voice of America and the International Broadcasting Bureau, 
     to remain available until expended for carrying out 
     authorized purposes.


                   broadcasting capital improvements

       For the purchase, rent, construction, and improvement of 
     facilities for radio transmission and reception, and purchase 
     and installation of necessary equipment for radio and 
     television transmission and reception as authorized, 
     $11,395,000, to remain available until expended, as 
     authorized.

       General Provisions--Department of State and Related Agency

       Sec. 401. Funds appropriated under this title shall be 
     available, except as otherwise provided, for allowances and 
     differentials as authorized by subchapter 59 of title 5, 
     United States Code; for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109; and for hire of passenger transportation pursuant to 31 
     U.S.C. 1343(b).
       Sec. 402. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     State 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 not to 
     exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available for the 
     current fiscal year for the Broadcasting Board of Governors 
     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 further, That any transfer pursuant 
     to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds 
     under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for 
     obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 403. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board 
     of Governors to provide equipment, technical support, 
     consulting services, or any other form of assistance to the 
     Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of State and 
     Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2004''.

                       TITLE V--RELATED AGENCIES

                   Antitrust Modernization Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Antitrust Modernization 
     Commission, as authorized by Public Law 107-273, $1,499,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

      Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses for the Commission for the Preservation of 
     America's Heritage Abroad, $499,000, as authorized by section 
     1303 of Public Law 99-83.

                       Commission on Civil Rights


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights, 
     including hire of passenger motor vehicles, $9,096,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $50,000 may be used to employ 
     consultants: Provided further, 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.

             Commission on International Religious Freedom


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the United States Commission on 
     International Religious Freedom, as authorized by title II of 
     the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (Public Law 
     105-292), $3,000,000, to remain available until expended.

            Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe, as authorized by Public Law 94-304, 
     $1,615,000, to remain available until expended as authorized 
     by section 3 of Public Law 99-7.

  Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Congressional-Executive 
     Commission on the People's Republic of China, as authorized, 
     $1,800,000, including not more than $3,000 for the purpose of 
     official representation, to remain available until expended.

                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 (29 U.S.C. 206(d) and 621-634), the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b); 
     non-monetary awards to private citizens; and not to exceed 
     $33,000,000 for payments to State and local enforcement 
     agencies for services to the Commission pursuant to title VII 
     of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sections 6 and 14 of the Age 
     Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 
     $328,400,000: Provided, That the Commission is authorized to 
     make available for official reception and representation 
     expenses not to exceed $2,500 from available funds.

                   Federal Communications Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Communications 
     Commission, as authorized by law, including uniforms and 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; not 
     to exceed $600,000 for land and structure; not to exceed 
     $500,000 for improvement and care of grounds and repair to 
     buildings; not to exceed $4,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; purchase and hire of motor vehicles; 
     special counsel fees; and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, $278,958,000: Provided, That $269,000,000 of offsetting 
     collections shall be assessed and collected pursuant to 
     section 9 of title I of the Communications Act of 1934, shall 
     be retained and used for necessary expenses in this 
     appropriation, and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be 
     reduced as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 2004 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2004 
     appropriation estimated at $9,958,000: Provided further, That 
     any offsetting collections received in excess of $269,000,000 
     in fiscal year 2004 shall remain available until expended, 
     but shall not be available for obligation until October 1, 
     2004: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 1353 of 
     title 31, United States Code, no Commissioner or employee of 
     the Federal Communications Commission may accept, nor may the 
     Commission accept, payment or reimbursement from a non-
     Federal entity for travel, subsistence, or related expenses 
     for the purpose of enabling a Commissioner or employee to 
     attend and participate in a convention, conference, or 
     meeting when the entity offering payment or reimbursement is 
     a person or corporation subject to regulation by the 
     Commission, or represents a person or corporation subject to 
     regulation by the Commission, unless the person or 
     corporation is an organization exempt from taxation pursuant 
     to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

                              {time}  1300


                             Point of Order

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, on page 81, ``Federal Communications 
Commission, salaries and expenses,'' I believe that it is an 
authorization on an appropriations bill. It is not authorized.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman identifying the last proviso of the 
paragraph?
  Mr. UPTON. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there discussion on the point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, there was an analysis of the FCC's travel 
paid for by non-Federal sources. They found that agency officials took 
more than 2,500 industry-sponsored trips between May of 1995 and 
February of 2003, costing $2.8 million. Each of the current 
commissioners took trips. One commissioner took 44 trips during that 
time frame, including trips to Las Vegas, Hawaii, and London.
  When the issue came out, a member of the FCC staff said that it was 
because the Committee on Appropriations did not fund their travel. That 
is not accurate. And as a result of that, we wanted to do this.
  One commissioner, who has only been a commissioner since July of 
2001, took 12 trips valued at over $14,000. One career employee took 
104 trips valued at $150,000, including to France, Japan, Singapore, 
the United Kingdom, and Sweden. That means the regulatees are paying 
for the trips of the regulator.
  So the reason we are putting this in, I would say to my friend from 
Michigan, was that when this study came

[[Page 18987]]

out, the FCC said the reason they had to do this was because they were 
not being adequately funded, which was not accurate and, therefore, 
they are adequately funded to travel. I think from a public interest 
point of view, to allow one person to take 104 trips valued at almost 
$150,000 to France, Japan, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and Sweden 
was why the subcommittee did that from a public policy point of view.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia may not yield in the debate 
on the point of order.
  The Chair will hear each Member individually on the point of order.
  Do other Members wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard. Let me 
just say this also falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Government Reform. I was coming over to also offer our objection to 
this section because this was put in without consultation with our 
committee, and this is under our jurisdiction.
  However, after listening to the gentleman from Virginia explain the 
rationale put forward by both the Federal Communications Commission in 
defending the policy and looking at the wide array of special interest 
trips that have been paid for by special interests to employees of the 
FCC, this is probably an appropriate vehicle to try to stop that 
process and try to raise the regulatory regime there to make it freer 
from interest group influence.
  Obviously, if somebody goes on a paid-for trip, is put up in a hotel, 
gets their golf game paid for, and it is paid for by an interest group 
that is regulated by the FCC, we should stop it.
  So we are not going to exercise a motion to strike on this. I agree 
with the gentleman from Virginia. I appreciate him bringing this 
forward. I hope he will work with us during the next year as we craft 
these together so that we can keep these jurisdictionally a little bit 
clearer.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Michigan wish to be heard on 
his point of order?
  Mr. UPTON. No. I think enough has been said.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The Chair finds that this provision explicitly supersedes existing 
law. The provision, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the provision is stricken from 
the bill.
  Are there amendments to this paragraph?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        Federal Trade Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Trade Commission, 
     including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and not to exceed $2,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $183,041,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That not to exceed $300,000 shall be available for use to 
     contract with a person or persons for collection services in 
     accordance with the terms of 31 U.S.C. 3718: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     not to exceed $112,000,000 of offsetting collections derived 
     from 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, shall be 
     retained and used for necessary expenses in this 
     appropriation: Provided further, That $20,100,000 in 
     offsetting collections derived from fees sufficient to 
     implement and enforce the Telemarketing Sales Rule, 
     promulgated under the Telephone Consumer Fraud and Abuse 
     Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), shall be credited to 
     this account, and be retained and used for necessary expenses 
     in this appropriation: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as such 
     offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 2004, 
     so as to result in a final fiscal year 2004 appropriation 
     from the general fund estimated at not more than $50,941,000: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds made available to 
     the Federal Trade Commission shall be available for 
     obligation for expenses authorized by section 151 of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 102-242; 105 Stat. 2282-2285): Provided further, 
     That, notwithstanding section 1353 of title 31, United States 
     Code, no Commissioner or employee of the Federal Trade 
     Commission may accept, nor may the Commission accept, payment 
     or reimbursement from a non-Federal entity for travel, 
     subsistence, or related expenses for the purpose of enabling 
     a Commissioner or employee to attend and participate in a 
     convention, conference, or meeting when the entity offering 
     payment or reimbursement is a person or corporation subject 
     to regulation by the Commission, or represents a person or 
     corporation subject to regulation by the Commission, unless 
     the person or corporation is an organization exempt from 
     taxation pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, the final proviso under the heading 
``Federal Trade Commission salaries and expenses,'' page 84, line 15 
through 85, line 3 of the bill violates clause 2 of rule XXI of the 
rules of the House prohibiting legislation on appropriations bills.
  This provision bans commissioners and employees of the FTC to accept 
payment or reimbursement of a non-Federal entity for travel and related 
expenses, and would apply towards travel to a convention, conference, 
or meeting. The only exception provided for in the bill is if the 
person or corporation paying is an organization exempt from taxation 
pursuant to 501(c)(3) of the IRS code of 1986.
  In short, this language clearly constitutes legislation on an 
appropriations bill in violation of clause 2, rule XXI of the rules of 
the House, because it changes current law, and I insist on my point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do other Members wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this provision explicitly supersedes existing 
law. The provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the provision is stricken from 
the bill.
  Are there amendments to this portion of the bill? If not, the Clerk 
will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       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, 
     $338,848,000, of which $319,548,000 is for basic field 
     programs and required independent audits; $2,600,000 is for 
     the Office of Inspector General, of which such amounts as may 
     be necessary may be used to conduct additional audits of 
     recipients; $13,300,000 is for management and administration; 
     and $3,400,000 is for client self-help and information 
     technology.


          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 2003 and 2004, respectively.

                        Marine Mammal Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as 
     authorized by title II of Public Law 92-522, $1,856,000.

           National Veterans Business Development Corporation

       For necessary expenses of the National Veterans Business 
     Development Corporation as authorized under section 33(a) of 
     the Small Business Act, $2,000,000.

                   Securities and Exchange Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, the rental of space (to include multiple year leases) 
     in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and not to exceed 
     $3,000 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $841,500,000; of which not to exceed $10,000 may be used 
     toward funding a permanent secretariat for the International 
     Organization of Securities Commissions; and of which not to 
     exceed $100,000 shall be available for expenses for 
     consultations and meetings hosted by the Commission with 
     foreign governmental and other regulatory officials, members 
     of their delegations, appropriate representatives and staff 
     to exchange views concerning developments relating to 
     securities matters, development and implementation of 
     cooperation agreements concerning securities matters

[[Page 18988]]

     and provision of technical assistance for the development of 
     foreign securities markets, such expenses to include 
     necessary logistic and administrative expenses and the 
     expenses of Commission staff and foreign invitees in 
     attendance at such consultations and meetings including (1) 
     such incidental expenses as meals taken in the course of such 
     attendance; (2) any travel and transportation to or from such 
     meetings; and (3) any other related lodging or subsistence: 
     Provided, That fees and charges authorized by sections 6(b) 
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f(b)), 
     and 13(e), 14(g) and 31 of the Securities Exchange Act of 
     1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(e), 78n(g), and 78ee), shall be credited 
     to this account as offsetting collections: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $738,500,000 of such offsetting 
     collections shall be available until expended for necessary 
     expenses of this account: Provided further, That $103,000,000 
     shall be derived from prior year unobligated balances from 
     funds previously appropriated to the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission: Provided further, That the total amount 
     appropriated under this heading from the general fund for 
     fiscal year 2004 shall be reduced as such offsetting fees are 
     received so as to result in a final total fiscal year 2004 
     appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more 
     than $0: Provided further, That, notwithstanding section 1353 
     of title 31, United States Code, no Commissioner or employee 
     of the Securities and Exchange Commission may accept, nor may 
     the Commission accept, payment or reimbursement from a non-
     Federal entity for travel, subsistence, or related expenses 
     for the purpose of enabling a Commissioner or employee to 
     attend and participate in a convention, conference, or 
     meeting when the entity offering payment or reimbursement is 
     a person or corporation subject to regulation by the 
     Commission, or represents a person or corporation subject to 
     regulation by the Commission, unless the person or 
     corporation is an organization exempt from taxation pursuant 
     to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

                     Small Business Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     Small Business Administration as authorized by Public Law 
     105-135, including hire of passenger motor vehicles as 
     authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344, and not to exceed 
     $3,500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $326,592,000: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized 
     to charge fees to cover the cost of publications developed by 
     the Small Business Administration, and certain loan servicing 
     activities: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 
     3302, revenues received from all such activities shall be 
     credited to this account, to be available for carrying out 
     these purposes without further appropriations.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, $13,000,000.


                     Business Loans Program Account

       For the cost of direct loans, $1,910,000, to be available 
     until expended; and for the cost of guaranteed loans, 
     $84,805,000, as authorized by 15 U.S.C. 631 note, of which 
     $45,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2005: 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That 
     during fiscal year 2004 commitments to guarantee loans under 
     section 503 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, 
     shall not exceed $4,500,000,000: Provided further, That 
     during fiscal year 2004 commitments for general business 
     loans authorized under section 7(a) of the Small Business 
     Act, shall not exceed $10,000,000,000 without prior 
     notification of the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and Senate in accordance with section 605 
     of this Act: Provided further, That during fiscal year 2004 
     commitments to guarantee loans for debentures and 
     participating securities under section 303(b) of the Small 
     Business Investment Act of 1958, shall not exceed the levels 
     established by section 20(i)(1)(C) of the Small Business Act: 
     Provided further, That during fiscal year 2004 guarantees of 
     trust certificates authorized by section 5(g) of the Small 
     Business Act shall not exceed a principal amount of 
     $10,000,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $129,000,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriations for 
     Salaries and Expenses.


                     Disaster Loans Program Account

       For the cost of direct loans authorized by section 7(b) of 
     the Small Business Act, $72,665,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan program, $117,585,000, which may be transferred 
     to and merged with appropriations for Salaries and Expenses, 
     of which $500,000 is for the Office of Inspector General of 
     the Small Business Administration for audits and reviews of 
     disaster loans and the disaster loan program and shall be 
     transferred to and merged with appropriations for the Office 
     of Inspector General; of which $108,000,000 is for direct 
     administrative expenses of loan making and servicing to carry 
     out the direct loan program; and of which $9,085,000 is for 
     indirect administrative expenses: Provided, That any amount 
     in excess of $9,085,000 to be transferred to and merged with 
     appropriations for Salaries and Expenses for indirect 
     administrative expenses shall be treated as a reprogramming 
     of funds under section 605 of this Act and shall not be 
     available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.


        Administrative Provision--Small Business Administration

       Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available 
     for the current fiscal year for the Small Business 
     Administration 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: Provided, That 
     any transfer pursuant to this paragraph shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.

                        State Justice Institute


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as 
     authorized by the State Justice Institute Authorization Act 
     of 1992 (Public Law 102-572), $3,000,000: Provided, That not 
     to exceed $2,500 shall be available for official reception 
     and representation expenses.

                      TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 602. 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. 603. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, 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.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), my good friend.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. Again, section 603 puts a limitation on 5 United States Code 
section 3109 and restricts the use of temporary outside consultants and 
experts by the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State to contracts 
that are a matter of public record.
  Because of exceptions to this section, it does not significantly 
restrict these outside consultants. But this again falls under the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform. We have consulted 
with the chairman on this. He feels very strongly about this issue. We 
will not raise a point of order on this, but hope that in the future we 
can work together on these sections, exercising our joint jurisdictions 
for the public benefit.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we will do that, I can 
assure the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 603?

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) 
about an amendment that we are prepared, when we go to conference, to 
make sure it is not in the bill, which is what he desired. Since his 
time has passed, and in fairness to others who missed that time, rather 
than going back, and there may be an objection, I just want to assure 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) that what he is offering, 
working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), we will accept 
that amendment and strike it when we go to conference, in fairness to 
the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Just to identify the amendment, it would be the amendment that occurs 
on .051, so the Clerk would know that to which we refer, dealing with 
the Small Business Administration Business Loan Program Account. And I 
would thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for making sure that

[[Page 18989]]

this provision would go into the conference report.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I will do that and work with the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano); and in order to protect the 
gentleman's interests, we will do that.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, we would agree with the chairman and be 
committed to doing that.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 604. 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. 605. (a) 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 2004, 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 new programs; (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 offices, programs, or 
     activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions 
     or activities presently performed by Federal employees; 
     unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of 
     Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.
       (b) 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 2004, 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 for activities, 
     programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in 
     excess of $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that (1) 
     augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) 
     reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent 
     as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general 
     savings from a reduction in personnel which would result in a 
     change in existing programs, activities, or projects as 
     approved by Congress; unless the Appropriations Committees of 
     both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of 
     such reprogramming of funds.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2004 
Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and his staff for their efforts. I 
know this was a difficult bill to reconcile.
  As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and 
Standards of the Committee on Science, my subcommittee authorizes and 
oversees more than 70 percent of the Department of Commerce's budget 
through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, known as 
NOAA, and the National Institute for Standards and Technology, known as 
NIST. While the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) did the very 
best that he could for these agencies, I do have serious concerns, 
especially about funding for NIST laboratories. Much of the technology 
and standards that we use day to day comes directly from research by 
scientists at NIST. The work at the institute is vital to our efforts 
on cyber-security, building safety, voting standards and nano-
technology to name just a few.
  These laboratories are home to some of the Nation's best and most 
gifted scientists, including two Nobel Laureates. While the funding 
level for their laboratories is $800,000 more than last year, NIST 
needs about $3 million just to cover the 4.1 percent mandatory cost-of-
living adjustments, leaving about a $2 million shortfall. This 
shortfall could result in about 50 scientists being let go. We cannot 
afford to lose their expertise and the vital work they do every day.
  I pledge to work with the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) as 
the bill moves forward to help find the resources to cover this 
shortfall in the NIST laboratory account.
  Regarding NOAA, I am pleased that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) funded many of the programs that are important to the Committee 
on Science, such as weather satellites, climate change research and 
especially funding to upgrade the NOAA weather system to be a fully 
automated, all-hazard warning system, not just for weather emergencies, 
but for chemical spills and even terrorist attacks. This warning system 
truly helps to save lives every day. Those who have these radios can 
receive alerts 24 hours a day even when the radio is turned off or when 
people are asleep.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and his 
staff for working with me and the Committee on Science on these issues 
and I urge passage of this important bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 605?


               Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 77, 
noes 335, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 402]

                                AYES--77

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bell
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Filner
     Ford
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Majette
     Maloney
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Pelosi
     Ross
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Sherman
     Solis
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Woolsey

                               NOES--335

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)

[[Page 18990]]


     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Andrews
     Baird
     Ballenger
     Berkley
     Blunt
     Conyers
     DeLay
     Dunn
     Ferguson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Hensarling
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jefferson
     McIntyre
     Meek (FL)
     Nussle
     Payne
     Peterson (PA)
     Platts
     Slaughter


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the 
vote). Members are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1343

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Messrs. SOUDER, OSBORNE and EMANUEL, Mrs. DAVIS of 
California, Mr. OLVER and Ms. McCOLLUM changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California changed her vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 402, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments to section 605?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The motion to strike the last word is not 
in order from the gentleman from Vermont.
  If there are no further amendments to Section 605, the Clerk will 
read.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule of the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) cannot strike the requisite number 
of words or any number of words. That privilege is accorded only to the 
subcommittee chairman and the ranking minority member.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have 2 minutes 
to address the House.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend.
  First, I want to apologize to my friends for forcing them to vote. I 
have never done this before. It is not my style.
  I had an amendment at the desk dealing with an issue of deep concern 
to tens of millions of Americans and, I think, a majority of the 
Members of this body, and that is to make an important change to the 
USA PATRIOT Act so that the FBI is not given carte blanche to go into 
our libraries or our book stores with no probable cause.
  Now, I understand that there are Members who may disagree with that 
notion. I would tell my colleagues that we have 129 cosponsors, 
conservatives, liberals, progressives, and the support of the American 
Library Association, the American Book Sellers Association. What is 
disturbing me very much is the possibility that this important issue, 
and both sides of the issue, will not be allowed to be debated this 
afternoon in this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I brought forth an amendment which is at the desk. We 
needed to make, upon advice from the Parliamentarian, some minor 
modification. I asked the chairman of the committee to give us 
unanimous consent to make a minor modification so that we could debate 
both sides of this issue, one of the most important civil liberties 
problems facing the United States of America, and the chairman refused 
that courtesy.
  So let me be very clear. The American people have a right to read 
without the FBI looking over their shoulder. The American people have a 
right to have that issue debated on the floor, and I intend, with my 
colleagues, to do everything I can to make certain that that occurs.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I absolutely agree with everything the 
gentleman from Vermont said. I support what he is trying to do about 
the PATRIOT Act.
  I do not very often get up to complain about procedure here, but I 
want to just express my frustration in being a member of the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce, the authorizing committee. I had an amendment 
that I was going to introduce. As of 8 p.m. last night, we did not see 
a bill, so there was no way we could draft the amendment. And then this 
morning, with the UC agreed to, it effectively cut out members of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce that had a bill that deals with our 
committee that had an amendment.
  I just find it very, very frustrating that this UC was done, and had 
I been on the floor I would have objected.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Anybody who knows me knows that I am not interested in promoting the 
Republican agenda. I think that is a safe assumption on both sides of 
the aisle. But I want to say that I want to defend the subcommittee 
chairman in this instance.
  What happened today is that the schedule for these bills was changed 
suddenly, with the support of both sides of the aisle, and I appreciate 
the fact that the change was made. I think it was helpful. So this bill 
was brought up instead of the Foreign Operations bill. That meant that 
for us to proceed, we needed to have a unanimous consent agreement on 
the scope of amendments that would be considered by the House so that 
Members would have some idea of what the schedule would be.
  So what happened is that our staff, understanding what we were trying 
to do, put together their understandings of what the amendments were, 
and that was included in the UC agreement.
  The gentleman indicated that he had an amendment which is not in 
order under the rules and needed to be changed somewhat. My 
understanding is that he asked the gentleman from Virginia to agree to 
a unanimous consent request. The gentleman from Virginia, in essence, 
said I cannot do that

[[Page 18991]]

for you without doing it for other people because then we unravel the 
whole UC agreement. I think the gentleman from Virginia, under the 
circumstances, was correct.
  Now, I happen to support the content of the Sanders amendment, but I 
have stood on this floor and I have stood in the whip's meeting, and I 
have stood in the Democratic Caucus, and I have said to people time and 
time again, if you want us to protect your amendments, please at least 
give us adequate notice so that we can try to find ways to do that.
  We cannot anticipate, Mr. Chairman. We cannot anticipate all of the 
amendments that Members want to offer if we have not been given enough 
lead time ourselves so we can work with those Members.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Wolf was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I continue to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Even when we do get notice, sometimes we screw up, and we may have 
screwed up in a couple of instances today. But all I can say to each 
and every Member is, we try to cooperate on both sides of the aisle in 
protecting Members.
  We protected three amendments from this side of the aisle today, with 
which I fundamentally disagree, and there are a number of other 
amendments that I do not think should be here either; but we put them 
all in because that is what we thought the universe was.
  With respect to the Sanders amendment, all I can say to the gentleman 
is, if the gentleman had come to the committee and given us enough time 
to work with him, we probably could have worked this out. But I fully 
understand why the gentleman from Virginia thinks that he had to 
object. He is trying to be fair to both sides, and I think the 
gentleman owes us notice if he expects us to try to protect his 
amendments.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, other Members have been 
in this situation. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) missed 
the opportunity and could not offer an amendment. The gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence) missed the opportunity and could not offer an 
amendment, as did the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus). And I 
think there were several over on that side. And once you have told them 
that they have missed their opportunity, to do this now, in essence, I 
would have to go back.
  Also, there are a large number of other amendments that are subject 
to a point of order.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, in terms of the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), what I would say with regard to his asking us to give 
notice, I did not have warning. I turned on the television and found 
this bill on the floor of the House. Nobody gave us warning this bill 
was coming to the floor of the House.
  Second of all, this is a legislative body. I know the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is a fair man, and if other people have missed 
their amendments, presumably because this bill has moved so fast, maybe 
we should give them a chance to have their amendments discussed and 
debated. That is what we are supposed to do.
  This is an enormously important issue. Let us have that debate. Let 
us have those votes.
  But I have to tell my colleagues that on an issue of this importance, 
I am going to be fighting for it, and I am not going to give up. We are 
going to have a vote on this.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  For my part, I would like to comment on what the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said. We take our responsibilities seriously. We 
have a chairman, we have a ranking member of a subcommittee, and we 
have a chairman and a ranking member of the full committee. Our intent 
at all times is to look out for our side, for our needs for the 
American people, and for the committee package and product in general.
  We run into situations like we had today where the schedule was 
changed, where time ran against us, and we try to do the best possible 
work that we can do. But I think it would be unfair and perhaps 
improper to suggest that everyone somehow was involved in trying to 
keep one amendment or one change or one person from speaking, because 
that is not true and that is not the case.
  What we have here today is the fact that we have a bill that deals 
with a lot of issues that we need to get out of the House. We have a 
bill that has a time in terms of making sure that these issues are 
spoken about prior to the August recess, so we can send the proper 
message to the State Department and the Justice Department and the 
embassy security people and the FBI and DEA and all the other people 
that we deal with. We are trying to accommodate everyone.
  Members have to understand that there is one request that I make, 
and, listen, I get as angry as everybody else about things that happen 
around here, but one request, and that is, as the ranking member of a 
subcommittee, and my colleagues know that I am working on a bill for 
the last 6, 7, 8, 9 months, and this is from the beginning of the 
session, it is not too much to ask that 2 or 3 days before today to let 
me know what is going on so I can play my role in being protective, not 
giving me a general idea, but give me some specifics as to where we are 
going.
  We have a unanimous consent statement and we have to live by it. But, 
please, let us do one thing, and this is where I join the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) strongly today. The gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) is a fair man, and nothing he does is done improperly, and I 
want to make that clear.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Vermont 
indicated that he turned on the television set and discovered the 
schedule had been changed. I discovered that the schedule had been 
changed in the middle of the rule vote just minutes before the change 
was made. The clock runs as fast for managers of the bill on both sides 
of the aisle as it runs for any other Member.
  So what we tried to do was to take the specific amendments that we 
knew of and tried to protect them. I know of several other instances in 
which general amendments had been described to me, but about which I 
knew nothing in terms of specific content.
  We cannot protect concepts; we have to know what the specific 
amendments are. And that is why I repeat, if Members want us to protect 
their rights, and we have an obligation to protect their rights, they 
owe us the consideration of talking to us enough ahead of time so that 
when the schedule changes, nobody gets trapped. We cannot help if we do 
not know in time to help.
  There are concurrent responsibilities. I think the Committee on 
Appropriations on both sides of the aisle meets those responsibilities 
pretty doggone well. I think we try to protect the interests of Members 
pretty doggone well. We need more of your help than we are getting 
sometimes if we are going to do that. That is all I want to ask.
  If you want an amendment protected, you cannot come up to us 5 
minutes before the bill is going to come up on the floor and say, ``I 
have an amendment, how about it?'' It has to be checked out, it has to 
be staffed out, and it has to be checked with the Parliamentarian.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just add to the 
statement of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), this staff that 
we see around us, and this is not buttering anybody up, works 24-7, 
especially during the appropriations period,

[[Page 18992]]

which for us starts in January with over 20-odd hearings. All I am 
asking as a ranking member, for both sides, is to give us the specifics 
a few days before. That is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
asked for and that is all that we need so that we can be supportive to 
Members' needs.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I do not ascribe venal intent on the part 
of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) or the chairman. This was 
switched at the last moment.
  But given the idea that a UC is supposed to be something that is done 
by a consensus, and it is clear there were Members on that side that 
were shut out, Members on this side, including myself, and the 
gentleman from Vermont wants to make a technical correction, if the 
true intent was to create a consensus decision on limiting time, 
something that I support, perhaps the best way to do this is to do 
this: Now that everyone is on notice, have the committee rise, in the 
Committee of the Whole, and simply do a new UC.
  Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. We have an agreement 
on the floor, and we should live with that agreement.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this section of the 
bill?
  If not, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 606. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the construction, repair (other than emergency 
     repair), overhaul, conversion, or modernization of vessels 
     for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 
     shipyards located outside of the United States.

                              {time}  1400


               Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 84, 
noes 319, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 403]

                                AYES--84

     Abercrombie
     Baird
     Ballance
     Bell
     Berry
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Maloney
     McIntyre
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                               NOES--319

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Isakson
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Andrews
     Ballenger
     Berkley
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Conyers
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Dicks
     Dooley (CA)
     Edwards
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Gephardt
     Hensarling
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Kaptur
     Kirk
     Lipinski
     Manzullo
     Meek (FL)
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (VA)
     Norwood
     Payne
     Peterson (PA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Scott (VA)
     Tancredo
     Wilson (SC)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1424

  Mr. JOHN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HONDA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 605?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 607. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--It is the sense of the Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in this Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) Notice Requirement.--In providing financial assistance 
     to, or entering into any contract with, any entity using 
     funds made available in this Act, the head of each Federal 
     agency, to the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to 
     such entity a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--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,

[[Page 18993]]

     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.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
against section 607 (a) and (b) on the grounds that this section 
changes existing law in violation of clause 2(b) of House rule XXI. And 
it is therefore legislation included in a general appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The provision proposes to state a legislative position of the House 
and includes language imparting direction.
  As such, the provision constitutes legislation in violation of clause 
2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the provision is 
stricken from the bill.


              Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending 
that, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a quorum.
  The Chair, in careful counting, counts 101 Members. A quorum is 
present.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I request a division of the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman withdraw his request for a recorded 
vote at this point?
  Mr. KUCINICH. No.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count for a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 75, 
noes 307, not voting 52, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 404]

                                AYES--75

     Ackerman
     Baird
     Ballance
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Clyburn
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Feeney
     Filner
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Rangel
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                               NOES--307

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--52

     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Berkley
     Bishop (UT)
     Boucher
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Delahunt
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Ford
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Hensarling
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Janklow
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kingston
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCrery
     Meek (FL)
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Ney
     Nussle
     Payne
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Reyes
     Rogers (KY)
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scott (VA)
     Souder
     Tancredo
     Velazquez
     Wilson (SC)
     Wynn


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are reminded there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1450

  Mrs. CAPITO, Ms. HART, and Mr. GERLACH changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues are aware, I had an 
amendment that would have been considered today that I am also offering 
today as freestanding legislation regarding the United Nations 
Reassessment Act of 2003, which would call for a conclusion of 
Congress, a sense of Congress, that the representative of the United 
States to the U.N. would seek an agreement to lower the assessment 
level of the United States for the regular budget of the United Nations 
when the U.N. Committee on Contributions considers the scale of 
assessments for member nations for the period 2004 through 2006.
  Many Americans may not be aware, Mr. Chairman, that the United 
States' today's current percentage assessment to the United Nations' 
regular budget contribution spans fully 22 percent of the overall fund. 
Germany, another member of the Security Council, pays 9.8 percent; 
France, 6.5 percent; and China, just 1.5 percent of the regular budget 
contributions.
  As we look at the extraordinary percentage that American taxpayers 
pay in the regular budget contributions of

[[Page 18994]]

the U.N., I think it is important that we reflect on the history of 
recent events and that we think carefully about the months immediately 
preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  Some, even on the floor of this Chamber, Mr. Chairman, have said that 
during that period of time the President failed to lead America. They 
have said that diplomacy failed. But I, and I believe many millions of 
Americans, Mr. Chairman, believe that in fact the U.N. failed at that 
critical moment in history, not so much to take the will of the 
American people seriously, as to take itself seriously. There are 16 
separate resolutions of the United Nations, over a period of a decade, 
challenging and cajoling and urging and attempting to enforce the 
unanimous decisions of the U.N. Security Council against the nation of 
Iraq; and again and again and again, the United Nations failed to take 
itself seriously.
  And then, last fall, the Security Council, including Germany and 
France and Russia, unanimously adopted U.N. Resolution 1441, which 
required that Iraq immediately disclose the possession of all weapons 
of mass destruction and armaments in violation of previous resolutions; 
also, that Iraq would not only disclose those armaments, Mr. Chairman, 
but would submit to the destruction of those armaments, or it would 
face what were described as ``serious consequences.''
  When history beckoned, Mr. Chairman, the U.N. failed. And as a 
result, the United States of America was required to lead a coalition 
of the willing to depose this tyrant, the mass graves which in Iraq 
speak volumes about the rightness of our cause.
  President Kennedy, in referring to the United Nations as our last 
best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the 
instruments of peace, challenged America in his first inaugural address 
to pledge our support to prevent the United Nations from ``becoming 
merely a forum for invective.''
  As I pursue this legislation today, apart from my amendment, I want 
to assure my colleagues that it will be my aim not that we would 
abandon the United Nations, but that we would choose the opportunity on 
this day and future days to send a message by sending less American 
taxpayer dollars to the United Nations; to send a message that we 
expect more of the United Nations; to truly make it a place that is the 
last best hope for mankind and not, as President Kennedy so 
prophetically stated, a forum for invective against our people and our 
intentions as we strive to confront tyranny in the world.
  I thank the chairman for yielding and allowing me to comment on the 
United Nations Reassessment Act, and I look very much forward to 
working with the committee and my colleagues as we reconsider what the 
American taxpayers are being asked to provide to an institution that so 
woefully failed history in these recent days.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I may, as the 
gentleman knows, under Helms-Biden, which passed in the year 2000, the 
contribution level was reduced from 25 percent to 22 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding for the 
purposes of a colloquy.
  The House State Department authorization bill, H.R. 1950, included 
provisions that prohibited the elimination of the Voice of America and 
Radio Free Europe broadcast essential to Eastern Europe for another 2 
years. While the authorizing level was 8.9 for fiscal year 2004, my 
amendment would have authorized $5.5 million for the funding of the 
international broadcast for the purposes of continuing Voice of America 
and Radio Free Europe to the newly emerging democracies in Eastern 
Europe, particularly Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and the other 
countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
  This amendment we thought would have been a reasonable request 
because the authorization bill had $8.9 million. This would have asked 
for $5.5 million from various accounts in the appropriation process.
  Despite new demands on the U.S. Government resources for expanded 
international broadcasts to other regions, we agree with both the 
chairman and the ranking member of the House Committee on International 
Relations who have agreed that these broadcasts to the Eastern European 
countries, the newly emerging democracies, is an important aspect of 
what we should be doing in foreign policy. It has only been 10 years 
since the Soviet military occupation ended in Lithuania, Latvia, and 
Estonia; and the last 50 years of Soviet-imposed communism distorted 
the social, economic, and political order of these countries.

                              {time}  1500

  Much has changed for the better in these three countries and the rest 
of Eastern Europe, but corruption is still pervasive and touches every 
sector of these young democracies. Even the European Union and NATO, 
which have invited these young countries to be members, have admonished 
these candidates for corruptive levels in their government that 
threaten the development of their democracies.
  U.S. international broadcasting serves as a role model to indigenous 
media of Eastern Europe of what nonpartisan, fair and accurate new 
coverage should be and as a standard by which local audiences can 
measure their own media performance.
  In small countries like the Baltics, U.S. international broadcasters 
also fill an important niche as a balanced source of international 
news, which local news operations, lacking in financial resources, 
cannot afford. To cease Voice of America and Radio Free Europe 
broadcasting to Eastern Europe including Estonia, Latvia, and 
Lithuania, most importantly would weaken the ability of these 
countries' media and civic societies to withstand the social, political 
and economic pressures of their transition to stable, democratic and 
free market states.
  Let us not lose our investment in these valuable European allies. And 
I urge the chairman, as we move this bill forward, to really consider 
the risk of not having a fair, balanced voice in the media to these 
new, emerging democracies, one that can be dominated only by media that 
is coming out of Moscow.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I share the gentleman's concerns, 
particularly with regard to one of the countries mentioned, Romania, 
but as the gentleman knows, the President's request proposed the 
elimination or reduction to broadcasted nations that have either 
entered or are on the road to joining the European Union or have been 
invited into NATO.
  And the International Broadcasting Bureau has additional money 
because the President's request prioritized money to the Middle East 
and the Muslim world, including Southeast Asia, to bolster the efforts 
of the war on terrorism.
  So we do have report language to require the Broadcasting Board of 
Governors to closely monitor the situation in those countries and 
inform the committee of any changes that would alter the priorities.
  But I understand what the gentleman is saying.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to make one technical 
request, and that is at certain times when the chairman speaks, someone 
should turn up the mike so we can hear ourselves.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) for yielding to me and at least giving me the opportunity to 
air my amendment and some of the grievances.
  As I said before, I have no desire to frustrate colleagues; but a lot 
of us here are very frustrated over the quick change that was made with 
the unanimous consent and our inability now even to ask to strike the 
last word. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) is one of my best 
friends. We have served together. We come from the same town.
  I just want to say that my frustration is that last night at 8 p.m. 
this bill had not been introduced. A copy was

[[Page 18995]]

not available to start the process of review or drafting of amendments. 
This morning we had the text of the bill on line, but not the 
accompanying report. And now we have a unanimous consent to limit 
amendments to ones that were preprinted in the Record, which for 
Members not on Appropriations is impossible, unless it is a simple 
limitation or ``to strike'' amendment.
  I have an amendment which would move money from the National 
Telecommunication and Information Administration to the Public 
Telecommunication Facilities, Planning and Construction Program, which 
is called TFPC. Both of these are under the jurisdiction of the 
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, on which I sit. As a courtesy to the authorizing 
committee members, I believe we should have an opportunity to review 
the bill and offer amendments.
  Even more troubling is that the Committee on Appropriations has 
provided $1.3 million more for NTIA than the President requested, while 
cutting PFTP by $40 million.
  My amendment would simply move $1,310,000 to the PFTP from the NTIA. 
And I think the whole House should have an opportunity to vote on what 
the priorities for funding in this bill are.
  I feel very strongly about public television. That is what my 
amendment would have done. I would like to have had the opportunity to 
be able to voice that and to have a vote. That is not going to happen; 
and in a desire for expediency, we have thwarted the democratic 
process. I share the frustration of my colleague from Vermont and other 
colleagues who do not have the opportunity.
  Again, as a member of the authorizing committee, the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, I believe that what went on here was wrong and 
should not happen again.
  I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for giving me the 
ability to voice these problems on the House floor, and I would hope 
that as we negotiate this bill and continue to negotiate with the other 
House and the bill comes back that we will increase money for public 
television, we will increase money for the PFTP. And I would hope that 
on both sides of the aisle they look at that and can find more money 
for the very worthwhile programs of public television. I thank my 
colleague.
  Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Engel), my brother, his comments. We understand his frustration, 
but his last comments were correct. As this bill goes along and 
continues to go into conference, it is the intention of both the 
chairman and I to continue to work on those areas that are deficient in 
the hope that they could grow as they should.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) is supposed to be here, but 
in the interim, just to briefly discuss the issues.
  The bill provides, as people know, the funding for the programs whose 
impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and community 
diplomacy. The overall bill today recommends a total of $37.9 billion 
in discretionary funding, which is $700 million above the enacted level 
of fiscal year 2003 and $237 million above the President's request.
  For the Department of Justice, the bill provides $20.15 billion in 
discretionary funding, which is $1.15 billion above the request. The 
bill includes funding for Federal law enforcement agencies to perform 
traditional law enforcement duties and fight terrorism. The bill also 
provides more than $1 billion above the request to support State and 
local law enforcement crime-fighting efforts. That has been an issue 
that a lot of people have been deeply concerned about.
  It provides $4.64 billion for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an 
increase of $424 million above fiscal year 2003 and the same as the 
President's request. This will result in more than 2,500 new agents and 
analysts at the FBI to improve counterterrorism and counterintelligence 
and continue the fight on crime, drugs, corporate fraud and cybercrime.
  Also, there is $80 million for high-priority FBI technology needs and 
funding above the request for language translation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) regarding a 
serious problem my constituents are facing with the Department of 
Justice. I had originally planned to file an amendment to limit funding 
for the Department of Justice by $1.5 million until they settled over 
90 administrative claims that my constituents filed against the 
Department of Justice as a result of the destruction of their property 
during the Pines Fire of 2002.
  In the summer of 2002, the Drug Enforcement Administration borrowed a 
National Guard helicopter to perform a marijuana search in Julian, 
California. The helicopter pilot made a mistake and clipped a power 
line causing a fire that destroyed 41 homes and thousands of acres of 
private property. The DEA took responsibility for the incident and 
agreed to give claimants fair compensation for their loss. About 200 
claims were filed.
  It has been nearly a year since the first claim was filed and the 
Department of Justice still has failed to settle over 90 of the largest 
claims. Some of my constituents have resorted to living in tents on 
their property because they do not have the money to rebuild their 
homes.
  This morning I met with senior officials of Department of Justice and 
I believe that we are on the path to resolving this issue. I thank the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for working with me to ensure that 
the Department of Justice successfully settles every claim, and I look 
forward to putting this matter behind us.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Issa) for bringing this matter to our attention. We are confident 
that the Department of Justice will soon resolve the issue, and I will 
continue to work with the gentleman to make sure this happens.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that shortly the gentleman from Vermont 
(Mr. Sanders) will be offering yet another motion to have the committee 
rise. Before that happens, I just want to make one point.
  I recall last week when the gentleman from Vermont was sitting here 
on the floor, and I was kidding him about how it is that the only 
Socialist in the House has been able to pass more amendments to 
appropriations bills the past 2 years than any other Member. And he 
told me if I wanted to have a similar success rate, I should listen 
more to him. And perhaps I should.
  And I want to point out that last week I worked with him and the 
committee worked with him and we were able to restructure an amendment 
that he had on weatherization so that the committee wound up accepting 
the amendments adding, I believe, $15 million to that appropriation. 
That happened because there were no procedural surprises, and we had 
the time to work out that amendment.
  The schedule that we worked on today has been sort of a surprise to 
everybody. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) did not know that his 
bill was going to come up before the Foreign Operations bill. I did 
not. Those decisions were made in a rather disorderly fashion because 
we are trying to accommodate each other in the last week of the 
session.
  I regret the fact that the amendment that the gentleman wants to 
offer is out of order, but I would simply point out that I have a 
personal track record of trying to work with the gentleman in trying to 
facilitate his amendments.
  I think the committee has tried, in general, to help Members, whether 
they agree with their amendments or not, to see that they have an 
opportunity to have them discussed before the House. But in this 
instance we have

[[Page 18996]]

now had two votes and shortly, apparently, are going to have a third 
because the gentleman is upset because somehow either the House or the 
committee is seen as being to blame for the fact that the gentleman 
filed last night an amendment which he knew was out of order.
  And I, for the life of me, do not understand why the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) or I or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) 
or anyone else on the committee should be held responsible for the fact 
that the gentleman filed an amendment which he knew to be out of order 
when he filed it.
  I would like to accommodate the gentleman as often as we can, but I 
do not think the House ought to be held at bay because the gentleman 
made a mistake in drafting his amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, let me review the situation and set the 
facts right.
  Number one, historically, it has been my experience, and I think the 
experience of many Members, that when one files an amendment, when it 
is placed in the Congressional Record, that, in every instance that I 
can recall, when one asks for unanimous consent to make a minor 
modification, that unanimous consent is granted.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if I can take back my time to correct that, 
on two occasions in the past 3 or 4 years, I myself have tried to 
correct amendments; and I have been denied that opportunity.
  Mr. SANDERS. If the gentleman would allow me to make the point.
  Mr. OBEY. I would, but I want to make sure it is a correct point. Go 
ahead. I yield.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, the reality here is that throughout this 
country today, over 100 cities and towns have spoken out, including 
three States, with deep concern about various aspects of the U.S.A. 
PATRIOT Act. For many people, conservatives and progressives, the 
decline of civil liberties in this country and the ability of the FBI 
to go into libraries and bookstores is an issue of enormous concern. It 
is beyond my comprehension why that issue cannot be debated on the 
floor of the House.
  Maybe my amendment would win. We have 130 cosponsors. Maybe it would 
lose, but when we talk about the democracy, how can we not debate an 
issue of enormous consequence regarding civil liberties, and that has 
been my simple request.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, with all due respect to 
the gentleman, the content of his amendment is not in question. I 
support the amendment. I would like to see the House vote on it, but 
the gentleman from Virginia is in a position where if he makes an 
exception to a unanimous consent agreement entered into for one Member, 
then he has to do it for everyone else; and the fact is that the 
gentleman himself, if he wanted the amendment considered, had some 
obligation to the House to have the amendment printed in a form that he 
knew was in order. He knew that the amendment was not in order when he 
filed the amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, no, that is 
not correct.
  Mr. OBEY. I am sorry, but everyone else knew it. I assume he knew it, 
too.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we are obviously going to grind to a halt; and I am 
afraid that as a result of that, we will wind up going up to the 
Committee on Rules and adopting a far more limiting amendment which I 
do not believe we ought to do because I do not believe in shutting down 
the minority like that. But I do think you have to have some sense of 
responsibility on the part of all parties, including those who belong 
to no political party in this House, if we are going to make our way 
through this week; and with all due respect to the gentleman, who I 
regard as a friend and have a great deal of affection for, I do not 
believe that it is fair to hold the House hostage because the gentleman 
drew an amendment that was not in order.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I just want to say to my friend and gentleman from Vermont that I do 
not think anyone here is discussing the merits of the issue. At the 
risk of using an old phrase since September 11, perhaps since September 
12, everybody on the Committee on Appropriations knows that I have made 
a career, if you will, of denouncing the abuses on civil liberties in 
this country. I think the gentleman knows that. I think all Members who 
have come in contact with me know that. I have become a broken record 
on the issue of what is happening to us as a Nation in terms of our 
civil liberties.
  We are not discussing that at this very moment. We have a problem. We 
are charged with the responsibility of getting a bill through the House 
that, in addition to dealing with this particular issue that the 
gentleman speaks to, also deals with the security of our embassies 
overseas; that pays the salaries of the men and women who do the 
fighting against drugs in this country; and that goes across the way in 
putting together the kind of legislation that we call the Commerce, 
Justice, State, Judiciary and related agencies bill.
  If nothing else is accomplished today, and it does look, as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, has said, like 
we are heading towards a very difficult rule coming out of the 
committee, if nothing else happens today, I think it is important for 
the gentleman from Vermont to know that nothing on this side, and I do 
not believe anything in the gentleman from Virginia's (Mr. Wolf) 
behavior had anything to do with the desire to shut down the discussion 
of civil liberties. I will never be part of that. On the contrary, I 
would fight for time to be involved in that fight.
  This is about a process, a process that some people, somehow, did not 
become part of, did not alert us about, did not ask us to be involved 
in, to be of assistance; and now we have come to this point. I 
understand that.
  In the past, I have engaged in behavior that says we have to get 
things done; but just for the record, this ranking member, this Member 
from New York, would never participate in an action to shut down a 
discussion on civil liberties because that, to me, is the strongest 
issue as ranking member of this committee; and I will not rest till I 
undo the harm that has been done to the people in this country. This 
was about a process, not about a shutting down of discussion.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Before I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), let 
me say I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for the comment.
  To the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), we have been very fair. 
In fact, we have been very fair to every Member in the House, on both 
sides of the aisle; and I think the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. 
Obey) points are well taken. There are other amendments that have not 
been made in order, and I am not going to get into a debate. If the 
gentleman wants me to yield, I will yield to him; but I think we have 
been fair, and I did just want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) for the comments.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) about the valuable 
services provided by the Police Corps program, which is funded in this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the Police Corps program has had remarkable success in

[[Page 18997]]

training and preparing our Nation's law enforcement officers. In just 5 
years, 22 States have organized and implemented Police Corps programs, 
and five more States have been approved but await funding.
  Over 1,000 Police Corps officers are already at work in various State 
and local agencies. Each of these officers receive a $30,000 college 
scholarship and 24 weeks of training in exchange for a 4-year service 
commitment. More than 85 percent of Police Corps officers remain on the 
job after their required service is complete.
  I believe every member of this committee recognizes the important 
role the police officers play in the protection of our Nation and our 
citizens. I applaud the chairman and the rest of the CJS committee for 
the commitment they have shown to the Police Corps program.
  The $28 million appropriation for Police Corps in fiscal year 2004 is 
greatly needed. This amount is almost double the $15 million 
appropriated in fiscal year 2003. However, due to the past 
underestimates in program costs, Police Corps is still struggling to 
fund its existing State appropriations and is not able to fund 
additional programs which have already been approved.
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) his view 
regarding the important training conducted by the Police Corps program, 
and I would ask if any additional support may be available for this 
much-needed program.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the 
gentleman for his comments on the importance of the Police Corps. I 
have heard from several other Members on this issue, and I know that 
many of our colleagues would agree with the gentleman about the role 
this program has had in helping to provide an exceptional level of 
training for our Nation's police force.
  I support the program. It is a good program, and I will work with the 
gentleman and the Senate to ensure the program is well funded in the 
conference.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and I look forward to 
working with him and other members of the committee to provide more 
funding for the Police Corps program.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I 
think the problem, Mr. Chairman, is when the gentleman indicates that 
other people are also impacted negatively by this process. It suggests 
that the process we worked on today, or that my colleague and others 
engaged in, was a faulty process. It is not my intention to bring this 
body to a halt, and I will not ask for another motion to rise; but I 
must say, nobody should be happy that the American people are not going 
to have a debate on one of the most important constitutional issues 
facing this country. This process was very, very faulty; and I think it 
is unfortunate that that occurred.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for his 
comments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 608. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce any guidelines 
     of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission covering 
     harassment based on religion, when it is made known to the 
     Federal entity or official to which such funds are made 
     available that such guidelines do not differ in any respect 
     from the proposed guidelines published by the Commission on 
     October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266).
       Sec. 609. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for any United Nations undertaking when it is made 
     known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or 
     expend such funds that (1) the United Nations undertaking is 
     a peacekeeping mission; (2) such undertaking will involve 
     United States Armed Forces under the command or operational 
     control of a foreign national; and (3) the President's 
     military advisors have not submitted to the President a 
     recommendation that such involvement is in the national 
     security interests of the United States and the President has 
     not submitted to the Congress such a recommendation.
       Sec. 610. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act shall be expended for any purpose 
     for which appropriations are prohibited by section 609 of the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999.
       (b) The requirements in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     section 609 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal 
     year 2004.
       Sec. 611. Any costs incurred by a department or agency 
     funded under this Act resulting from 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 605 of this 
     Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure 
     except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that 
     section.
       Sec. 612. Of the funds appropriated in this Act under the 
     heading ``Office of Justice Programs--State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Assistance'', not more than 90 percent of the 
     amount to be awarded to an entity under the Local Law 
     Enforcement Block Grant shall be made available to such an 
     entity when it is made known to the Federal official having 
     authority to obligate or expend such funds that the entity 
     that employs a public safety officer (as such term is defined 
     in section 1204 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968) does not provide such a public 
     safety officer who retires or is separated from service due 
     to injury suffered as the direct and proximate result of a 
     personal injury sustained in the line of duty while 
     responding to an emergency situation or a hot pursuit (as 
     such terms are defined by State law) with the same or better 
     level of health insurance benefits at the time of retirement 
     or separation as they received while on duty.
       Sec. 613. 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. 614. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available by this Act shall be expended for any purpose 
     for which appropriations are prohibited by section 616 of the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999.
       (b) The requirements in subsections (b) and (c) of section 
     616 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal year 
     2004.
       Sec. 615. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this 
     Act or any other provision of law may be used for (1) the 
     implementation of any tax or fee in connection with the 
     implementation of 18 U.S.C. 922(t); and (2) any system to 
     implement 18 U.S.C. 922(t) that does not require and result 
     in the immediate destruction of any identifying information 
     submitted by or on behalf of any person who has been 
     determined not to be prohibited from owning a firearm.
       Sec. 616. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     amounts deposited or available in the Fund established under 
     42 U.S.C. 10601 in any fiscal year in excess of $625,000,000 
     shall not be available for obligation until the following 
     fiscal year.
       Sec. 617. 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. 618. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available to the Department of State shall be available for 
     the purpose of granting either immigrant or nonimmigrant 
     visas, or both, consistent with the determination of the 
     Secretary of State under section 243(d) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act, to citizens, subjects, nationals, or 
     residents of countries that the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security has determined deny or unreasonably delay accepting 
     the return of citizens, subjects, nationals, or residents 
     under that section.
       Sec. 619. None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Justice in this Act may be used 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. 620. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used by Federal prisons to purchase cable television 
     services, to rent or purchase videocassettes, videocassette 
     recorders, or other audiovisual or electronic equipment used 
     primarily for recreational purposes.
       (b) The preceding sentence does not preclude the renting, 
     maintenance, or purchase

[[Page 18998]]

     of audiovisual or electronic equipment for inmate training, 
     religious, or educational programs.
       Sec. 621. 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 appropriation Act.
       Sec. 622. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the 
     Judiciary, and the Small Business Administration shall each 
     establish a policy under which eligible employees may 
     participate in telecommuting to the maximum extent possible 
     without diminished employee performance: Provided, That, not 
     later than six months after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, each of the aforementioned entities shall provide that 
     the requirements of this section are applied to 100 percent 
     of the workforce: Provided further, That, of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act for the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and the Small Business 
     Administration, $250,000 shall be available to each 
     Department or agency only to implement telecommuting 
     programs: Provided further, That, every six months, each 
     Department or agency shall provide a report to the Committees 
     on Appropriations on the status of telecommuting programs, 
     including the number of Federal employees eligible for, and 
     participating in, such programs, and uses of funds designated 
     under this section: Provided further, That each Department or 
     agency shall designate a ``Telework Coordinator'' to be 
     responsible for overseeing the implementation of 
     telecommuting programs and serve as a point of contact on 
     such programs for the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 623. The paragraph under the heading ``Small Business 
     Administration--Disaster Loans Program Account'' in chapter 2 
     of division B of Public Law 107-117 is amended by inserting 
     ``or section 7(b) of the Small Business Act'' after 
     ``September 11, 2001''.
       Sec. 624. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     grant, transfer or assign a license for a commercial TV 
     broadcast station to any party (including all parties under 
     common control) if the grant, transfer or assignment of such 
     license would result in such party or any of its 
     stockholders, partners, members, officers or directors, 
     directly or indirectly, owning, operating or controlling, or 
     having a cognizable interest in TV stations which have an 
     aggregate national audience reach, as defined in 47 C.F.R. 
     73.3555, exceeding thirty-five (35) percent.
       Sec. 625. (a) Tracing studies conducted by the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives are released 
     without adequate disclaimers regarding the limitations of the 
     data.
       (b) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
     Explosives shall include in all such data releases, language 
     similar to the following that would make clear that trace 
     data cannot be used to draw broad conclusions about firearms-
     related crime:
       ``(1) Firearm traces are designed to assist law enforcement 
     authorities in conducting investigations by tracking the sale 
     and possession of specific firearms. Law enforcement agencies 
     may request firearms traces for any reason, and those reasons 
     are not necessarily reported to the Federal Government. Not 
     all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms 
     traced are used in crime.
       ``(2) Firearms selected for tracing are not chosen for 
     purposes of determining which types, makes or models of 
     firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected 
     do not constitute a random sample and should not be 
     considered representative of the larger universe of all 
     firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe. 
     Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and 
     sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily 
     represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general 
     are acquired for use in crime.''.

                         TITLE VII--RESCISSIONS

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                       Office of Justice Programs


               state and local law enforcement assistance

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $24,122,000 are rescinded.


                  community oriented policing services

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $6,378,000 are rescinded.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Are there amendments at this 
point?


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida:
       None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under by the act may be used to issue patents on claims 
     directed to or encompassing a human organism.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, technology proceeds at a rapid 
rate, bringing great benefits to humankind from treatments of disease 
to greater wealth and greater knowledge of our world. However, 
sometimes technology can be used to undermine what is meant to be 
human, including the exploitation of human nature for the purpose of 
financial gain.
  Several weeks ago, at a meeting of the European Society of Human 
Reproduction and Embryology in Madrid, Spain, it was reported that 
scientists had created the first male-female hybrid human embryos. The 
researchers transplanted cells from male embryos into female embryos 
and allowed them to grow for 6 days. This research was universally 
condemned as unnecessary and unethical.
  Reuters reported that one member of the European Society condemned 
this research, saying there are very good reasons why this type of 
research is generally rejected by the international research community. 
Furthermore, the scientists who created these she-male embryos 
reportedly want to patent this research.
  It is important that we, as a civilized society, draw the line where 
some rogue scientists fail to exercise restraint. Just because 
something can be done does not mean that it should be done. A patent on 
such human organisms would last for 20 years. We should not allow such 
researchers to gain financially by granting them an exclusive right to 
practice such ghoulish research.
  Long-standing American patent and trademark policy states that human 
beings at any stage of development are not patentable, subject to 
matters under 35 U.S.C. section 101. Though current policy would not 
issue patents on human embryos, Congress has remained silent on this 
subject. Though this amendment would not actually ban this practice, it 
is about time that Congress should simply reaffirm current U.S. patent 
policy and ensure there is not financial gain or ownership of human 
beings by those who engage in these activities.
  This amendment simply mirrors the current patent policy concerning 
patenting humans. The Patent Office has, since 1980, issued hundreds of 
patents on living subject matter, from microorganisms to nonhuman 
animals. It does not issue patents on human beings nor should it. 
Congress should reaffirm this policy, and this amendment simply 
accomplishes this by restricting funds for issuing patents on human 
embryos, human organisms.
  Congress should speak out, and I encourage my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, that this has no bearing on stem 
cell research or patenting genes, it only affects patenting human 
organisms, human embryos, human fetuses or human beings.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  I think I heard the gentleman say this, but I want it repeated again 
so it is clear. Is the gentleman saying that this amendment would not 
interfere in any way with any existing patents with respect to stem 
cells?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would 
respond that, no, it would not. And I recognize that there are many 
institutions, particularly in Wisconsin, that have extensive patents on 
human genes, human stem cells. This would not affect any of those 
current existing patents.
  The Patent Office policy is not to issue these patents, and there 
never has been one. The Congress has been silent on this issue. I am 
trying to put us on record that we support the Patent Office in this 
position that human life in any form should not be patentable.
  Mr. OBEY. I appreciate the gentleman's clarification.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.

[[Page 18999]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of 
the subcommittee and the full committee for the work they have done on 
this bill. We stand ready to pass this appropriation bill that contains 
an egregious error that not only runs counter to a majority in this 
Congress, but it runs counter to the views of the Attorney General.
  The Attorney General, when asked about the COPS program during his 
confirmation hearing, said, ``Let me say that I think the COPS program 
has been successful. The purpose of the COPS program was to demonstrate 
to local police departments that if you put additional people, feet on 
the street, that crime will be affected and that people will be safer 
and more secure. We believe that the COPS program demonstrated that 
conclusively.'' That was June 5, 2003, not at his confirmation hearing.
  Well, in addition to Mr. Ashcroft, 224 Members of this body have 
signed on to legislation that I and others are cosponsoring to 
reauthorize the COPS program. The COPS program, quite literally, gets 
the Federal Government off the sidelines in the war against crime, the 
war against terrorism, and hires police officers in all our 
communities. This bill that we are about to pass contains zero money, 
zero dollars and zero cents, for the most important component, which is 
the hiring component.
  There are a few dollars to keep the COPS office up and running to 
administer the last remaining contracts that are out there, but let us 
keep in mind what it is that the program has already accomplished: 
110,000 cops are on the beat in more than 12,000 communities.
  And this is the most democratic, with a small ``d'', of programs in 
that it is spread almost equally throughout the country. More than 82 
percent of the grants under the COPS program have gone to departments 
serving populations of 50,000 persons or less. Three hundred 
communities around this country now have police departments that did 
not even have them until the COPS program was put into place.
  Well, not only do those of us in Congress believe in this program, at 
least those 224 of us who have cosponsored the reauthorization of the 
COPS program, but the Fraternal Order of Police, the International 
Association of Police Chiefs, the International Brotherhood of Police 
Officers, the National Association of Police Organizations, the 
National Sheriffs Association and on and on.
  This is our opportunity to fund that program. This is our chance to 
say that in addition to supporting it and cosponsoring the legislation, 
we also want to provide the funding for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I have the strange suspicion that despite the great 
success of this program, despite the fact that every day our leaders 
are standing up and saying that homeland security begins in our 
hometowns, despite the fact that every day we have a red, a yellow, a 
fuchsia, a teal alert telling our officers at home they better be on 
alert, we are eliminating perhaps the most successful anticrime program 
in the history of the Federal Government. And, today, in this bill, we 
do precious little to breathe life into it.
  I had intended to offer an amendment to move a few dollars, not a 
lot, but a few dollars into the spending program for the hiring of 
additional COPS police officers. It had the support of some of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle who were going to offer the 
amendment with me.
  Let me say there is more that we should do than just reinstitute the 
hiring program. We should respond to some of my colleagues, 
particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, who have had 
criticism of the program. They said that it provided hiring funding, 
and then it gradually faded away and some departments did not want to 
hire any more officers. That is why my reauthorization bill would allow 
them to use the funds under the COPS program to backfill existing 
officers.
  Secondly, my amendment and the reauthorization bill, would it be 
passed, would allow them to invest in technology, in police scanners, 
surveillance devices, and the like.
  This is one of those instances that, unfortunately, are not too 
uncommon in this body, where a majority, a strong majority of Members 
feel that something should be done and a small minority of Members 
prevent it from being done. This was our opportunity to do it, and I 
would have liked the opportunity to offer it.
  I should point out that my colleague, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Serrano), is a cosponsor of the bill to reauthorize it; my 
colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), a cosponsor of the 
bill to reauthorize the COPS program. And were we to have the 
opportunity to have a hearing, a debate, and a vote on it in the 
Committee on the Judiciary, I am quite certain it would pass.
  Our colleagues on the other side of this building, in the other body, 
they too have demonstrated their support for it. They have more than 50 
cosponsors there as well.
  Let this bill be heard. Let the COPS program live to see another day. 
This is neither a Republican nor a Democratic initiative. Police 
officers, I would point out, tend to in many, many cases be Republican 
voters. But that is not what this is about. This is about a program 
that worked, that had the misfortune of having President Clinton's name 
in front of it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to clarify 
something that the gentleman, my brother from New York, said. It was 
not that a majority wanted something and a small group stopped it. It 
was that we had a unanimous consent. And by virtue of its being 
unanimous consent, one could argue that it was the majority that made 
that decision, fair or unfair as it was.
  And it was not the attempt of anyone here, not the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), not I, to shut anyone down.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any further amendments?


                  Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Paul

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Paul:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

          limitation on united states contributions to unesco

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be made available for the United Nations Educational, 
     Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple and clear. It is 
to strike the funds for UNESCO. We have been out of UNESCO since 1984, 
since President Reagan took us out of UNESCO, and the proposal now is 
that we rejoin. And this strikes the funding, which I think is a good 
idea.
  UNESCO was started with a bad idea. It became very corrupted, and it 
was almost unanimous that we get out of UNESCO in 1984, and actually I 
see no reason for us to rejoin.
  Let me just mention a few things that UNESCO is involved in. They 
came across, when we were in there, as being very anti-American, 
certainly anti-freedom, and certainly anti-first amendment. UNESCO's 
main function is to mettle in the education affairs of individual 
neighborhoods, nations, by proposing global school curriculums; 
something that we hardly need.
  In one of the publications put out from UNESCO it describes rather 
well what their intentions are. The publication is called Toward World 
Understanding. Let me just quote from that.
  ``One of the chief aims of education today should be to prepare boys 
and girls to take an active part in the creation of a world society. As 
long as the child breathes the poisoned air of nationalism, education 
and world mindedness can produce only rather precarious results. As we 
have pointed out, it

[[Page 19000]]

is frequently the family,'' the family, it says, ``that infects the 
child with extreme nationalism. The schools should, therefore, use the 
means described earlier to combat family attitudes.''
  Now, that is coming from a publication put out by UNESCO and states 
one of their goals. And I might just remind my colleagues of who the 
founding director general was, and that happened to have been Sir 
Julian Huxley. Huxley helped to write some of the goals set in the 
UNESCO, and he happens to be a believer in eugenics, but let me just 
quote from him what he thought this organization should do.
  He says, ``The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific 
world humanism.'' And those words have not been changed; they still 
exist in these documents. They have not repealed that concept.
  He goes on to say, ``In its education program, it can stress the 
ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all people with 
the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate 
nations to a world organization.'' They are rather explicit in what the 
goal of UNESCO is through the educational process.
  ``It is also to help the emergence of a single world culture, even 
though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy could not be 
passed now,'' they say, ``in time, the world will become ready for 
it.''
  So I warn my colleagues about rejoining UNESCO, believing very 
sincerely that it is not in our interest. It costs us a lot of money. 
It does not represent the goals and the culture and the beliefs of 
Americans. We did get out because it represented us badly, and here we 
are about to get back into UNESCO. I urge support for my amendment.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The bill includes $71.4 million for the United States to join UNESCO. 
There was a vote, I believe, in the last Congress whereby this issue 
was voted on. I believe it was offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Hyde). This was an initiative that President Bush announced last 
year. The U.S. withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 when the organization was 
rife with corruption and an anti-Western bias. The organization was 
mismanaged and was not working with regard to the national interest. 
Since that time, the Bush administration believes that the organization 
has undergone a number of reforms and the current leadership is 
committed to sustaining these gains and is committed to fundamental 
human rights and democratic principles. The Bush administration 
believes that participation in UNESCO will allow them to be engaged 
with the international partners on a host of critical issues.
  Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to stand with the Bush 
administration on this initiative and reject the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment. I think it is one of those 
issues where, instead of removing ourselves from involvement, we should 
be doing just the opposite and, that is, involving ourselves even more. 
UNESCO aims to promote peace and security through facilitating 
collaboration among member states in the areas of education, science, 
and culture. The following is a list of UNESCO's areas of activity and 
an example of its work in each area:
  In the area of education, for instance. UNESCO promotes literacy and 
in post-Taliban Afghanistan by providing schooling materials and 
assisting with the reconstruction of institutions. In communication and 
information, it promotes press freedom and independent media in 
Afghanistan and Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the area of culture, it has 
encouraged countries to sign the World Heritage Convention to protect 
sites of cultural significance within their borders. In natural 
sciences, it provides assessment of ocean conditions and resources for 
preservation. In social and human sciences, it promotes research and 
developing educational materials on HIV/AIDS. So many different 
organizations throughout the world, from the arts, to scholars, to 
religious organizations support our involvement in UNESCO again.
  The President has made a crucial first step toward U.S. reentry to 
UNESCO by including $71 million for U.S. dues in his 2004 budget 
request. The State Department authorization bill currently authorizes 
this request and ``such sums as may be necessary'' to pay U.S. dues to 
UNESCO. Not only will this allow us this involvement but my 
understanding is that by doing it now, we get a seat on the board which 
then would allow us to move programs and behavior in UNESCO to our 
liking and to our needs. I rise in support of the gentleman from 
Virginia's comments of the President's request and desire to reenter 
UNESCO and in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this attempt to overturn the 
President's decision to return the United States to membership in 
UNESCO. The gentleman from Texas offered a similar amendment during the 
markup of this year's State Department authorization bill in the 
Committee on International Relations. In an overwhelming bipartisan 
vote, his amendment was rejected. Last week the whole House voted 
resoundingly in favor of authorizing full funding to support U.S. entry 
when the State Department bill was passed. I strongly agree with 
President Bush that our reentry will support UNESCO's mission to 
advance human rights, tolerance, and learning.
  Our national decision to rejoin UNESCO reflects our understanding in 
the Congress and in the administration that UNESCO has a critical role 
to advance U.S. foreign policy goals, such as facilitating the 
rewriting of educational materials to remove passages that incite 
racial hatred, violence, and intolerance. UNESCO will be a key to 
rebuilding Afghanistan's educational system, and it is critical for 
establishing educational programs on HIV/AIDS, malaria and other 
infectious diseases.
  UNESCO has undertaken massive management reforms under the leadership 
of its Director General, Mr. Matsuura of Japan. The organization has 
achieved a huge cutback in its staffing, has held its budget to zero 
nominal growth for many years, and has eliminated what used to be a 
corrupt structure. It is critical that the United States, the one 
remaining superpower on this planet, resume its seat at the United 
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
  When UNESCO was founded, Mr. Chairman, at the end of the Second World 
War, its motto was, ``It is in the minds of men that war begins and it 
is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must first be 
constructed.'' This was never more true than it is today. After a 20-
year absence, we have now gotten consensus in the House, in the Senate, 
and with this administration that the time is now the right time to 
rejoin UNESCO.
  I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote against the amendment 
and to support the President's decision to return the United States to 
UNESCO. I earnestly hope that this issue can finally be put to rest.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Without objection, the 
gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, let me mention once again that the amendment 
strikes all the funding for UNESCO. We have been out of UNESCO since 
1984. President Reagan took us out of UNESCO, and that was a very 
popular move. The argument now is that UNESCO has made some reforms and 
therefore we should get back in. But their goals have not changed. I 
have already mentioned some of the goals of UNESCO, and they are not 
beneficial to us and they do not represent American ideals; it is an 
attack on American sovereignty. But during these 18 years since we have 
been out of UNESCO, it has only been the last

[[Page 19001]]

year or two where they have talked about reforms. So over all these 
years, nothing has been done.
  But more importantly, it is the goals of UNESCO. For instance, 
UNESCO's position on international taxation is that they would like to 
impose an international tax. If that is what the people want, if that 
is what the Congress wants, then you vote against my amendment. But if 
you think it is a bad idea for the U.N. and UNESCO to be leveling a 
worldwide tax, then you vote for my amendment.
  I do not think the American people want that. I think the American 
people do not want to sacrifice their sovereignty and they would like 
not to have the United Nations and UNESCO interfering in our curricula. 
We have enough problems ourselves here to allow our States and our 
local communities to manage their schools with the interference of the 
Federal Government. And now here we are talking about an international 
organization designing a curriculum for our schools. Their goals are 
not American. Their goals are internationalist. I quoted just a little 
while ago from one of their pamphlets that says they do not even 
believe in nationalism, that it was a bad thing, that it was a result 
of families teaching children bad things, to believe in nationalism.
  I do not believe that. I have not come around to that belief. Being a 
member in a world community does not mean that you have to sacrifice 
your sovereignty. Being a member of a world community means that we 
should get along with people, that we should not be fighting with 
people, we should be trading with people; but that does not imply the 
necessity of having an international government. This is what is 
implied here. In this day and age we go to war under U.N. resolutions; 
but here our children are going to war with the education system by the 
United Nations dictating to us educational standards.
  But they do other things as well. UNESCO, for instance, has been 
fully supportive of the United Nations Population Fund in its 
assistance to China's brutal, coercive population control program. That 
is part of UNESCO. I do not believe the majority of the Members of 
Congress really believe that is a good expenditure. And you cannot 
control the money once it gets to UNESCO, believe me. We send the 
money, we send a larger amount of money than anybody else, we lose 
control of it and they do these things that I think are illegitimate as 
far as our Constitution is concerned.
  UNESCO has designated already 47 U.N. biosphere reserves in the 
United States covering more than 70 million acres without congressional 
consultation. This project has led to the confiscation of private lands 
and restrictions. Because we do go along with the restrictions, it is 
somewhat like following WTO mandates. They come back with regulations 
and mandates, and we accommodate them by rewriting our tax laws. In the 
same way, they are moving in, with radical environmentism that 
originates from UNESCO and it filters into our grade schools as well as 
our kindergartens. UNESCO effectively bypasses congressional authority 
to manage Federal lands, including places like the Everglades, and it 
is done without congressional approval.
  UNESCO's World Heritage Convention has taken treasured American 
public monuments to be designated world heritage sites. This is a 
movement away from the concept of national sovereignty. This means that 
there will not be control by the American people through their 
Representative. That makes every single one of us less significant, not 
only in the issue of war but now in the issue of schools and taxation. 
Yes, it moves slowly, it is not overwhelming; we still have a lot of 
control, but we are losing it gradually. And we do know that even those 
who objected to the war in Iraq would have been quite happy if only the 
United Nations would have passed a resolution that permitted us to go 
to war. I do not like that kind of a world. The only oath of office I 
take is the oath to the U.S. Constitution and UNESCO does not conform 
to that oath.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul) will be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hostettler:
       Insert in an appropriate place the following:

       Sec.     . None of the funds appropriated in this Act may 
     be used to enforce the judgment in Newdow v. U.S. Congress, 
     292 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2002).

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, on June 26, 2002, in Newdow v. U.S. 
Congress, a three-member panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of 
Appeals ruled that a California school district's policy and practice 
of voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance was 
unconstitutional claiming that the use of the phrase ``one nation, 
under God'' violates the establishment clause of the first amendment to 
the Constitution. In February of this year, the Ninth Circuit, the full 
Ninth Circuit effectively upheld the decision of the three-judge panel.
  Mr. Chairman, the founders of the United States set up a brilliant 
system of government consisting of three separate branches with 
unambiguous roles. The Congress legislates, the President executes, and 
the courts judge. However, as in any organization of institutions with 
potentially competing interests, one institution would be constructed 
to be the weakest. Alexander Hamilton made it very clear that the 
framers had relegated the judiciary to this distinction when he said in 
Federalist No. 78: ``It proves incontestably that the judiciary is, 
beyond comparison, the weakest of the three departments of power and it 
proves that as from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in 
continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed or influenced by its 
coordinate branches.''
  Hamilton laid out how practically this so-called feebleness manifests 
itself under what he referred to as the ``plan of the convention,'' or 
what we call today the Constitution of the United States of America, 
when he said once again in Federalist No. 78: ``The judiciary has no 
influence over either the sword or the purse, no direction either of 
the strength or of the wealth of the society and can take no active 
resolution whatever.

                              {time}  1600

  ``It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely 
judgment, and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm 
for the efficacy of its judgments.''
  As Hamilton pointed out, the legislative branch controls the purse 
strings of this government, and the plan of the Convention set that out 
in article 1, section 9, when the Constitution states: ``No money shall 
be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by 
law,'' which is the case for our being here today, Mr. Chairman.
  When the legislative branch, that is, the Congress, believes the 
judicial branch to be in error, the Congress may refuse to fund actions 
to enforce the court's judgment by the executive branch agency that 
would execute those judgments or, in Hamilton's words, ``depend on the 
arm of the executive for the efficacy of its judgments.''
  Specifically, the U.S. Marshals Service, an agency of the Department 
of Justice, executes and enforces all lawful writs, processes, and 
orders of the U.S. district courts, the U.S. courts of appeal, and the 
Court of International Trade, according to 28 U.S.C. 566(C), and I 
highlight that it enforces all lawful writs, orders, and processes.
  I, Mr. Chairman, along with many of my fellow Members of Congress, 
believe the judgment in Newdow v. U.S.

[[Page 19002]]

Congress to be in error. This was evidenced by the overwhelming support 
of H. Res. 132 on March 12, 2003. This resolution expressed the sense 
of the House of Representatives that the Newdow ruling is inconsistent 
with the first amendment and should be overturned. That is why, Mr. 
Chairman, I am offering this amendment to the FY 2004 Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues would say ``no'' to the 
decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and support my amendment 
to stop the enforcement of that ludicrous decision.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  We have a position from the Justice Department, and I will read a 
portion for Members. It says that ``The Justice Department asked the 
United States Supreme Court to reaffirm the right of Americans to 
recite voluntarily the Pledge of Allegiance. Two decisions of the 
Supreme Court have said without qualification that the Pledge is 
constitutional.'' And I, as I am sure most Members of this body are, am 
opposed to what the Court ruled and agree with what the Justice 
Department is saying here.
  Two decisions of the Supreme Court have said without qualification 
that the Pledge is constitutional. No Justice has expressed any other 
views. Schools across America and hundreds of thousands of school 
children have relied on the Supreme Court's repeated assurance as they 
have started their day with the Pledge.
  And they go on to say, and I agree, ``Our religious heritage has been 
recognized and celebrated for hundreds of years in a National Motto, 
`In God we trust,' the National Anthem, the Declaration of 
Independence, and Gettysburg Address. As the Court has ruled again and 
again, our government and people can acknowledge the important role 
religion has played in America's foundation, history and character.
  ``The Justice Department,'' they go on to say, ``will vigorously 
defend our Nation's heritage and our children's ability to recite the 
Pledge.'' And I believe that Attorney General Ashcroft will do that.
  The concern of the amendment is, and I will submit the full statement 
of the Justice Department in the Record, they end by saying this: 
``Consideration of this legislation at this point would probably be 
premature. Congress,'' they say, ``should consider whether the Supreme 
Court should be given the opportunity to review the Ninth Circuit's 
decision without intervening legislation complicating its analysis and 
the procedural posture of the case. For example, part of the 
government's case before the Court involves demonstrating that there is 
real harm to the Ninth Circuit's ruling.'' And this is the case. ``So 
if the Ninth Circuit's ruling is gutted legislatively, the Justice 
Department might find it harder to make that claim and could strengthen 
the hands of our opponents' efforts to diminish or eliminate the 
Federal Government's role in defending the Pledge of Allegiance.
  ``Also, if the Justice Department prevails in the Supreme Court, 
there is a chance that opponents might try to construe this statutory 
language as limiting the Federal Government's ability to spend funds in 
a manner consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.''
  I do not agree with the Court's ruling, and I understand, and I was 
with my colleague here, but I certainly do not want to do anything in 
this bill that does, as Justice Department said, if it is gutted 
legislatively, the Justice Department might find it harder to make that 
claim and could diminish the strength of the hands of the opponents' 
efforts to diminish or eliminate the Federal Government's role in 
defending the Pledge of Allegiance.
  I think to do this on a legislative appropriations bill, we really 
have to go with the Justice Department, and I am going to rely on 
Attorney General Ashcroft to fight the Ninth Circuit's case and not do 
something that might, even though the meaning is good, work against the 
other way and result in something taking place that I certainly do not 
want to take place, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and 
frankly, I do not think this House wants to take place; and I oppose 
the amendment.
  The Justice Department asked the United States Supreme Court to 
reaffirm the right of Americans to recite voluntarily the Pledge of 
Allegiance. Two decisions of the Supreme Court have said without 
qualification that the Pledge is constitutional. No Justice has 
expressed any other view. Schools across America, and hundreds of 
thousands of school children, have relied on the Supreme Court's 
repeated assurances as they have started their day with the Pledge.
  Our religious heritage has been recognized and celebrated for 
hundreds of years in the National Motto (``In God we trust''), National 
Anthem, Declaration of Independence, and Gettysburg Address. As the 
Court has ruled again and again, our government and people can 
acknowledge the important role religion has played in America's 
foundation, history and character. The Justice Department will 
vigorously defend our Nation's heritage and our children's ability to 
recite the Pledge.
  The Newdow case was about whether the inclusion of the phrase ``under 
God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause of 
the First Amendment. Newdow sued both the United States and the Elk 
Grove School District to have the Pledge declared unconstitutional. The 
Ninth Circuit held that the Pledge is unconstitutional when its 
voluntary recitation is led by teachers in public elementary schools.
  On April 30, 2003, the Justice Department joined the Elk Grove School 
District and asked the Supreme Court to overrule the 9th Circuit 
(Newdow has also sought to overrule the 9th Circuit for an even broader 
invalidation of the Pledge). The latest filling by the Justice 
Department was on July 14, 2003. Some time in October, we will know 
whether the Supreme Court has decided whether or not to take the case.
  Consideration of this legislation at this point would probably be 
premature. Congress should consider whether the Supreme Court should be 
given the opportunity to review the 9th Circuit's decision without 
intervening legislation complicating its analysis and the procedural 
posture of the case. For example, part of the government's case before 
the Court involves demonstrating that there is a real harm to the 9th 
Circuit's ruling. So, if the 9th Circuit's ruling is gutted 
legislatively, the Justice Department might find it harder to make that 
claim and could strengthen the hands of our opponents' efforts to 
diminish or eliminate the Federal government's role in defending the 
Pledge of Allegiance.
  Also, if the Justice Department prevails in the Supreme Court, there 
is a chance that opponents might try to construe this statutory 
language as limiting the Federal government's ability to spend funds in 
a manner consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler) will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       At the end of the bill (before the title), insert the 
     following new title:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. . None of the funds made available in this Act to the 
     Federal Communications Commission may be expended to grant, 
     transfer, or assign any license for any broadcast station 
     if--
       (1) the party (including all parties under common control) 
     to which such license would be granted, transferred, or 
     assigned directly or indirectly owns, operates or controls a 
     daily newspaper and the grant, transfer, or assignment of 
     such license will result in:
       (A) the predicted or measured 2 mV/m contour of an AM 
     station, computed in accordance with 47 CFR 73.183 or 73.186, 
     encompassing the entire community in which such newspaper is 
     published;
       (B) the predicted 1 mV/m contour for an FM station, 
     computed in accordance with 47 CFR 73.313, encompassing the 
     entire community in which such newspaper is published; or

[[Page 19003]]

       (C) the Grade A contour of a TV station, computed in 
     accordance with 47 CFR 73.684, encompassing the entire 
     community in which such newspaper is published; or
       (2) as a result of such grant, transfer, or assignment an 
     entity would directly or indirectly own, operate, or control 
     two television stations licensed in the same Designated 
     Market Area (DMA) (as determined by Nielsen Media Research or 
     any successor entity), unless--
       (A) the Grade B contours of the stations (as determined by 
     47 CFR 73.684) do not overlap; or
       (B)(i) at the time the application to acquire or construct 
     the station is filed, at least one of the stations is not 
     ranked among the top four stations in the DMA, based on the 
     most recent all-day (9:00 a.m.-midnight) audience share, as 
     measured by Nielsen Media Research or by any comparable 
     professional, accepted audience ratings service; and
       (ii) at least 8 independently owned and operating, full-
     power commercial and noncommercial TV stations would remain 
     post-merger in the television market in which the communities 
     of license of the TV stations in question are located and--
       (I) count only those stations the Grade B signal contours 
     of which overlap with the Grade B signal contour of at least 
     one of the stations in the proposed combination; but
       (II) in areas where there is no Nielsen DMA, count the TV 
     stations present in an area that would be the functional 
     equivalent of a TV market and count only those TV stations 
     the Grade B signal contours of which overlap with the Grade B 
     signal contour of at least one of the stations in the 
     proposed combination.

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this government, our government, derives 
its just power from the consent of the governed. Those words form the 
basic founding principle of this Nation: The government derives its 
just powers from the consent of the governed.
  But in order for the governed to give their consent, they must be 
informed. It must be not an ignorant consent. It must be an informed 
consent. It must be a consent based on knowledge and accurate 
information and a multiplicity of voices and the opportunity for 
everyone to be heard. The marketplace of ideas in this country shall 
not be shut down. Otherwise, we lose the basic founding principle of 
our country.
  But, unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission in its 
decision on June 2 has gone a long way to doing precisely that, 
shutting down the marketplace of ideas. What they did was to weaken the 
rules governing cross-ownership of the media, newspapers, television, 
radio. What the FCC has done very quietly without any public hearings 
outside of Washington except for one, which they held in Richmond, 
Virginia, they have passed a rule which will shut down the ability for 
people to understand what is going on in this country.
  We need to restore the previous rules, and we have an opportunity in 
this bill, through this amendment, to do precisely that in the next 
fiscal year. Restoring the previous rules is essential to preserving 
localism, diversity, and competition in our airwaves, standards that 
are needed for a vibrant democratic republic.
  The FCC's decision, if we allow it to go forward, will permit one 
company to own the local newspaper, local television station, including 
the most popular, and several of the top local radio stations in any 
single market. It paves the way for one company to dominate a local 
community's flow of information.
  The rule change makes it much more likely that a company based 
hundreds or even thousands of miles away will control a community's 
information and whatever information gets into that community.
  Only large companies have the resources to purchase and operate a 
newspaper, TV stations, and radio stations. Competition, diversity of 
voices, and local control are at stake if this rule is allowed to 
stand.
  The FCC's decision will allow broadcast television to be highly 
concentrated in the vast majority of markets as defined by the Merger 
Guidelines of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade 
Commission.
  Before the FCC changed the rules, one company could own two TV 
stations, or duopolies, in a single market as long as at least eight 
independent voices remained. This restricted duopolies to sizable 
markets. If the new rules are allowed, 95 percent of Americans could 
see duopolies in their media markets. These changes will greatly reduce 
the number of independent and local voices, and in many instances they 
will completely eliminate those independent voices. Democracy requires 
the widest possible dissemination of information, yet these new rules 
will restrict access to diverse voices.
  This amendment that is offered by myself, the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) 
would prevent the FCC from implementing its misguided decision and 
would leave in place the media ownership rules that have protected 
localism, diversity, and competition in our media, as well as 
preserving the basic principles of this democratic republic. We have an 
opportunity here to correct a mistake, a huge bureaucratic error, that 
works against the best interests of the vast majority of the people in 
this country.
  I offer this amendment, and I ask for the Members' support.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hinchey-
Price amendment to the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, The 
Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
  This amendment will deny funding to the FCC for the purposes of 
implementing its new cross-ownership and local TV ownership rules. I 
believe this amendment is just the first in a series of extremely 
important steps to ensure that diversity in the media, both nationally 
and locally, will not diminish further.
  The FCC's newspaper-broadcasting cross-ownership rule and the local 
TV ownership rule will exacerbate the current minority ownership 
crisis. According to the newspaper-broadcasting cross-ownership rule, 
one company will be permitted to own a local newspaper and local TV and 
radio stations in one single market.
  If this rule is allowed to stand, it is possible that all local print 
and broadcast news could be controlled by a single company. The new 
local TV ownership rule will allow one company to own two TV stations 
in the same market as long as there are three other independent voices 
within that same market. The new rule will make creating a duopoly 
easier for a large corporation, while greatly limiting the number of 
independent voices on TV, including those of minorities.
  Minority owners' share of the commercial television and radio market 
is already at a historical low. At the end of the 1990s, minorities 
owned only 1.9 percent of the country's licensed television stations. 
In the year 2000, minorities owned only 4 percent of the Nation's 
commercial AM and FM radio stations. Many of these minority owners are 
single-station operators.
  I believe their voices, as well as the voices of other independent 
operators, will be silenced as large corporations are granted virtually 
unimpeded access to media markets under the new FCC rules.
  The American public supports a diverse and competitive media. Over 2 
million Americans have contacted the FCC to voice their disapproval of 
the June 2 decision to ease the limits on media ownership. The 
newspaper-broadcasting cross-ownership rule and local TV rule will 
further stifle minority voices in the media.
  Congress must respond and protect the public's access to diverse 
sources of information.

                              {time}  1615

  Please support the Hinchey-Price amendment to the CJS appropriations 
bill to protect diversity in the media and to allow dissenting voices, 
minority voices, small voices to be heard. The public owns the airways.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain to the House what is at stake 
this afternoon. The Federal Communications Commission has recommended a 
number of changes in ownership patterns for media across the country. 
One of the changes was to raise from 35 percent to 45 percent the 
percentage of the national TV audience that could be reached by any one 
media conglomerate. Another part of the FCC ruling

[[Page 19004]]

would have expanded opportunities for cross-ownership of media outlets 
all around the country, so that newspapers could own even more 
television stations than is the case today.
  I oppose everything the FCC did, but the problem is that you have to 
make an intelligent judgment about how much you can bite off and win. 
The fact is that the Committee on Appropriations adopted my amendment 
in committee by a 40 to 25 bipartisan vote, and that amendment 
essentially rolled back the Federal Communication Commission's decision 
with respect to the national cap on ownership.
  It did not go the next step, and I hope we do not try to go the next 
step today in the form of the Hinchey amendment. I favor the substance 
of it very much, I am totally opposed to cross-ownership. I do not 
think a newspaper ought to be able to own a single TV station in the 
country, and vice versa. I believe in the widest possible diversity of 
opinion.
  But the fact is that today, even in the committee approach, we are 
taking on the media giants of this country; and when you do that, you 
had doggone well better win, and we will not win if the Hinchey 
amendment is passed. The Hinchey amendment is not intended to be so, 
but it is a killer amendment. It will load up the camel, and it will 
break the camel's back.
  What I think we ought to do is stick to the judgment the committee 
made and win that one and tie that one down first. We are in a terrible 
situation today, where five media conglomerates control a 70 percent 
share of homes that watch during prime time; 80 percent of the major 
cable owners are owned by the same media conglomerates; and we need to 
see to it that we do not allow that situation to get any worse.
  The problem with this amendment is that if it passes, we will not be 
able to get enough votes on this bill to demonstrate to the White House 
that they should not veto the bill because of this provision; and I do 
not think the House wants to do that if it is interested in protecting 
local news values.
  The reason I want to protect local news values is because I think 
that local owners are the only ones who are likely on occasion to 
preempt national network programming. And believe you me, if you want 
to see some examples of the kind of programming that I do not think we 
want in some of our communities, all you have to do is take a look at 
what happened in radio. In radio, the Congress totally deregulated a 
few years ago, and what do we have? We have total lack of the ability 
of local people to have control over news or to have any real say in 
their programming. No nationally owned television station has ever 
preempted a network TV program; only locally owned stations have 
sometimes done so.
  I do not have anything against networks but I think we need diversity 
I think we need diversity of decision making, and that is why I 
sponsored the amendment that the committee adopted, with the support of 
the gentleman from Virginia and others.
  If we adopt the Hinchey amendment, we will in essence ruin our 
ability to win what we have won so far, and I do not think that is a 
wise thing to do. I am not interested in symbolic statements here 
today. I want to win. I want to see to it that we roll back the FCC 
provision on national ownership. If the Hinchey amendment is adopted, 
we will not be in a position to do it, because this bill will get many 
fewer votes than it otherwise would have gotten, it will send the wrong 
message to the White House, and the net result will be that we will be 
crippled in conference in terms of trying to hold the provision in the 
committee bill. So I urge defeat of the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I completely agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey), completely; and I would ask Members to vote against the 
Hinchey amendment. The Hinchey amendment would weaken the bill and we 
would end up with exactly what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
said.
  This is an issue of values. This is an issue of values that Members 
on both sides of the aisle have to deal with. I know that there have 
been powerful lobbyists and interests that have been hired in this town 
to work against what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is doing, 
and in essence they would come down here and ask you to probably 
support the Hinchey amendment. But it is an issue of values.
  Many times there is such garbage on these TV shows that a locality 
cannot preempt them, ``The Millionaire,'' ``The Bachelor,'' ``The 
Bachelorette.'' They do not cover the issues with regard to the famine 
in Africa or issues like that. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
is right.
  I would ask Members on my side of the aisle, this is an issue of 
values. If you look at those concerned with the expansion in allowing 
one network, one network that may not very well repeat and have our 
values, be able to do this, what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) said is exactly right. So I just second it. He said it better 
than anyone could.
  I urge Members to defeat the Hinchey amendment, because it would do 
exactly what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of the Hinchey amendment. The 
FCC's decision of June 2 to loosen the rules on concentrated media 
ownership will lead to fewer voices controlling more of the news we 
watch, read, and listen to. It will undermine our access to the 
independent, unbiased local information that matters to our 
communities.
  Last week, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) have stressed, the Committee on 
Appropriations took an important step in voting on a bipartisan basis 
to suspend changes to the national TV ownership cap, a key part of the 
media ownership rules the FCC voted to relax on June 2.
  The Hinchey-Price-Inslee amendment would finish the job by suspending 
the two remaining rules that the FCC weakened: the newspaper-broadcast 
cross-ownership rule and the local TV multiple ownership rule, which 
would open the way for more duopolies and even triopolies in owning and 
controlling local media.
  These amendments, together, are the appropriations equivalent of H.R. 
2462, introduced by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and 
cosponsored by a bipartisan group of 88 Members.
  Restoring the previous rules is essential to preserving localism, 
diversity, and competition on our airwaves, standards basic to a 
vibrant democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, the richness and diversity of community life in America 
has been recognized by observers since Tocqueville as one of our 
country's abiding strengths. The broadcast media emerged in the 20th 
century as critical in relating individuals and groups of individuals 
to each other and to the world beyond.
  The term ``media'' suggests a linkage beyond the locality to the 
worlds of politics and economics and entertainment and culture; but it 
also suggests communication within and across a locality or a region, 
whereby isolated consumers of media have their identities as members of 
the community strengthened, their knowledge increased, their 
participation enhanced.
  If the day comes, and I am afraid it is fast approaching, when local 
media are merely a conduit for nationally generated information and 
entertainment, or when a single or few companies monopolize 
broadcasting in most local communities, we will have lost a critically 
important component of community life.
  There are those who say that the presence of 200 options on cable or 
satellite television renders the public interest criterion of diversity 
a moot concern. They could not be more wrong. It is competition among 
local broadcasters in offering news and public affairs, weather, sports 
and other programming that produces the kind of diversity and the kind 
of audience engagement that enhance community life.

[[Page 19005]]

  The Hinchey-Price amendment also concerns concentrated power and 
influence. This concentration has already gone too far in radio. I 
cannot imagine why we would want to take television down the same path.
  Regardless of one's political views, it is unsettling to hear of 
Cumulus Media banning a vocal group from the play list of all of its 
outlets on political grounds.
  Then there is the example of a prominent Raleigh media executive who 
owns a Fox affiliate. He has been able to reject some network 
``reality'' shows as inappropriate. He wonders with good reason whether 
the managers of Fox-owned and -operated stations would have that same 
discretion to respect community standards.
  Mr. Chairman, in the history of media policy, there has never been a 
moment when the public was more engaged than they are right now. A 
recent poll demonstrates that half of Americans are well aware of this 
media concentration issue; and of those who follow the issue closely, 
70 percent are opposed to the new FCC rules, while only 6 percent are 
in favor.
  Our constituents see this issue quite clearly: this is big media 
companies and their allies in government squaring off against the 
public interest. The question is, how do we see it, and to whom will 
Congress listen?
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to stand against an FCC decision that was 
taken with scant public input and in defiance of the public interest.
  Colleagues, let us not get diverted by convoluted, tactical second-
guessing. If Members favor the substance of our amendment and if they 
oppose the substance of the FCC decision, they should stand up for what 
they believe.
  I ask my colleagues to reaffirm the core values of our country's 
media policy--localism, competition and diversity--and to support the 
Hinchey-Price amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the backward thinking 
amendment that would reinstate antiquated local media ownership 
limitations. Republicans have long been awaiting a time to deregulate, 
since 1984, in fact; and the commission action on June 2 modifies all 
of its media ownership rules to comply with the Telecommunications Act 
of 1996, an act we all agreed upon, and the Court's interpretation of 
that act.
  The FCC proceeding represents, in fact, the culmination of a 
deregulatory effort that had its birth in the Reagan administration. 
This amendment would stop in its tracks the reasonable deregulation of 
the new rules. It would bring back the outdated rules of the past.
  In fact, under one interpretation of the Hinchey amendment, it would 
roll back existing exemptions that have been granted by the FCC over 
many years. Under one interpretation, for example, the exception that 
has been granted for satellite stations, where a station can own in 
joint ownership an unmanned TV station that is a satellite in a rural 
area, that exception would be rolled back and TV stations serving rural 
communities in America would have to shut down.
  Under some interpretations of this amendment, assignments that have 
been made that were grandfathered for many years would be rolled back 
and companies would have to divest ownership they currently have in 
stations. In fact, under this amendment, the provisions of the FCC for 
so-called short-form assignments, what happens when companies 
reorganize themselves, would considerably be rolled back; and as a 
result, there could be divestitures argued under this amendment.
  So this backwards-thinking amendment has the potential of even going 
back and undoing exemptions that have been granted by Democratic FCCs 
over the years to accommodate such things as the public interest 
requirements when a station goes bankrupt, becomes defunct, and has to 
be picked up by some other station.
  Let me right the misconception that has been before this body and, 
unfortunately, pervaded the hearings at the Subcommittee on 
Appropriations. There are 1,340 television stations in America. Guess 
how many Viacom owns? The answer is 39; 2.9 percent. Guess how many Fox 
owns? The answer is 37, or 2.8 percent. Guess how many NBC owns? 
Twenty-nine, 2.2 percent. ABC owns 10, eight-tenths of one percent. In 
fact, if you combine all the network ownership of television stations, 
it comes to about 115, which is less than 10 percent of all the 
stations operating in America. You would think that the networks own 
them all, 90 percent of them, to hear the rhetoric around this debate.
  The new rules that have been adopted by the FCC replace the old 
newspaper-broadcast-radio-TV cross-ownership rules, with the new set of 
rules that allow for different and targeted regulatory treatment, 
depending upon the market size.

                              {time}  1630

  It is a size system of regulation, replacing the old autocratic and, 
in many cases, arbitrary rules.
  The new rules would allow economies of scale to be achieved on the 
local level, while ensuring a diversity of voices would be preserved by 
permitting, for the first time, common ownership of multiple stations 
in the largest markets or expanding the markets where duopolies are, in 
fact, permitted. But importantly, while it allows them to do this in 
the larger markets, it does not allow that to occur in the smaller 
markets. In fact, 73 markets enjoy no duopoly deregulatory relief 
whatsoever because they are the smaller markets in America. The FCC's 
extension record shows that co-owned stations competed more effectively 
with cable and satellite, improved the quality of the second station, 
and transitioned to digital quicker. All things said, the benefits flow 
to the public.
  Remember, television stations do not compete against one another 
alone. They compete against pay-per-view cable and pay-per-view 
satellite; and if we weaken the capacity of over-the-air broadcast 
television to reach Americans economically and efficiently, we kill off 
one of the most important video outlets in America; and, therefore, we 
hurt, not help, over-the-air broadcasting.
  Moreover, the amendment would prevent new markets from enjoying the 
clear localism and diversity public interest benefits. The commission 
found that their new rules will promote localism, because they increase 
the capacity of these stations to survive against these other important 
competitors.
  The administration supports the FCC, and has urged Members to oppose 
efforts to roll back these rules that ensure that our Nation's free, 
over-the-air broadcasters can effectively compete against all of these 
new pay services. If all we want is pay services, the Hinchey amendment 
will take us there.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to protect the 
voices of the American people, to make sure that their voices, their 
opinions, and their concerns are represented on the Nation's airwaves 
by supporting the Hinchey-Price amendment, and add this amendment to 
the good amendment that the committee passed earlier.
  How ironic that the United States went to war against a foreign 
regime whose oppression was based largely on control of information. 
And now, the FCC majority establishes a Saddam-style information system 
here in the United States. Have we learned nothing?
  On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission approved a new set 
of media ownership rules that allow large conglomerates to devour more 
independent media outlets and impose the laws of the jungle on the 
marketplace of ideas. I support the Hinchey-Price amendment because it 
would essentially suspend the FCC's decision to weaken media ownership 
rules dealing with the cross-ownership and local TV ownership.
  The Hinchey-Price amendment would preserve localism. It would 
preserve diversity and competition over our airwaves.

[[Page 19006]]

  Information is not just any commodity like steel and textiles, Mr. 
Chairman. A vibrant democracy depends on rich intellectual exchange on 
the free flow of ideas from a variety of sources. This is a principle. 
It is a principle embedded in the first amendment on free press and 
reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.
  But media consolidation stifles dissent and drowns out alternative 
voices, giving Americans a stale, uniform product that barely accounts 
for individual community values. The recent FCC rules will enrich 
moguls, discourage entrepreneurship, and diminish quality. Niche 
content like children's programming will suffer. Minority populations 
will go underserved. Music and entertainment would become homogenized, 
with large media interests also acting as the idealogical censors. If 
you do not believe me, ask the Dixie Chicks.
  The rules will further sever the critical bond between media outlets 
and their local consumers, as more journalists would answer to 
corporate bosses making news judgments from thousands of miles away.
  If the day comes, and it had better not, that one corporation owns 
several radio and TV stations, the cable network, and the single 
newspaper in one town, we may not only have lost the freedom to speak, 
but the opportunity to be heard.
  The airwaves belong not to the Rupert Murdochs of the world, but to 
the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to protect the voices of the 
American people by supporting the Hinchey-Price amendment.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I too rise in strong opposition to the Hinchey amendment. I ask my 
colleagues about where they might have been in 1975. I know I had 
graduated from the University of Michigan and was on my way to 
Washington to work for a Congressman, David Stockman. Think about where 
you were, maybe sitting in your living room back in 1975. You might 
have been watching the ``Mod Squad'' for the first time or maybe the 
third season of ``M.A.S.H.'' In fact, someone told me that Strom 
Thurmond was only in his first or second term.
  The original newspaper-broadcast ownership rules were adopted in 
1975, at the same time when there was little cable penetration, if any, 
no local cable news channels, few broadcast stations, and no Internet. 
The rule was based on market structure that bears almost no resemblance 
to the current environment.
  Without a doubt, there have been dramatic changes in the media 
marketplace since 1975 when the rule was adopted by the commission. 
When the rule was first adopted, there were 7,785 radio stations. There 
were 952 TV stations, three broadcast networks, cable television 
systems served 13 percent of television households, and direct 
broadcast satellite, DBS, providers were nonexistent, and the Internet 
was commercially not available.
  Today, there are more radio stations, 12,900; 1,600 full-powered TV 
stations; 2300 low-powered TV stations; 230 Class A TV stations; four 
major broadcast networks, along with other emerging broadcast networks; 
and today, cable TV systems serve almost 80 percent of the television 
households across the country.
  As required by law, the FCC factored the status of the current 
marketplace into the new rules. In addition to noting the dramatic 
transformation of the marketplace, it also noted that this type of 
business combination does advance the goals of localism and diversity.
  A key study relied upon by the FCC for these rules found that 
broadcasters co-owned by newspaper companies provided more than 50 
percent more local news and public affairs broadcasting of better 
quality than nonbroadcast network-owned stations, unaffiliated with a 
newspaper publisher.
  I think about my own hometown. As I walk up to the post office in St. 
Joe, Michigan, there are almost a dozen different newspaper stands, 
whether it be the Wall Street Journal, the Detroit News, the Detroit 
Free Press, the local Herald Palladium, the South Bend Tribune, USA 
Today, and more. WGN owns the Chicago Tribune and Channel 9, which is 
broadcast over the air. The South Bend Tribune owns the local CBS 
affiliate in South Bend, Channel 22. The case has not been made that 
the local ownership has hurt the delivery of fair reporting by those 
news organizations.
  The Hinchey amendment would take us back to 1975 when the media 
marketplace was a much different place. It is working today. I urge my 
colleagues to defeat the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I begin by expressing my great affection and respect 
for the authors of this amendment. They are fine men. On substance, 
they are right. I agree with them on what it is they had to say.
  But they ignore one basic fact; and I want to speak to my colleagues 
on this side of the aisle particularly, and that is that the perfect 
good is the enemy of the good.
  If we want to get some relief and we want to see to it that we do 
something to protect diversity of broadcasting, support the committee 
bill as it now is; and I will tell my colleagues why.
  Very shortly, my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Burr), and I will be making a major effort to bring to the floor of the 
House a piece of legislation which will address much more than the 35 
percent, 45 percent limit. If my colleagues want to effectively address 
that matter, then I urge them to vote against the Hinchey amendment, 
not because it is bad, but because it is counterproductive in terms of 
achieving the purpose that it seeks to produce, and the result will be 
that we will lose the effect of the Obey amendment in delaying the 
going into place of the provisions of the order of the FCC with regard 
to television.
  I have a long history, I would tell my colleagues, of having opposed 
the attempts of the FCC to constantly expand the ownership and the 
control by certain broadcasters of the media, the spectrum, and the 
minds of the public. This is bad. It is dangerous. But I would also 
tell my colleagues that if we want to do it, then we must do this thing 
right. The Obey amendment enables us to begin to put a hold on the 
unwise actions of the FCC and to move us forward towards accomplishing 
the purpose which we really have of seeing to it that the interests of 
all of the people in the great national resource, the spectrum, is 
protected for the benefit of all.
  The amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from New York, 
will have the practical effect of driving away most of the supporters 
of this legislation, particularly those who are active in the industry. 
There are better than 600 local broadcasting stations which support 
this, including Cox, Hearst Argyle, and Post-Newsweek, because they 
recognize that this amendment is in the interests of diversity in the 
use of the spectrum. It is supported by Consumers Union, Common Cause, 
the Christian Coalition, the American Family Association, Morality in 
Media, the National Education Association, the National PTA, the 
National Association of Black-Owned Broadcasters, and Children Now.
  I would remind my colleagues who are in such haste to address this to 
work with those of us who have dealt with these questions over the 
years; and I would remind them of the wonderful story that is told of 
the two bulls, the young bull and the old bull. The young bull said, 
there is a bunch of cows down at the bottom of the pasture; let us run 
down and get one. The old bull said, son, let us walk down and get them 
all.
  My advice is, follow the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin. Let 
us proceed in an orderly fashion. We have better than 170 sponsors on 
legislation that will really do the job. I urge my colleagues to 
support us so that we can address this matter in that way. That is the 
way that the matter should be dealt with. Let us get them all. Let us 
not lose because we have blown an opportunity because we overreached, 
we

[[Page 19007]]

reached beyond our grasp, and we defeated ourselves by the enthusiastic 
desire to do good in a way which was counterproductive.
  I say with regret and with respect and affection for my friend from 
New York, defeat the amendment. Let us go forward to a better 
conclusion to the problem by the device of passing real legislation 
later on. The best that the House can do today is simply to hold up 
through a 1-year limitation on expenditure in this legislation. My 
prayer to my colleagues is let us leave ourselves in a situation where 
we have a chance of winning and getting this through not only 
conference with the Senate, through the House, but also to address the 
practical problem of seeing to it that we get the bill signed into law.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York.
  The FCC issued its revised rules on media ownership, ending one of 
the most comprehensive and empirical reviews undertaken at the FCC, or 
by any other Federal agency, for that matter. Over a half a million 
public comments were received and numerous public hearings were 
conducted during this 20-month review. The Hinchey amendment will 
change all of that, all of that comprehensive work that the FCC did. As 
a result, we now have media ownership rules that reflect today's 
market: they balance competition and diversity with local community 
needs.
  Mr. Chairman, there are two myths that I would like to dispel.

                              {time}  1645

  The first myth is newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership adversely 
impacts competition in the local markets. There are 40-plus 
grandfathered combinations, and they provide the best evidence that 
competition, the concern that some of my colleagues have, bears no 
fruit.
  Mr. Chairman, in the past 20 years there have been no formal 
complaints filed against any of the 40-plus grandfathered combinations 
at the FCC, nor have there been any antitrust actions initiated by the 
Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission or any States 
Attorneys General during that time. So there has been no concern of 
these 40 grandfathered combinations.
  The second myth is, the public did not have an opportunity to 
participate in the FCC decision-making process. At least with respect 
to the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership ban, the public has had the 
opportunity to participate in four, not one, two, or three, but four 
separate FCC proceedings over a 6-year period. And furthermore, the 
Commission never published its rules in advance of their adoption; and, 
if so, it saw no reason to deviate from this practice in the media 
ownership proceedings.
  Lastly, the FCC did not just remove the rules and move along, but 
they put in place cross-media limits that are designed particularly to 
protect viewpoints, diversity, by ensuring that no company, no group 
can control an inordinate share of media outlets in a local market.
  So they have already put in place the cross-media limits. They 
provided due diligence. The FCC has done this. They put in cross-media 
limits, and I have given the two myths so that the people who are for 
the Hinchey amendment, to show that they are, indeed, myths.
  So I urge my colleagues to defeat the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I must say that the gentleman 
presented the 5-minute or so speech I was planning to make. I want to 
associate myself with the gentleman's remarks.
  I think with great foresight the gentleman has recognized that we 
have done a good deal of the job that had to be done a long time ago. 
There is no reason to move away from where we are today, indeed, in 
connection with this competition is having its effect and cross-
ownership is highly overblown.
  Mr. Chairman, there may very well have been a time when people were 
justified in their concern that ABC, NBC and CBS dominated the media 
world and controlled what we watched.
  But it is clear that competition has changed that world in many and 
varied ways. Today we have cable and many other offerings that give us 
more choice than we have ever had.
  Those who want to overrule the FCC rules entirely are concerned with 
what they consider to be inappropriate programming. But it is not just 
ABC, NBC and CBS that provide these programs. Today many broadcasters 
and cable programmers provide endless avenues of entertainment that our 
diverse American public can enjoy.
  We cannot dictate the tastes of the American public. And we have 
learned that when we try to control the marketplace by federal dictate, 
we most likely end up having our quest for perfection become the enemy 
of the good. This amendment would not solve problems, it would create 
them, and should be opposed.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the approval of the senior 
distinguished member on the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that has been 
proposed here by the gentleman from New York. I do so because I think 
it would take us back to a regulation that makes little sense in 
today's media world. And further, could deny many communities better 
news and better information programming.
  Under this amendment, in a market that has several newspapers and 
perhaps seven or eight local television stations, only the smallest of 
those newspapers would be prohibited from combination with the weakest 
of those seven or eight television stations.
  Since January of 2000, in more than 40 markets around the Nation, 
television stations have either reduced or eliminated news and 
information programming. Had it been possible for them to combine with 
a local newspaper, perhaps, just perhaps, those unfortunate 
consequences could have been avoided.
  There are benefits to be obtained by permitting cross-ownerships. And 
the example that I just noted, a common ownership of two struggling 
properties could strengthen both properties keeping additional voices 
alive in that particular market. An undeniable synergy arises when 
television and newspaper, news gathering and reporting resources are 
focused on a single event with an improvement in the quality and depth 
of both the newspaper news product and the television new product.
  Studies by the Federal Communications Commission have found that 
where cross-ownership has been permitted to continue under a 
grandfather provision, local television news is better, and more of it 
is provided by the cross-owned properties than by other local 
television stations in the same markets; and that is ample proof of the 
value of the synergies that are created when cross-owned properties 
have been permitted.
  The Federal Communications Commission, in my view, got the balance 
right when it published its regulation on the cross-ownership rule in 
June.
  Under the FCC's new rule, combinations are only allowed between a 
newspaper and a television station in the same local market when at the 
end of that combination there will be a sufficient diversity of voices 
remaining in that community to assure that many different and divergent 
views will be expressed with regard to local news. That is the right 
balance. Taking us back to a regulation that prohibits all combinations 
under all circumstances I think is counter-productive.
  And so today I would urge that we confirm the recent judgment of the 
Federal Communications Commission and, in so doing, that we defeat this 
amendment.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Clearly this is 
an issue that probably deserves more debate

[[Page 19008]]

than it will receive here. But I have also, like the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher), my good friend from the committee, want to go 
back to the past, 1995, when for the first time since 1935, we thought 
it was time to update our telecommunications laws in this country. Hard 
to believe that we could go for so long believing that technology or 
society did not force us to review it, but we learned then just how 
politically difficult change was.
  We made some bold changes, and because of that many of us receive the 
benefits of it today. We now have almost unlimited channels on cable. 
It is new competition. We have an array of new products through 
telecommunications that are the direct result of 1995 and congressional 
action.
  One additional piece of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, though, was 
that we mandated that the FCC every 2 years would look at it. We never 
wanted to play this catch-up game again.
  Now, let me make this clear for my colleagues: In the current 
appropriations bill we have already rolled back from 45 to 35 the 
ownership cap. So the Hinchey amendment is not about 45 to 35. It is 
about everything else that was in the FCC rule. When we talk about 
cross-ownership, you need not look very far; as the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns) said, there are 40 news companies that were 
grandfathered or received waivers that they concurrently have cross-
ownership.
  In Tampa, Florida, you can find an outlet where Media General owns a 
TV station and a newspaper. It is a model of what every other person 
who potentially gets into dual ownership should look like. It brings 
value to the community, and they have lived up to the waiver that they 
were granted. There are benefits to the FCC rule.
  I believe that it was important, it was essential that we roll back 
from 45 to 35 the network ownership cap, if for no other reason than 
there was not a compelling reason on their part why it should be 
raised. But I felt strongly in 1995, when the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and I came to this floor and, in 
partnership, we rolled it then from 50 percent out of committee back to 
35 percent after the committee decided to raise it in 1996 Telecom Act 
from 25 to 35.
  And it has worked pretty good. And the balance is correct. And we 
have got the right checks and balances between independent stations.
  We spend a lot of time on the definition of localism. I have heard a 
lot of people mention localism today. I am not sure they had the in-
depth debate that we did about what does it mean, really, localism.
  Well, the independent stations have the ability, and we made sure in 
that act to look at the networks and say, I am not going to air that 
because there is no value to the community that I serve. If we tip the 
balance a little bit, will we dilute it enough that they will not have 
guts enough to do it? I believe so. But to get there, you cannot do it 
if you pass the Hinchey amendment.
  I plead with my colleagues, if we want to roll back from 45 to 35, 
vote against the Hinchey amendment. The FCC does great work. It does 
not mean that we will always agree with everything they do. But 
understand that they have to do it because this Congress told them to 
do it every 2 years. They are obligated to review so that we do not 
wait 50 years again before we update our laws in this country as it 
relates to everything that they have oversight on.
  Let me once again urge my colleagues, if Members support the rollback 
from 45 to 35, vote against the Hinchey amendment because it is a 
poison pill to our ability to maintain 35 percent for network 
ownership.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to do something that I have not done in 29\1/2\ 
years. And I know that got everybody's attention. What could I possibly 
have not done in 29\1/2\ years?
  Well, 29\1/2\ years is how long I have known the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey). We were elected to the State assembly as so-called 
``Watergate Babies'' in 1974. And I can still recall that that December 
when we first went up to Albany, nearly froze to death in typical 
Albany weather, I think I just lost a few Albany votes, and began a 
friendship that has lasted all this time.
  Of that 29\1/2\ years I have never either privately nor in a public 
forum spoken in disagreement with anything he has said or proposed. And 
technically, at the expense of sounding like a politician, technically 
I do not disagree with him.
  I do not disagree with the intent of his amendment. If it was up to 
me, the Obey amendment would have been far-reaching. But I disagree 
with his amendment today for the reasons that the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and others have expressed. Because it is my 
understanding now, as I understand this issue and the politics of this 
issue, that his desire to do the right thing would jeopardize that 
which is in the bill already and that which we have accomplished.
  Now, I told you a couple of seconds ago that it is the first time I 
have disagreed with him. So I hope that he, as my brother, that he 
understands that this is not the easiest statement for me to make. But 
I know how much he believes in this issue. I know how much the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) believes in this issue. I know how 
much I believe in this issue. And I know how much we have accomplished.
  I have to tell you that I was in shock at the bipartisan vote in 
committee for the Obey amendment. I was pleased. I was joyous. But I 
was shocked.
  I know that people who oppose this language, people out there in the 
industry who are opposed to what we are about to do in this bill, are 
trying to figure out how to undo it. And I am convinced, as so many 
have said today, that the Hinchey amendment will allow many to get off 
supporting what we have done and, in fact, find a reason or an excuse 
to back off.
  And so it is for that reason that I risk his slight wrath momentarily 
as I look over those 29\1/2\ years and promise the gentleman that I 
probably will never disagree with him again, but I have to rise in 
opposition to this amendment at this time; and I would hope that 
Members see it that way and vote against it.
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from New York's 
(Mr. Hinchey) amendment. I also opposed the gentleman from Wisconsin's 
(Mr. Obey) amendment.
  I want to cite two examples of companies that I think have been very 
good companies, good corporate citizens, companies that have done a 
good job in their communities. I know that those of us in politics, and 
I am sure every Member, all 435, have a gripe about a television 
station. I do, too. Probably about a radio station. Probably a gripe 
with a newspaper. We all do.
  But the idea that we are going to offer an amendment to somehow 
corral a decision or overturn a decision that was made by the FCC, I 
think is not right.

                              {time}  1700

  I represent Adams County in Illinois where Quincy, Illinois, is the 
largest community and there is a family-owned newspaper there. The 
Oakley family owns the newspaper, and they own at least one television 
station in that town and several other television stations around the 
country; and they are a good corporate citizen, and they do not dictate 
policy from one station to another. They do not dictate policy from 
their newspaper to their television stations. So I guess they are the 
exception to the rule that one can own a newspaper and own a television 
station, several television stations, and not dictate policy and still 
be a good corporate citizen.
  The classic example, though, is the Tribune Company. The Tribune 
Company has been in operation for 150 years. It operates in 12 markets, 
and it owns the Los Angeles Times, the Baltimore Sun, the Chicago 
Tribune, Newsday. It owns Channel 9 and many other television stations, 
and the notion that they try and dictate policy or dictate opinion I 
think is not accurate.

[[Page 19009]]

I know that they have established themselves as one of the best 
corporate citizens, certainly in Chicago and in many other communities.
  So the idea that we are going to have an amendment to overturn a 
decision that was made by the FCC because somebody does not like it or 
that television stations are too big or might dictate policy, I think, 
is not a true reflection of at least two I know, one in Quincy, 
Illinois, and one in Chicago, that has many outlets in many different 
places.
  For that reason, I wish we could have defeated the Obey amendment, 
which we did not; but I hope we can defeat the Hinchey amendment which 
is even worse.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The Committee will rise 
informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Coble) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________