[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14602-14604]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4754, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, 
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2005

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 701 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 701

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4754) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2005, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived except as follows: section 108; beginning with 
     ``Provided'' on page 48, line 13, through the colon on line 
     19; beginning with ``and'' on page 57, line 24, through page 
     58, line 2; section 603; beginning with ``or (6)'' on page 
     97, line 21, through the semicolon on line 23; and section 
     607. Where points of order are waived against part of a 
     paragraph or section, points of order against a provision in 
     another part of such paragraph or section may be made only 
     against such provision and not against the entire paragraph 
     or section. During consideration of the bill for amendment, 
     the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGOVERN), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 701 is a traditional open rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 4754, the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2005.
  The rule does not restrict the normal open amending process in any 
way, and any amendments that comply with the standing Rules of the 
House may be offered for consideration.
  H. Res. 701 provides 1 hour of debate in the House on the bill, 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all 
points of order against consideration of the bill. H. Res. 701 waives 
points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
with clause 2 of Rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or 
legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified 
in the resolution.
  In order to facilitate the consideration of amendments on the floor, 
the rule gives the Chair the ability to provide priority in recognition 
to those Members who have preprinted amendments in the Congressional 
Record. Finally, H. Res. 701 provides for one motion to recommit with 
or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by noting the work of the subcommittee 
in bringing this legislation forward to the House floor. The gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) 
testified together before the Committee on Rules yesterday in 
bipartisan support of their work product, and they have done a good job 
in setting the funding priorities of these departments and agencies 
within the budgetary limitations we currently confront.
  Mr. Speaker, debate time on the rule should primarily focus on the 
fairness of this rule and the wide open amendment process that it 
outlines for House debate and consideration. However, I do want to note 
that this appropriations bill maintains the continuing pledge of the 
House to meet the challenge of international terrorism and to ensure 
that law enforcement across the Nation has the resources necessary to 
combat crime in America.
  Funding for the Department of Justice, in particular, is indicative 
of the Committee on Appropriations' obligation to provide the necessary 
funds to address terrorism, increase our Nation's intelligence 
capabilities and maintain a focus on law enforcement threats such as 
illegal drugs, cybercrime and espionage.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for an open amendment process for 
consideration of the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary 
appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to commend the chairman and the ranking member 
of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related 
Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, my good friends, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) for their hard work and cooperation in drafting the Commerce, 
Justice, State appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano) took an absurdly low Presidential budget request, 
worked with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) to produce a decent 
allocation and made the best of a bad situation.

[[Page 14603]]

  For example, I am pleased that the bill restores funding for the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership. The Fiscal Year 2004 Omnibus 
Appropriations Conference Report cut the program by 60 percent to just 
$39.6 million, and the President's fiscal year 2005 budget requested 
$39.2 million for the program. The MEP program serves small businesses, 
and these small businesses would be severely hurt if last year's cuts 
were extended.
  I have firsthand knowledge of the value and importance of the MEP 
program, because the Massachusetts MEP is headquartered in my 
congressional district. Earlier this year, I joined 157 of my 
colleagues in a letter to the Committee on Appropriations requesting 
$106 million for the MEP program. The restoration of this funding in 
this bill will help ensure the sustainability of our domestic small 
manufacturing industry and its high-quality jobs, and I want to again 
thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the ranking member, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for working to support this 
important program.
  But even though the entire fiscal year 2005 CJS appropriations bill 
provides $240 million above President Bush's overall request, still 
some serious deficiencies remain.

                              {time}  1215

  For instance, I am deeply concerned about the lack of funding for the 
Economic Development Administration. EDA is an agency that is chiefly 
responsible for providing assistance to urban areas for revitalization. 
Any cuts to this program, especially in these difficult economic times, 
will seriously jeopardize the revitalization efforts that are currently 
under way in urban areas, like Attleboro, Massachusetts, in my 
congressional district, as it continues to move through the legislative 
process and into conference negotiations.
  I am also disappointed that this bill zeroes out funding for the 
Small Business Administration's 7(a) subsidy program and the SBA's 
Microloan Technical Assistance program. The microloan program helps 
low-income and unemployed individuals become self-sufficient. There is 
strong data showing that the household income for low-income recipients 
increased by 72 percent over 5 years and that more than half of these 
entrepreneurs moved beyond the poverty line during that time. The 
microloan program should be maintained, not sacrificed.
  Additionally, Congress created the 7(a) program to help small 
businesses with the high costs associated with starting a new business. 
It is the largest SBA financing program and is a real lifeline for 
small businesses. The gentleman from New York (Ranking Member Serrano) 
offered an amendment in the Committee on Appropriations that would have 
restored funding for this important program. Unfortunately, it was 
defeated by a party-line vote. Later this afternoon, a bipartisan 
amendment will be offered to restore funding for this important small 
business program, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this 
effort on behalf of our small businesses and entrepreneurs.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed that this bill 
reduces funding for the COPS program and for State and local law 
enforcement grants. Although the fiscal year 2005 CJS appropriations 
bill provides $3 billion for these programs, it is $103 million less 
than last year's funding level. While this is an improvement, a vast 
improvement, over the President's request, which zeroed out many of 
these programs, I think we can still do better.
  These grants are vital for the safety and the protection of our 
cities and towns all across this country. More than 118,000 officers 
around the country have been funded through this program. Community 
policing and neighborhood activism make a real difference in the battle 
for public safety. During these difficult economic times, our State and 
local budgets are very, very tight. It is critical that the Federal 
Government act as a partner in the area of public safety.
  In my congressional district, for instance, the COPS program recently 
provided $3.75 million for 50 new police officers in Worcester, 
$225,000 for three new police officers in Attleboro, and $75,000 for an 
additional police officer in Seekonk. Homeland security starts with 
hometown security, and we should be doing more for the COPS program, 
not less.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it is a good one. The 
funding deficiencies in this bill I hope can be worked out in the 
conference, and I am confident that the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Ranking Member 
Serrano), two Members who I have extremely high regard for, will work 
with the other body to provide the necessary funding for these 
important programs.
  I want, once again, to commend the committee for its hard work, and I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia for yielding time to me.
  I would just like to take my time here to discuss an amendment which 
I am afraid I cannot write so it would be germane to the legislation 
that will be before us for which this rule has been written, but it 
does pertain to Commerce-Justice-State, and it pertains to something 
that is happening in this country.
  On September 13, the automatic assault weapon ban is going to expire. 
If I looked at my calendar correctly, that is 17 legislative days from 
now. This is a ban which has been in effect for a period of 10 years 
now in this country. It is supported by the President of the United 
States, that is, the extension of it. It is supported by both 
Presidential campaigns; and in my judgment, it is very, very important 
that we bring this, however we possibly can.
  We are talking about semiautomatic weapons. In this case, we are 
talking about the AK-47, Uzis. We are talking about high levels of 
ammunition, depletion of guns in rapid time, various aspects that have 
frankly caused every law enforcement entity that I know of in the 
United States of America to support this ban.
  We also know that there has been a reduction in crime with the use of 
these weapons since the ban has been in effect. In fact, that reduction 
has been more than 65 percent since the ban went into effect in 1995. 
So we now have a situation in which we have proven, I believe, that the 
assault weapon ban is something that actually makes sense as far as the 
safety of Americans is concerned.
  As far as the right to bear arms and the rights that are prevalent, I 
believe in those. I believe they should be continued, but I do believe 
that the assault weapon ban needs to be continued as well.
  It also shows that most Americans believe this. If one looks at 
polls, they virtually in every category, or 75 percent or more of 
Americans believe that we should continue this assault weapon ban.
  I have legislation introduced, and that legislation would do that for 
10 years. It does not change another word. It just extends it for 10 
years because I believe it has worked well.
  My concern is are we going to be able to bring it to the floor in a 
reasonable period of time that will allow a debate, that will allow a 
vote on this so we can consider it before the House of Representatives, 
a piece of legislation which seems to be so supported by so many 
individuals living in America today. I would encourage the leadership 
to consider this.
  I do not frankly think it should be an amendment to an appropriation 
bill, or an amendment to anything. It should have its own set of 
committee hearings, its own time on the floor of the House of 
Representatives and the opportunity to vote for it. So I will not 
introduce an amendment.
  I do appreciate a great deal the time yielded to me by the gentleman 
from Georgia to discuss this. I would encourage the leadership of the 
House and the

[[Page 14604]]

Senate to take a good look at this legislation and make absolutely sure 
that that date does not come and go without us doing anything about it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We have no other requests for speakers, but let me just close by 
again saying that while I wish the overall funding level for this bill 
were higher and I wish there was more money available for the COPS 
programs and for a number of other small business programs, I 
nonetheless want to again commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf), the chairman, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the 
ranking member, for really an excellent job. They have worked together 
in a bipartisan way, and the entire subcommittee deserves credit for 
the final product that is before us, a bill which I will support.
  Let me also conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying something that I rarely 
get an opportunity to say, but I gladly say it today, and that is, I 
support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I also want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) 
and the gentleman from New York (Ranking Member Serrano) for a very 
fine job done under strained circumstances. I urge my colleagues to 
support this rule and support the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________