[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14669-14692]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 701 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4754.

                              {time}  1858


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 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, with 
Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier 
today, a demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 13 offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) had been postponed and the bill was 
open for amendment from page 47, line 16, through page 57, line 13.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to 
the bill may be offered except:
  Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the 
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations 
or their designees for the purposes of debate;
  Amendments 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 20;
  Amendments 5 and 6, each of which shall be debatable for 20 minutes;
  Amendment 2, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes;
  An amendment by Mr. Pitts regarding Department of State Diplomatic 
and Consular programs;
  An amendment offered by Mr. Wolf regarding the Sudan;
  An amendment by Mr. Baca regarding video violence;
  An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding an across-the-board cut of total 
appropriations;
  An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding an across-the-board cut of 
appropriations not required to be appropriated;
  An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding the Court of Federal Claims;
  An amendment by Mr. Burgess regarding the Federal Trade Commission;
  An amendment by Mr. Weiner regarding Jerusalem;
  An amendment by Ms. Millender-McDonald regarding women's business 
centers;
  An amendment by Mr. Inslee regarding Justice Department detention of 
individuals;
  An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding litigation support 
contracts;
  An amendment by Mr. Sherman regarding enemy combatants, which shall 
be debatable for 20 minutes;
  An amendment by Mr. Wolf or Mr. Serrano regarding SBA microloans, 
which shall be debatable for 12 minutes;
  An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding Cuba, which shall be debatable 
for 60 minutes;
  An amendment by Mr. Smith of Michigan regarding NIST and 
Contributions to International Organizations, which shall be debatable 
for 20 minutes;
  An amendment by Mr. Sherman regarding preemption of State laws, which 
shall be debatable for 20 minutes.

                              {time}  1900

  Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member designated in 
the request or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed in 
the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a 
division of the question.
  Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 
10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an 
opponent. All points of order against each of the amendments shall be 
considered as reserved pending completion of debate thereon; and each 
of the amendments may be withdrawn by its proponent after debate 
thereon. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated 
in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object 
described.
  If there are no further amendments to this portion of the bill, the 
Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                      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.), $22,249,000.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just take this time because I think it is important 
for Members to understand that when this bill is opened up that means 
that Members who think that they are protected under this unanimous 
consent request, they should not assume that if their amendments are at 
the end of the bill, they can simply come back tomorrow and they will 
be handled.
  The Members need to protect their rights by being here at the time 
that the amendments need to be called up or

[[Page 14670]]

else it is possible they could lose their right.
  So I think Members needs to understand, everybody cannot go away and 
have a drink or supper until 9 o'clock. We are here working and if 
somebody needs to offer an amendment, they need to protect themselves. 
They cannot protect them if they are not here.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of 
the bill through page 108, line 22, be considered as read and 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 57, line 18 to page 108, line 22 is as 
follows:

               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. 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. 204. 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. 205. Hereafter, none of the funds made available by 
     this or any other Act for the Department of Commerce shall be 
     available to reimburse the Unemployment Trust Fund or any 
     other fund or account of the Treasury to pay for any expenses 
     authorized by section 8501 of title 5, United States Code, 
     for services performed by individuals appointed to temporary 
     positions within the Bureau of the Census for purposes 
     relating to the decennial censuses of population.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Commerce and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005''.

                        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, $58,122,000.


                    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 by the Act approved May 7, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 13a-
     13b), $9,979,000, 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, $22,936,000.

               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, 
     $14,888,000.

    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, $4,177,244,000 (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 
     $3,471,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Trust Fund.


                           Defender Services

       For the operation of Federal 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, 
     $676,469,000, 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)), $62,800,000, 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 other facilities housing Federal court 
     operations, 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, 
     perimeter security, basic security services provided by the 
     Department of Homeland Security, and other similar activities 
     as authorized by section 1010 of the Judicial Improvement and 
     Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100-702), $379,580,000, of 
     which not to exceed $15,000,000 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, $68,635,000, 
     of which not to exceed $8,500 is authorized for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

[[Page 14671]]



                        Federal Judicial Center


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Judicial Center, as 
     authorized by Public Law 90-219, $21,737,000; of which 
     $1,800,000 shall remain available through September 30, 2006, 
     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), $32,000,000; to the Judicial 
     Survivors' Annuities Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 376(c), 
     $2,000,000; and to the United States Court of Federal Claims 
     Judges' Retirement Fund, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. 178(l), 
     $2,700,000.

                  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, 
     $13,304,000, 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 Courts of Appeals, 
     District Courts, 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.
       This title may be cited as the ``Judiciary Appropriations 
     Act, 2005''.

            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, $3,580,000,000: Provided, That not to 
     exceed 71 permanent positions and $8,649,000 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, $319,994,000 shall be available only for public 
     diplomacy international information programs: Provided 
     further, That of the amount made available under this 
     heading, $3,000,000 shall be available only for the 
     operations of the 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 $1,426,000 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, 
     $658,701,000, to remain available until expended.
       In addition, for the costs of worldwide OpenNet and 
     classified connectivity infrastructure, $40,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.


                        Capital Investment Fund

       For necessary expenses of the Capital Investment Fund, 
     $100,000,000, 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.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $30,435,000, 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 $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, $8,640,000.


              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, $9,894,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2006.


            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, $611,680,000, to 
     remain available until expended as authorized, of which not 
     to exceed $25,000 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, $912,320,000, 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, $7,000,000, 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), $19,482,000.


     Payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund

       For payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund, as authorized by law, $132,600,000.

                      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

[[Page 14672]]

     pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate, conventions 
     or specific Acts of Congress, $1,194,210,000, of which up to 
     $6,000,000 may be used for the cost of a direct loan to the 
     United Nations for the cost of renovating its headquarters in 
     New York: Provided further, That such costs, including the 
     cost of modifying such loan, shall be as defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize total 
     loan principal of up to $1,200,000,000:  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, except that such restriction shall not apply to 
     loans to the United Nations for renovation of its 
     headquarters.


        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, $650,000,000: 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, 
     $26,800,000.


                              Construction

       For detailed plan preparation and construction of 
     authorized projects, $4,475,000, 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, $9,356,000, 
     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, $19,097,000: 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), $13,000,000, 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, 2005, 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, 2005, to remain 
     available until expended.


                            East-West Center

       To enable the Secretary of State to provide for carrying 
     out the provisions of the Center for Cultural and Technical 
     Interchange Between East and West Act of 1960, by grant to 
     the Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between 
     East and West in the State of Hawaii, $5,000,000: Provided, 
     That none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to 
     pay any salary, or enter into any contract providing for the 
     payment thereof, in excess of the rate authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     5376.


                    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, $51,000,000 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 and reception to Cuba, and to 
     make and supervise grants to the Middle East Television 
     Network, including Radio Sawa, for radio and television 
     broadcasting to the Middle East, $601,740,000; of which 
     $6,000,000 shall remain available until expended, 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, 
     $8,560,000, 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.
       Sec. 404. (a) The Senior Policy Operating Group on 
     Trafficking in Persons, established under section 406 of 
     division B of Public Law 108-7 to coordinate agency 
     activities regarding policies (including grants and grant 
     policies) involving the international trafficking

[[Page 14673]]

     in persons, shall coordinate all such policies related to the 
     activities of traffickers and victims of severe forms of 
     trafficking.
       (b) None of the funds provided in this or any other Act 
     shall be expended to perform functions that duplicate 
     coordinating responsibilities of the Operating Group.
       (c) The Operating Group shall continue to report only to 
     the authorities that appointed them pursuant to section 406 
     of division B of Public Law 108-7.
       Sec. 405. (a) Subsection (b) of section 36 of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2708) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (5) by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (6) by striking the period and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) the disruption of financial mechanisms of a foreign 
     terrorist organization, including the use by the organization 
     of illicit narcotics production or international narcotics 
     trafficking--
       ``(A) to finance acts of international terrorism; or
       ``(B) to sustain or support any terrorist organization.''.
       (b) Subsection (e)(1) of such section is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting 
     ``$25,000,000'';
       (2) by striking the second period at the end; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Without first making such determination, the Secretary may 
     authorize a reward of up to twice the amount specified in 
     this paragraph for the capture or information leading to the 
     capture of a leader of a foreign terrorist organization.''.
       (c) Subsection (e) of such section is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Forms of reward payment.--The Secretary may make a 
     reward under this section in the form of money, a nonmonetary 
     item (including such items as automotive vehicles), or a 
     combination thereof.''.
       (d) Such section is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (i) and (j) as subsections 
     (j) and (k), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (h) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) Media Surveys and Advertisements.--
       ``(1) Surveys conducted.--For the purpose of more 
     effectively disseminating information about the rewards 
     program, the Secretary may use the resources of the rewards 
     program to conduct media surveys, including analyses of media 
     markets, means of communication, and levels of literacy, in 
     countries determined by the Secretary to be associated with 
     acts of international terrorism.
       ``(2) Creation and purchase of advertisements.--The 
     Secretary may use the resources of the rewards program to 
     create advertisements to disseminate information about the 
     rewards program. The Secretary may base the content of such 
     advertisements on the findings of the surveys conducted under 
     paragraph (1). The Secretary may purchase radio or television 
     time, newspaper space, or make use of any other means of 
     advertisement, as appropriate.''.
       (e) Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and of the Senate, the Committee on International Relations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate a plan to maximize awareness of the 
     reward available under section 36 of the State Department 
     Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2708 et seq.) for 
     the capture or information leading to the capture of a leader 
     of a foreign terrorist organization who may be in Pakistan or 
     Afghanistan. The Secretary may use the resources of the 
     rewards program to prepare the plan.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of State and 
     Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2005''.

                       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, $1,200,000, 
     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, 
     $1,831,000, 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, 
     $1,900,000, including not more than $3,000 for the purpose of 
     official representation, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That $100,000 shall be for the Political Prisoner 
     Database.

                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, 
     $334,944,000: Provided, That the Commission is authorized to 
     make available for official reception and representation 
     expenses not to exceed $2,500 from available funds: Provided 
     further, That the Commission may take no action to implement 
     any workforce repositioning, restructuring, or reorganization 
     until such time as the Committee has been notified of such 
     proposals, in accordance with the reprogramming provisions of 
     section 605 of this Act.

                   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, $279,851,000: Provided, That $272,958,000 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 2005 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2005 
     appropriation estimated at $6,893,000: Provided further, That 
     any offsetting collections received in excess of $272,958,000 
     in fiscal year 2005 shall remain available until expended, 
     but shall not be available for obligation until October 1, 
     2005.

                        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, 
     $203,430,000, 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 $101,000,000 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 $21,901,000 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

[[Page 14674]]

     be reduced as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 2005, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2005 
     appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more 
     than $80,529,000: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     made available to the Federal Trade Commission may be used to 
     implement or enforce subsections (a), (e), or (f)(2)(B) of 
     section 43 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1831t) or section 151(b) of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 (12 U.S.C. 1831t note).

                            HELP Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the HELP Commission, $1,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                       Legal Services Corporation


               Payment to the Legal Services Corporation

       For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out 
     the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, 
     $335,282,000, of which $316,604,000 is for basic field 
     programs and required independent audits; $2,573,000 is for 
     the Office of Inspector General, of which such amounts as may 
     be necessary may be used to conduct additional audits of 
     recipients; $13,160,000 is for management and administration; 
     and $2,945,000 is for client self-help and information 
     technology: Provided, That not to exceed $1,000,000 from 
     amounts previously appropriated under this heading may be 
     used for a student loan repayment pilot program.


          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 2004 and 2005, 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, $1,890,000.

           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, to remain available until 
     expended.

                   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, 
     $913,000,000, to remain available until expended; 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 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 
     $893,000,000 of such offsetting collections shall be 
     available until expended for necessary expenses of this 
     account: Provided further, That $20,000,000 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 2005 shall 
     be reduced as such offsetting fees are received so as to 
     result in a final total fiscal year 2005 appropriation from 
     the general fund estimated at not more than $0.

                     Small Business Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     Small Business Administration as authorized by Public Law 
     106-554, 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, 
     $322,322,000: 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, $14,500,000.


                 Surety Bond Guarantees Revolving Fund

       For additional capital for the Surety Bond Guarantees 
     Revolving Fund, authorized by the Small Business Investment 
     Act, as amended, $11,400,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                     Business Loans Program Account

       Subject to section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, during fiscal year 2005 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 2005 commitments for general business 
     loans authorized under section 7(a) of the Small Business 
     Act, shall not exceed $12,500,000,000: Provided further, That 
     during fiscal year 2005 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 
     2005 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, $128,000,000, 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, $78,887,000, 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, $117,000,000, 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 to remain available until 
     expended; and of which $8,500,000 is for indirect 
     administrative expenses: Provided, That any amount in excess 
     of $8,500,000 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), $2,227,000: Provided, That not 
     to exceed $2,500 shall be available for official reception 
     and representation expenses.

      United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States-China Economic 
     and Security Review Commission, $3,000,000, including not 
     more than $5,000 for the purpose of official representation.

                    United States Institute of Peace


                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Institute of 
     Peace as authorized in the United States Institute of Peace 
     Act, $23,000,000.

                      TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 601. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity

[[Page 14675]]

     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.
       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 2005, 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 2005, 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, including 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.
       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.
       Sec. 607. (a) It is the sense of Congress that, to the 
     greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products 
     purchased with funds made available in the Act should be 
     American-made.
       (b) 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) If it has been finally determined by a court or Federal 
     agency that any person intentionally affixed a label bearing 
     a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription with 
     the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to the 
     United States that is not made in the United States, the 
     person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or 
     subcontract made with funds made available in this Act, 
     pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility 
     procedures described in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       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. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, 
     the Judiciary, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the 
     Small Business Administration shall provide to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the Senate and of the House of 
     Representatives a quarterly accounting of the cumulative 
     balances of any unobligated funds that were received by such 
     agency during any previous fiscal year.
       Sec. 611. (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 2005.
       Sec. 612. 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. 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 
     2005.
       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 subsection 922(t) of title 18, United 
     States Code; and
       (2) any system to implement subsection 922(t) of title 18, 
     United States Code, that does not require and result in the 
     destruction of any identifying information submitted by or on 
     behalf of any person who has been determined not to be 
     prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm no more 
     than 24 hours after the system advises a Federal firearms 
     licensee that possession or receipt of a firearm by the 
     prospective transferee would not violate subsection (g) or 
     (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or State 
     law.
       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 $650,000,000 
     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 of audiovisual or electronic 
     equipment for

[[Page 14676]]

     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, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the 
     Small Business Administration shall, not later than two 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act, certify 
     that telecommuting opportunities are made available to 100 
     percent of the eligible workforce: Provided, That, of the 
     total amounts appropriated to the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, State, the Judiciary, the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission and the Small Business Administration, $5,000,000 
     shall be available only upon such certification: Provided 
     further, That each Department or agency shall provide 
     quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations on the 
     status of telecommuting programs, including the number of 
     Federal employees eligible for, and participating in, such 
     programs: Provided further, That each Department or agency 
     shall designate a ``Telework Coordinator'' to be responsible 
     for overseeing the implementation and operations of 
     telecommuting programs, and serve as a point of contact on 
     such programs for the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 623. (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.
       Sec. 624. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act may be used to issue patents on 
     claims directed to or encompassing a human organism.
       Sec. 625. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay expenses for any United States delegation to 
     the United Nations Human Rights Commission if such commission 
     is chaired or presided over by a country, the government of 
     which the Secretary of State has determined, for purposes of 
     section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)), has repeatedly provided support for 
     acts of international terrorism.
       Sec. 626. Section 604 of the Secure Embassy Construction 
     and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 (title VI of division A of 
     H.R. 3427, as enacted by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 
     106-113) is amended by adding the following new subsection at 
     the end:
       ``(e) Capital Security Cost Sharing.--
       ``(1) Authority.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, all agencies with personnel overseas subject to chief of 
     mission authority pursuant to section 207 of the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3927) shall participate and 
     provide funding in advance for their share of costs of 
     providing new, safe, secure United States diplomatic 
     facilities, without offsets, on the basis of the total 
     overseas presence of each agency as determined annually by 
     the Secretary of State in consultation with such agency. 
     Amounts advanced by such agencies to the Department of State 
     shall be credited to the Embassy Security, Construction and 
     Maintenance account, and remain available until expended.
       ``(2) Implementation.--Implementation of this subsection 
     shall be carried out in a manner that encourages right-sizing 
     of each agency's overseas presence.
       ``(3) Exclusion.--For purposes of this subsection `agency' 
     does not include the Marine Security Guard.''.

                         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, 
     $20,000,000 are rescinded.


                  community oriented policing services

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $61,000,000 are rescinded.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to this portion of the 
bill?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against 
section 607. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House Rule XXI. It 
proposes to change existing law, and therefore constitutes legislation 
on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this section, in part, expresses a legislative 
sentiment. The section, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2 of Rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the 
section is stricken from the bill.
  Are there further points of order to this portion of the bill?
  If not, are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge any Members, following up what the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said, any Members that have 
amendments, we have been here since noon and we are waiting on them, so 
I would urge them, if they are listening, to come to the floor and 
offer the amendments so we can move the process along. So if Members 
can hear and are available, we would encourage them to come so 
amendments could be offered.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Pitts

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pitts:
       Page 67, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $25,000) (increased by $25,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) on his leadership in the human rights issues around 
the world. It is because of his leadership on these issues that I offer 
my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the human rights organizations that have produced 
myriad accounts of torture in detention facilities and prisons around 
the globe, our own State Department in the annual Country Reports, the 
Human Rights sections, reports on the use of torture in each nation 
covered by the report, and our Congress has passed the Torture Victims 
Relief Act of 1998 to fund recovery programs for victims of torture, 
both in the United States and abroad.
  Men, women, even children have endured torture at the hands of 
government officials around the world. Although it is difficult to find 
exact figures, Amnesty International estimates that 117 countries 
worldwide still practice torture.
  My amendment provides $25,000 for the State Department's Bureau of 
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to compile and publish a list of 
foreign government officials who order the use of, are involved in, or 
engage in torture as defined by the United Nations against torture and 
other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment.
  I have had the privilege but heart-wrenching experience of hearing 
about torture from firsthand accounts of the victims, from a woman in 
North Korea to firsthand reports in Egypt. We remember one case in Al 
Qush where a government official, in order to find a criminal, arrested 
and tortured many of the 1,100 Coptics in order to find someone to 
confess committing the crime.

[[Page 14677]]

  In China, there are numerous reports of Tibetan Buddhists, Falun Gong 
members, house church pastors and congregants, democracy activists who 
spent time in prison reform camps where they endured torture by 
communist officials. A recent account, Pastor Gong Shengliang, who may 
die in prison because of the effects of torture, is ongoing.
  In May of last year, the Washington Post detailed a story of Concei 
da Silva who was brutally tortured in Angola. While in prison, 
officials hung him upside down, his veins were slashed, chunks of flesh 
were carved out of his chest with a machete, electricity applied to 
parts of his body, teeth removed. Awful things have happened.
  In Latin America, terrible stories of torture. Sister Dianna Ortiz 
has spoken out strongly regarding her horrible kidnapping torture at 
the hands of the Guatemalan security forces.
  The torture is horrifying, deeply affecting victims' lives. And those 
responsible for these crimes should be brought to justice. 
Unfortunately, in many countries the perpetrators will not be punished 
for their crimes as torture is systemic.
  I and many of my colleagues strongly believe that publicizing the 
names of those involved in torture, government officials, can help in 
the campaign to end the use of torture by government officials; and I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment that provides $25,000 to 
the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to compile and maintain 
a public list of individuals involved in torture.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I want to 
thank the gentleman for offering it.
  This really follows the principle that was used during the Carter 
administration and during the Reagan administration by keeping lists. 
Therefore, if you happen to be going to a country, when you go to China 
you are able to check to see that X and Y have been tortured, so when 
you meet with government officials, you can raise those cases. This is 
the way it was done in the Carter administration and in the Reagan 
administration.
  This is a very good amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering 
it, and I rise in strong support of it. I urge that we accept it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) in strong support. This is an issue that the chairman has been 
very strong on. We all are.
  The whole situation, however, brings up a question, and I ask the 
gentleman not to take this as a sarcastic statement; I just need 
clarification. Does this include any ordering of torture used by a 
government near to us, like our own government, or is this just for 
foreign governments?
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PITTS. The gentleman knows that our policy is not to torture. Our 
system is progressing in the light of day with the investigations and 
the prosecution of torture, but this would apply to any government 
officials who use torture.
  Mr. SERRANO. But it would be any foreign government official? I know 
this sounds like some sort of a sarcastic comment, but I am really 
trying to get to the bottom of this. Are you only applying this to 
foreign governments, or could this, in fact, be a question of our own 
government if, in fact, somebody ordered torture on some people in 
recent times?
  Mr. PITTS. We do not specify, we do not say ``foreign.'' We specify 
that the State Department compile a list of any government officials 
who use torture.
  Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman does open up an issue 
which is greater perhaps than what he intended to do, but the 
possibility exists that if the State Department did its job properly, 
and in this case it probably will not, we will never get to the bottom 
of the issue of who ordered torture on some people that we may be 
dealing with in this country. But, nevertheless, I think it is a great 
thought and a great idea, and I support it.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  So the amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Paul

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Paul:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the American Community Survey.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that denies all funding for the 
American Community Survey. And if anyone has been listening to the 
debate early on, the Census has come up numerous times already, and 
much of what I have to propose here has in many ways has been debated. 
But I do want to bring it up one more time dealing specifically with 
the American Community Survey.
  One of the reasons why it came to my attention is just recently I 
received this survey in the mail here in my temporary residence in 
Virginia. It is rather intimidating and it is rather threatening when 
you receive this in the mail. And I have the envelope here and right up 
on the front they have warned me. They said ``The American Community 
Survey form enclosed. Your response is required by law.''
  This was the second time. Evidently, I missed it the first time, so 
the second time around I have been threatened by the census police that 
I better jolly well fill it out or the police will be knocking on the 
door. And that does happen because I have known other individuals who 
have not filled out the long form, and they come to the door, the 
police are there deciding they want this information.
  It was stated earlier in the discussion about the census that this 
was certainly the law of the land. The law of the land is very clear 
that the Congress gave the authority; the Census Bureau certainly does 
not do this on its own. We, the Congress, gave it the authority to do 
this. But it just happens to be an authority that we had no right to 
give. We have no right to give this authority to meddle into the 
privacy of American citizens.
  Article 1, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution mandates a national 
census every 10 years. I am in support of that, and I vote for funding 
for a national census every 10 years for the sole purpose of 
congressional redistricting. But, boy, this is out of hand now. We are 
talking about hundreds of millions of dollars and it is perpetual. The 
argument earlier was, we have to have to survey continuously because we 
save money by spending more money. Ask people a lot of questions, 
personal questions about bathrooms and incomes and who knows what.
  This survey I have got here, here is a copy of it. It is called the 
American Community Survey. And it says the Census Bureau survey 
collects information about education, employment, income, housing for 
the purposes of community uses so that they can do community economic 
planning.
  How did we ever get involved in all of this? It is almost sacred now 
that we fund these programs and they are going to be perpetual, 
perpetual meddling in the personal lives of all American citizens, 24 
pages here.
  I got to wondering, I did not fill it out the first one. I got the 
second one, and they are threatening me. I know I did not vote for it, 
but you who did means, you are ready to send the census police out to 
get me.

                              {time}  1915

  I am getting worried about this. I mean, what is the penalty? So I 
looked

[[Page 14678]]

it up, and it is not insignificant. Do you know what my colleagues have 
done and threatened me with? A $1,000 penalty for every question I do 
not answer. Wow, that is scary stuff. I had a friend that he did not 
answer the long form, after a couple of requests, the census police 
came and knocked on his door and said you better, you better answer all 
these questions or you are going to be penalized.
  So that is the kind of thing that we do and everybody talks about all 
these wonderful advantages, but it is stuff we do not need. I mean, if 
we want this information, if people need this information in the 
communities, they ought to get it themselves. This whole idea that we 
have to collect all this information for the benefit of our communities 
to do all this economic planning, I mean, it is just so much more than 
we need, and we are not talking about 10 or $15 million. We are talking 
about hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is not just every 10 
years.
  It is continuous with this perpetual threat, you tell us what we want 
to know and we are going to put it into the record, and if not, for 
every question you do not answer, we can fine you $1,000 if you do not 
tell us your age and where you work and how far you have to go to work 
and how long it takes you to go to work.
  I mean, this is way too much of Big Brother. Let me tell my 
colleagues, I think the American people cannot be very happy with all 
this meddling.
  So my proposal is let us at least get rid of the American Community 
Survey, which is the ongoing nuisance that we put up with, and limit 
what we do here to what the Constitution has told us we can do and what 
we should do, and that is, count the people every 10 years for the 
purpose of redistricting. But big deal, who cares. For all we do around 
here, how often do we really pay attention to the details of the 
Constitution?
  So I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and cut this 
funding.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition. The census is one of the oldest civic functions 
of our Nation. Article I of the U.S. Constitution requires enumeration 
of the population every 10 years. The census is the largest peacetime 
mobilization of our government personnel.
  The American Community Survey is designed to replace the long-form 
portion for future decennial censuses, therefore leaving only the 
short-form portion.
  Many Americans found that filling out the long-form survey to be 
burdensome, and many said this contributed to the declining response 
rate of the long form, therefore costing the American taxpayer more 
money to have census takers returning to the nonresponding households.
  The Committee on Government Reform and the Committee on 
Appropriations have worked to ensure that the Census Bureau has the 
necessary funding to carry out its mission and to ensure that for 2010 
there will only be a short form census.
  The question of constitutionality of the American Community Survey is 
not new. On April 4, 2002, the General Accounting Office responded to 
the vice-chairman of the Committee on Government Reform's request for 
an opinion. The GAO stated, ``Census clearly has authority to conduct 
the ACS.'' There is sufficient legal authority.
  If we do not fund the ACS, we will ensure we have a two-form census 
in 2010, which will cost an additional $4 million for the taxpayer.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition 
to the Paul amendment. This amendment would kill funding for the 
American Community Survey, which is one of the most exciting and 
innovative improvements to the Census in decades.
  The American Community Survey is a new approach for collecting 
accurate, timely information needed for critical government functions 
such as funding highway planning, school lunch programs, and community 
block grants.
  The decennial census used to have two parts: (1) it counted the 
population for reapportionment and redistricting purposes; and (2) it 
obtained demographic, housing, social, and economic information by 
asking one out of every six households to fill out a ``long form.''
  This data has been used for the administration of Federal programs 
and the distribution of billions of Federal dollars funding.
  Planners and other data users had to rely on long form information 
that was only gathered every ten years to make decisions that were 
expensive and affected the quality of life for thousands of people.
  In a nation changing as rapidly and profoundly as ours, using eight, 
nine or even ten-year-old data was simply unacceptable.
  Starting in 1996 the Bureau began developing the American Community 
Survey to replace the long form. It had three main purposes:
  1. To provide Federal, state, and local governments an accurate 
information base for the administration and evaluation of government 
programs,
  2. To improve the 2010 Census by allowing everyone to only be 
required to fill out the short form, and
  3. To provide data users with timely demographic, housing, social, 
and economic data updated every year that can be compared across 
states, communities, and population groups.
  In order to insure that the data are available for use in time for 
the 2010 Census we must fund as completely as possible the ACS for this 
next fiscal year.
  It is also important to point out that Congress mandates every 
question asked by this survey.
  If this amendment were to pass, every one of these questions would 
still be asked, but the Census would have to use the old-fashioned, 
less effective long form method.
  Finally, I want to take notice of the fact that there have been 
several amendments offered today which reduce or zero out funding for 
various aspects of the 2010 Census development. Members need to 
understand that funding cuts today cannot just be added in three or 
four years from now. It takes time to develop an excellent Census and 
Congress should give the Bureau the time it needs to create that 
Census.
  I urge my Colleagues to stand up for our communities and states and 
oppose the amendment to kill the American Community Survey.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Wolf

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wolf:
       Page 92, line 16, before the colon insert the following: 
     ``, of which $13,000,000 shall be available for microloan 
     technical assistance, and of which $1,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to and merged with appropriations for `Business 
     Loans Program Account' and shall remain available until 
     expended for the cost of direct loans''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and a Member opposed each will control 6 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of the amendment. We worked with the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, on this amendment. It 
restores the microloan program. We are in agreement, and I ask that the 
amendment be approved.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) rise to 
claim the time in opposition, even though he is in favor?
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, let me first clarify something. Am I 
correct in that there has been a mix-up here and I am no longer allowed 
to strike the last word on a pro forma basis?
  The CHAIRMAN. The pro forma amendments are in order on the bill and 
not to the amendments.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I should have read the small print.

[[Page 14679]]


  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to reclaim my time?
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) reclaims his time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the chairman for this 
amendment. This amendment is one that committee members and other 
Members had asked for, and it is important that we move ahead on it.
  We had a long discussion before on the 7(a) loan, and we passed an 
amendment. We needed to take care of this one which we already had 
agreed on in order to really move ahead the support that we put forth 
for the SBA and for the various loans, and so I am a full supporter, 
and I thank the chairman for bringing it forward.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan 
amendment which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has offered to 
restore funding for the Small Business Administration's microloan 
program, and I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Ranking Member Serrano) and both 
of their staffs for their good work in bringing the amendment to the 
floor.
  The SBA microloan program began as a 5-year pilot in 1991; and 
throughout its existence, the program has had strong bipartisan support 
in both Chambers.
  The Small Business Programs Reauthorization Amendments Act of 1997 
made the microloan pilot a permanent program, and the accompanying 
House report in 1997 stated: ``Begun in 1991, this program has served 
the smallest and often least noticed section of the small business 
community. The committee has recognized the efficacy of this program 
and changed it from demonstration to permanent program status.''
  Today, 170 microloan intermediary lenders nationwide provide loans to 
our smallest businesses whose financial needs can often not be met by 
traditional lenders.
  Since its creation, the program has provided $213 million in loans, 
as well as technical assistance to 19,000 microenterprises; and in the 
process, it has created 60,000 jobs. We should remember that the 
average loan here is about $12,000, well below other SBA programs and 
far below conventional business loans by banks.
  Most importantly, microloans have assisted large numbers of women- 
and minority-owned businesses, rural businesses and start-up 
businesses.
  The microloan program is the only SBA program to offer both loans and 
technical assistance to small businesses, a combination that enables an 
entrepreneur with a good idea to become a businessperson with a good 
bottom line.
  In my district, one intermediary, the Western Massachusetts 
Enterprise Fund, has made 113 loans totaling over $1.4 million, and 
that program has made a difference for many entrepreneurs, providing 
the financing and technical assistance necessary to launch or expand 
their businesses.
  If we fail to restore funding for the microloan program, we will 
hamper the efforts of small entrepreneurs nationwide. Small businesses 
bring innovative ideas to market and create much-needed jobs.
  I urge a ``yea'' vote on the Wolf-Serrano amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Paul

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

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Paul:
       Insert before the short title at the end of the bill the 
     following title:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     to the Department of Justice may be used--
       (1) to take any legal action against a physician for 
     prescribing or administering a drug not included in schedule 
     I of the schedules of controlled substances under section 
     202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act for the purpose of 
     relieving or managing pain; or
       (2) to threaten legal action in order to prevent a 
     physician from prescribing or administering such a drug for 
     such purpose.
       (b) None of the funds made available in this Act to the 
     Department of Justice may be used--
       (1) to take any legal action against a person for acts 
     relating to the prescribing or administering by a physician 
     of such a drug for such purpose; or
       (2) to threaten any legal action against a person in order 
     to prevent the person from engaging in acts relating to the 
     prescribing or administering by a physician of such a drug 
     for such purpose.

  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it denies funding to the 
Department of Justice to prosecute doctors for prescribing legal drugs.
  The reason I bring this up is to call attention to the Members of a 
growing and difficult problem developing in this country, and that is, 
that more and more doctors now are being prosecuted by the Justice 
Department under the laws that were designated for going after drug 
kingpins, for illegal drug dealers; but they are using the same laws to 
go after doctors.
  It is not one or two or three or four. There are approximately 400 
doctors who have been prosecuted, and I know some of them, and I know 
they are good physicians; and we are creating a monster of a problem. 
It does not mean that I believe that none of these doctors have a 
problem. As a physician, I know what they are up against and what they 
face, and that is, that we have now created a system where a Federal 
bureaucrat makes the medical decision about whether or not a doctor has 
prescribed too many pain pills. I mean, that is how bureaucratic we 
have become even in medicine; but under these same laws that should be 
used going after kingpins, they are now being used to go after the 
doctors.
  As I say, some of them may well be involved in something illegal and 
unethical; and because I still want to stop this, this does not mean I 
endorse it, because all the problems that do exist with some doctors 
can be taken care of in many different ways. Doctors are regulated by 
their reputation, by medical boards, State and local laws, as well as 
malpractice suits. So this is not to give license and say the doctors 
can do anything they want and cause abuse because there are ways of 
monitoring physicians; but what has happened is we have, as a Congress, 
developed a great atmosphere of fear among the doctors.
  The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, a large group of 
physicians in this country, has now advised their members not to use 
any opiates for pain, not to give adequate pain pills because the 
danger of facing prosecution is so great. So the very people in the 
medical profession who face the toughest cases, those individuals with 
cancer who do not need a couple of Tylenol, they might need literally 
dozens, if not hundreds, of tablets to control their pain, these 
doctors are being prosecuted.
  Now, that is a travesty in itself; but the real travesty is what it 
does to the other physicians, and what it is doing is making everybody 
fearful. The other doctors are frightened. Nurses are too frightened to 
give adequate pain medications even in the hospitals because of this 
atmosphere.
  My suggestion here is to deny the funding to the Justice Department 
to

[[Page 14680]]

prosecute these modest numbers, 3 or 400 doctors, leave that monitoring 
to the States where it should be in the first place, and let us get rid 
of this idea that some bureaucrat in Washington can determine how many 
pain pills I, as a physician, can give a patient that may be suffering 
from cancer.
  I mean, this is something anyone who has any compassion, any concern, 
any humanitarian instincts would say we have gone astray; we have done 
too much harm; we have to do something to allow doctors to practice 
medicine. It was never intended that the Federal Government, let alone 
bureaucrats, interfere in the practice of medicine.
  So my suggestion is let us take it away, take away the funding of the 
Justice Department to prosecute these cases, and I think it would go a 
long way to improving the care of medicine. At the same time, it would 
be a much fairer approach to the physicians that are now being 
prosecuted unfairly.

                              {time}  1930

  And let me tell you, there are plenty, because all they have to do is 
to be reported that they prescribed an unusual number of tablets for a 
certain patient, and before you know it, they are intimidated, their 
license is threatened, their lives are ruined, they spend millions of 
dollars in defense of their case, and they cannot ever recover. And it 
is all because we here in the Congress write these regulations, all 
with good intentions that we are going to make sure there is no abuse.
  Well, there is always going to be some abuse. But I tell you there is 
a lot better way to find abusive doctors from issuing pain medication 
than up here destroying the practice of medicine and making sure 
thousands of patients suffering from the pain of cancer do not get 
adequate pain medication.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. At this point I just want to say 
that my mom died of cancer, my father died of cancer, and I would have 
done anything to help them, and OxyContin can make a big difference. 
But there has been a lot of abuse. There have been a lot of doctors 
that have been doctor factories that are just prescribing this.
  There were some in my area, and I have seen families that have been 
devastated in southwest Virginia. I understand what the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul) is saying, but in southwest Virginia, in the rural 
areas down in Lee County, there is probably not a family that has not 
been impacted by the abuse of prescriptions. So it is a balance.
  I understand the gentleman, being a doctor, how he feels, but there 
are cases where there is tremendous abuse. That is why I think we have 
to keep monitoring this.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Paul. This amendment would 
have the practical effect of putting doctors above the law. It would 
prevent the federal government from taking action against a doctor who 
abused his privilege of issuing prescriptions for controlled 
substances, including addictive and dangerous drugs like OxyContin. 
While I have great respect for doctors, and I know that the vast 
majority of them are honest, law-abiding and motivated solely by their 
concern for their patients, we can't exempt them from our drug laws.
  First, there is no evidence that the federal government is 
``persecuting'' doctors for prescribing pain killers. Last year, in 
fiscal 2003, only 50 doctors nationwide were arrested for illegal 
prescriptions. That is only five one-thousandths of one percent (.005%) 
of all the doctors who have DEA licenses to write prescriptions. No one 
can seriously argue that the DEA is engaging in some kind of campaign 
to stop doctors from writing prescriptions for pain killers.
  Second, the tiny number of physicians who were arrested were not 
arrested just because they prescribed pain medication. They were 
arrested because they abused the public trust and the clear standards 
of the profession set by their peers. These were essentially drug 
dealers hiding behind a white coat. They used their professional status 
to obtain sexual favors, drugs, and money.
  Last year, six doctors were arrested for trading drug prescriptions 
for sex. Twenty-three doctors were arrested for writing prescriptions 
in exchange for money, four doctors were arrested for issuing 
prescriptions in exchange for other illegal drugs, and seventeen were 
arrested for writing prescriptions to obtain drugs to feed their own 
drug habits. (I am attaching a listing of those arrests, provided by 
the DEA, to my statement for the Record.)
  Let's take a look at some examples. Dr. Bernard Rottschaefer was 
convicted last March for writing 153 illegal prescriptions for 
painkillers; five women testified that he demanded sex in exchange for 
those prescriptions, usually for OxyContin. Another doctor wrote them 
in the dressing room of an adult nightclub, and another issued 
prescriptions for sex, firearms, lawn and farm equipment, and labor on 
his personal property. I don't think anyone in this House would want to 
give people like that a blanket immunity from the law.
  Now, it may be argued that the amendment would only prohibit 
enforcement when drugs are prescribed ``for the purpose of relieving or 
managing pain''. But this distinction is meaningless--because anyone 
who uses a narcotic can argue that it is to relieve pain. When dealing 
with problems like drug trafficking and abuse, we can't just rely on 
the word of drug dealers and addicts. Instead, current law already 
recognizes a reasonable judge of the conduct of doctors--the 
professional standards set by their peers. I would like to note that 
the American Medical Association, the largest professional organization 
in the country representing doctors, has itself refused to support this 
amendment--precisely because it would immunize the few bad apples who 
abuse their professional trust.
  In closing, I'd like to point out that this amendment would seriously 
undermine our goal of reducing OxyContin and other prescription drug 
abuse. As President Bush stated in the National Drug Control Strategy 
for 2004, the problem of prescription drug abuse is a growing threat 
that needs to be addressed. The misuse of prescription drugs was the 
second leading category of illicit drug use after marijuana, with an 
estimated 6.2 million Americans having used prescription drugs for 
nonmedical, illegal purposes. OxyContin was abused in 2002 at a rate 
ten times higher than in 1999. Abuse by high school seniors of Vicodin 
is more than double their use of cocaine, ecstasy or methamphetamine. 
Meanwhile, Internet pharmacies (which frequently rely on illegal 
prescriptions), ``doctor shopping'' and other illegal drug diversion 
tactics are presenting new challenges to law enforcement and the 
community. Those few doctors who contribute to this problem must be 
held accountable for their actions. I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.

              DEA Arrests of Physicians--Fiscal Year 2003


                                summary

       Prescriptions in exchange for sexual favors--6; 
     prescriptions in exchange for drugs--4; prescriptions for 
     money--23; obtaining drugs by fraud/personal abuse--17. Note: 
     50 arrests reported for Fiscal Year 2003 which includes 2 
     separate arrests of the same physician.


                           physicians of note

       Two physicians, Dr. H and Dr. S, maintained medical 
     practices specializing in the treatment of chronic pain. 
     While both physicians treated some legitimate pain patients, 
     they both also practiced outside the scope of legitimate 
     medical practice by prescribing OxyContin for other than 
     legitimate medical reasons. These illegal activities led to 
     their investigation and subsequent arrests. Two individuals 
     died from overdoses of the OxyContin prescribed by one of the 
     physicians. One physician has been convicted of conspiracy to 
     distribute controlled substances. The other physician is 
     awaiting trial.


              prescriptions in exchange for sexual favors

       Dr. R--Pittsburgh--provided prescriptions for controlled 
     substances in exchange for sex. Date opened: 4/16/01; date of 
     arrest: 6/3/03; conviction date: pending; charges: unlawful 
     distribution of Oxycodone, Fentanyl, & Xanax.
       Dr. W--Washington--wrote prescriptions to female members of 
     motorcycle gangs in exchange for sex. Date opened: 6/10/03; 
     date of arrest: 6/10/03; conviction date: 1/14/04; charges: 
     unlawful distribution of Percocet.
       Dr. D--St. Louis--wrote prescriptions in exchange for sex, 
     firearms, lawn and farm equipment and labor on his personal 
     property. Date opened: 4/12/00; date of arrest: 11/25/00; 
     conviction date: pending; charges: unlawful distribution of 
     CS.
       Dr. L--Indianapolis--traded prescriptions for sex and 
     stolen property. Entertained juveniles at his home and 
     arrested for sodomy, firearms charges and public 
     intoxication. Date opened: 12/2/87; 6/9/03; date of arrest: 
     5/30/03; conviction date: pending; charges: unlawful 
     distribution of Hydrocodone.
       Dr. O--Hartford--forced patients to have sex with him in 
     exchange for prescriptions (2 arrests in FY 2003). Date 
     opened: 1/30/03; date of arrest: 2/20/03; 5/1/03; conviction 
     date: pending; charges: unlawful distribution of Percocet & 
     Xanax.

[[Page 14681]]




                  prescriptions in exchange for drugs

       Dr. P--Kansas City--had friends and other individuals 
     return the prescription medication to him. Continued to write 
     controlled substances after surrendering DEA registration. 
     Date opened: 6/25/01; date of arrest: 5/2/03; conviction 
     date: 10/20/03; charges: conspiracy/obtaining CS by fraud.
       Dr. B--St. Louis--wrote prescriptions to individuals who 
     returned the drugs to him. Subsequently overdosed and died. 
     Date opened: 5/22/03; date of arrest: 5/22/03; conviction 
     date: deceased (OD); charges: unlawful distribution of CS.
       Dr. S--Tucson--pediatric ophthalmologist who wrote 
     prescriptions in names of patients to procure the drugs 
     (Ritalin and Vicodin) for personal use. Continued to operate 
     on children while abusing drugs. Date opened: 8/8/01; date of 
     arrest: 10/8/02; conviction date: 1/6/04; charges: 
     conspiracy, acquiring CS by fraud.
       Dr. E--Detroit--wrote prescriptions to U/C in shopping mall 
     parking lot and required the U/C to split the drugs with him. 
     Date opened: 10/10/02; date of arrest: 11/8/02; conviction 
     date: pending; charges: unlawful distribution of OxyContin.


                        prescriptions for money

       Dr. U--Los Angeles--sold prescriptions for cash and allowed 
     others to write prescriptions for controlled substances. U/C 
     agents made several buys from doctor. Date opened: 2/7/03; 
     date of arrest: 2/5/03; conviction date: 7/29/03; charges: 
     unlawful prescribing of CS.
       Dr. H--Washington--wrote prescriptions to 45 street level 
     drug dealers in exchange for money. Date opened: 12/7/99; 
     date of arrest: 9/24/03; conviction date: pending; charges: 
     conspiracy; unlawful distribution; health care fraud; CCE.
       Dr. C--Tampa--wrote prescriptions for money from the 
     dressing rooms of adult night clubs. Date opened: 6/11/01; 
     date of arrest: 9/9/03; conviction date: pending; charges: 
     trafficking; delivery of a CS.
       Physician Assistant--Tampa--P/A for Dr. C. Wrote 
     prescriptions for money from the dressing rooms of adult 
     night clubs. Date opened: 6/11/01; date of arrest: 5/9/02; 
     conviction date: pending; charges: trafficking; delivery of a 
     CS.
       Dr. T--Dallas--wrote prescriptions for patients without 
     medical exam and for drugs specifically requested by patient 
     on the Internet. Date opened: 4/4/00; date of arrest: 12/19/
     02; conviction date: 5/28/03; charges: conspiracy to 
     distribute Hydrocodone.
       Dr. O--Dallas--wrote prescriptions for patients without 
     medical exam and for drugs speicifically requested by patient 
     on the Internet. Date opened: 2/15/00; date of arrest: 12/19/
     02; conviction date: 10/1/03; charges: conspiracy to 
     distribute Hydrocodone.
       Dr. S--Dallas--wrote prescriptions for patients without 
     medical exam and for drugs specifically requested by patient 
     on the Internet. Date opened: 2/15/00; date of arrest: 12/9/
     02; conviction date: 10/1/03; charges: conspiracy to 
     distribute Hydrocodone.
       Dr. C--Dallas--wrote prescriptions after his state medical 
     license was suspended. Date opened: 8/23/01; date of arrest: 
     4/23/03; conviction date: 10/29/03; charges: fraudulent use 
     of DEA registration.
       Dr. M--Newark--wrote prescriptions for $75/Rx. Date opened: 
     1/6/03; date of arrest: 1/30/03; conviction date: deceased; 
     charges: unlawful distribution of CS.
       Dr. D--Newark--used DEA registration to fraudulently 
     purchase Hydocodone tablets for illegal distribution. Date 
     opened: 8/25/03; date of arrest: 8/18/03; conviction date: 
     pending; charges: possession w/intent to distribute 
     Hydrocodone.
       Dr. M--Orlando--wrote prescriptions to 
     U/C agent in exchange for money. Date opened: 9/18/00; date 
     of arrest: 7/29/03; conviction date: pending; charges: 
     trafficking in Oxycodone and Methadone.
       Dr. M--Tampa--wrote prescriptions to drug dealers in 
     exchange for money. U/C buys made in exchange for money. Date 
     opened: 8/19/02; date of arrest: 1/30/03; conviction date: 
     pending; charges: trafficking in Oxycodone and Methadone.
       Dr. B--Merrillville--73 U/C buys of prescriptions made in 
     exchange for money. Date opened: 2/16/02; date of arrest: 8/
     25/03; conviction date: pending; charges: conspiracy to 
     distribute CS.
       Dr. M--Puerto Rico--22 U/C buys of prescriptions made in 
     exchange for money. Date opened: 12/3/01; date of arrest: 9/
     18/03; conviction date: pending; charges: unlawful 
     distribution of CS.
       Dr. R--Phoenix--U/C obtained Percocet prescriptions after 
     telling the doctor they made her feel good. Date opened: 10/
     26/99; date of arrest: 2/25/03; conviction date: pending; 
     charges: unlawful distribution of Percocet.
       Dr. L--Hartford--wrote prescriptions to U/C, gave 
     controlled drugs to friends, wrote prescriptions at parties 
     all in exchange for money. Also abused drugs himself. Date 
     opened: 7/2/01; date of arrest: 12/20/01; conviction date: 2/
     28/03; charges: Unlawful distribution of OxyContin.
       Dr. P--Tampa--prescribed drugs to female U/C so she could 
     enhance her performance when she ``performed for men''. Date 
     opened: 12/2/02; date of arrest: 8/26/03; conviction date: 
     pending; charges: Unlawful distribution of Vicodin.
       Dr. H--Albuquerque--prescribed large numbers of narcotics 
     to drug abusers in exchange for money. 10 deaths resulted 
     from his prescriptions. Date opened: 6/7/02; date of arrest: 
     6/5/03; conviction date: pending; charges: racketeering, 
     conspiracy to distribute, conspiracy to commit murder.
       Dr. W--New York--Prescribed large quantities of narcotics 
     to a patient between 1992 and 2001. Patient died of overdose 
     of Dilaudid. Doctor submitted fraudulent bills to Medicare in 
     name of the patient and provided the patient with $700/month 
     in payback money during this period. Date opened: 1/31/03; 
     date of arrest: 6/24/03; conviction date: pending; charges: 
     conspiracy to distribute Hydromorphone.
       Dr. G--Louisville--psychiatrist who wrote prescriptions in 
     names of friends who she fraudulently listed as patients. 
     Pre-signed prescriptions for office assistants to fill in and 
     dispense to certain patients. Date opened: 9/25/03; date of 
     arrest: 9/25/03; conviction date: pending; charges: unlawful 
     prescribing of OxyContin & Hydrocodone.
       Dr. K--San Francisco--dentist who prescribed narcotics for 
     addiction treatment. Date opened: 11/26/02; date of arrest: 
     12/02/02; case dismissed: 12/02/02 for further investigation; 
     charges: unlawful distribution.
       Dr. S--Columbia--prescribed narcotics to drug addicts in 
     exchange for money. Member of the Caroline Pain Management 
     Clinic. Date opened: 4/2/00; date of arrest: 12/23/02; 
     conviction date: 2/17/04; charges: conspiracy to distribute 
     CS; acquiring CS by fraud.
       Dr. B--Detroit--wrote prescriptions for money for over 3 
     years after his DEA registration was retired. Date opened: 2/
     25/03; date of arrest: 5/7/03; conviction date: pending; 
     charges: unlawful prescribing of CS.


           obtaining drugs by fraud and deceit/abuse of drugs

       Dr. O--Buffalo--abused crack cocaine as well as 
     prescription drugs that he obtained through his DEA 
     registration. Date opened: 11/5/02; date of arrest: 7/28/03; 
     conviction date: 10/10/03; charges: acquiring CS by fraud.
       Dr. P--Phoenix--used DEA registration to write 
     prescriptions for personal abuse. Date opened: 9/10/01; date 
     of arrest: 10/23/02; conviction date: 11/25/02; charges: 
     acquiring CS by fraud (OxyContin).
       Dr. S--Denver--used DEA registration to write prescriptions 
     for personal abuse. Date opened: 7/3/03; date of arrest: 6/
     29/03; conviction date: pending; charges: acquiring CS by 
     fraud (Hydrocodone).
       Dr. W--Phoenix--used DEA registration to write 
     prescriptions for personal abuse. Date opened: 8/10/02; date 
     of arrest: 2/11/03; conviction date: pending; charges: 
     acquiring CS by fraud (Hydrocodone).
       Dr. R--Scranton--used DEA registration to write fraudulent 
     prescriptions in other individual names for his own personal 
     abuse. Date opened: 4/29/03; date of arrest: 8/14/03; 
     conviction date: pending; charges: failure to maintain 
     records (in lieu of fraud charges).
       Dr. K--St. Louis--arrested for possession of cocaine and 
     marijuana. Date opened: 5/5/03; date of arrest: 3/19/03; 4/
     30/03; conviction date: pending; charges: possession of 
     cocaine & marijuana.
       Dr. R (DVM)--Denver--used DEA registration to order 
     fentanyl Duragesic patches for personal abuse. Date opened: 
     12/16/02; date of arrest: 12/20/02; conviction date: 7/9/03; 
     charges: unlawful use of Fentanyl.
       Dr. R--Utah--used DEA registration to fraudulently obtain 
     drugs from wholesalers and also wrote prescriptions in other 
     individuals' names. Date opened: 2/3/03; date of arrest: 3/
     29/03; conviction date: 7/3/03; charges: acquiring CS by 
     fraud.
       Dr. C--Denver--used DEA registration to write fraudulent 
     prescription for personal abuse. Date opened: 2/12/02; date 
     of arrest: 
     2/28/02; conviction date: 2/25/03; charges: acquiring CS by 
     fraud.
       Dr. N--Phoenix--removed Hydrocodone from hospital for 
     personal abuse. Date opened: 1/29/01; date of arrest: 5/9/03; 
     conviction date: 8/11/03; charges: unlawful possession of CS 
     (Hydrocodone).
       Dr. W--Cleveland--used DEA registration to purchase 
     controlled substances for self abuse. Also wrote fraudulent 
     prescriptions for personal abuse. Date opened: 7/5/02; date 
     of arrest: 3/14/03; conviction date: 3/14/03; charges: theft 
     of CS (Alprazolam).
       Dr. A--Puerto Rico--wrote prescriptions after losing state 
     license. Also health care fraud charges surrounding 
     prescriptions. Date opened: 6/26/03; date of arrest: 7/11/03; 
     conviction date: pending; charges: unlawful distribution of 
     CS.
       Dr. C--Colorado Springs--diverted fentanyl from hospital 
     for personal abuse. Admitted to being addicted and performing 
     anesthesiology while under the influence. Falsified 
     dispensing records. Date opened: 6/20/02; date of arrest: 1/
     28/03; conviction date: 10/16/03; charges: unlawful 
     possession of CS (Fentanyl).
       Dr. A--Dallas--obtained morphine through fraudulent use of 
     another physician's DEA registration. Date opened: 12/19/02; 
     date of arrest: 12/30/02; conviction date: 4/24/03; charges: 
     acquiring CS by fraud (Morphine).
       Dr. T--Greensboro--used hospital DEA registration to write 
     prescriptions in phony names for self abuse. Date opened: 4/
     8/03; date of arrest: 7/17/03; conviction date: pending; 
     charges: acquiring CS by fraud.
       Dr. J--Kansas City--diverted Fentanyl from hospital for 
     personal use and falsified patient records to cover up the 
     diversion. Date opened: 12/14/02; date of arrest: 4/1/03;

[[Page 14682]]

     conviction date: 6/18/03; charges: unlawful possession of CS.
       Dr. R--Kansas City--used DEA to fraudulently obtain 
     Hydrocodone for personal use. Date opened: 4/8/02; date of 
     arrest: 12/2/02; conviction date: 11/13/03; charges: 
     acquiring CS by fraud (Hydrocodone).


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment 
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation 
in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of Rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The 
amendment imposes additional duties.''
  So I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order? 
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
determination, namely the purpose for which certain controlled 
substances were prescribed. The amendment therefore constitutes 
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Paul

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 9.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Paul:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay expenses for any United States contribution to 
     the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 
     Organization (UNESCO).

  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved. Pursuant to the order of 
the House of today, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment denies funds to UNESCO, and it is an amendment that is 
identical to what I brought up last year and got a recorded vote on and 
had a debate on last year.
  Last year, I brought it up because we were just getting back into 
UNESCO. President Ronald Reagan, in 1984, had the wisdom of getting us 
out of UNESCO because of its corrupt nature, not only because it had a 
weird, false ideology, contrary to what most Americans believed, but it 
was also corrupt. He had the wisdom to get us out of it, yet last year 
we were put back in UNESCO, and I was hoping that we would not fund it.
  Last year, the Congress approved $60 million for this purpose, which 
was 25 percent of UNESCO's budget. Does that mean we have 25 percent of 
the vote in UNESCO? Do the American people get represented by 25 
percent? How much do we get out of it? What is the American taxpayer 
going to get? The American taxpayer gets a bill, that is all. They do 
not get any benefits from it.
  And there is one part of UNESCO that is particularly irritating to 
me, and it is called the Cultural Diversity Convention. This is an 
organization that actually is very destructive and will play havoc with 
our educational system. It also attempts to control our education 
through the International Baccalaureate Program, and that, too, 
introduces programs and offers them to our schools. It is not forced, 
but there are already quite a few schools that have accepted these 
programs.
  Now, let me just give my colleagues an idea of the type of philosophy 
they are promoting, but what we as the Congress promote with what the 
American taxpayers are paying for. Here it is:
  ``The international education offers people a state of mind, 
international mindedness. We are living on a planet that is becoming 
exhausted. And now listen to this, this is what the U.N. UNESCO people 
are saying about education in the various countries, including ours. 
Most national educational systems at the moment encourage students to 
seek the truth, memorize it and reproduce it accurately.'' Now, one 
would think that is not too bad of an idea. ``The real world is not 
this simple,'' so says UNESCO. ``International education has to 
reconcile this diversity with the unity of the human condition.''
  I mean, if those are not threatening terms about what they want to 
do, and yet here we are funding this program and the American taxpayers 
are forced to pay for it. Now, there are a few of us left in the 
Congress, I see a couple on the floor tonight, that might even object 
to the Federal Government telling our States what to do with education, 
and of course there is no constitutional authority for that. We have 
the Leave No Child Behind, but it looks like everyone is going to be 
left behind before we know it.
  But here it is not the Federal Government taking over our Federal 
education system; this is the UNESCO, United Nations, taking over our 
educational system. It does have an influence. Sure, it is minimal now, 
but it will grow if we allow this to continue.
  So I ask my colleagues to please vote for my amendment, and I sure 
hope they allow a vote on this amendment. It was permitted last year, 
so it surely would be permitted this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, when we had a vote on the floor, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde) offered the amendment to not join UNESCO. I 
supported the amendment. I did not believe that we should have joined 
UNESCO. The decision was made by the Bush administration. Also, on that 
vote, if my memory serves me, I was on the losing side. I think it may 
have been Lantos v. Hyde. I voted with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hyde), and we were on the losing side. History will have to check the 
exact timing of that vote.
  The bill includes $71.9 million for the U.S. share of funding for 
membership in UNESCO, and I have had serious questions about UNESCO. 
UNESCO was rife with corruption and problems. The Bush administration, 
who wanted to join, has a very good and a very tough ambassador, a kind 
of a no-nonsense person. I have met her and think highly of her. The 
President announced 2 years ago at the United Nations, and I remember 
seeing the speech, that the U.S. would rejoin UNESCO. The First Lady, 
Mrs. Bush, addressed the UNESCO plenary session in Paris, France, last 
year.
  The U.S. withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 when the organization was rife 
with corruption and anti-Western bias, and I think the current 
ambassador, I have spoken to her, is going to make sure they do not go 
back to the corruption and anti-Western bias. It was mismanaged, and 
she has pledged that she would stay after that.
  Since that time, they have undergone reforms and the current 
leadership is committed. They say it stands for fundamental human 
rights and democratic principles; and participation in the UNESCO, many 
say, will allow us to be engaged as international partners in a number 
of issues. This year, the U.S. was elected to the UNESCO legal 
committee, the intergovernmental biotechnics committee, and other 
committees.
  I think now, although I do tend to agree with the gentleman, I think 
it is a fact and I think he raises some very, very valid points, but to 
strike funding for UNESCO just after the Bush administration has 
joined, just after President Bush's wife, Mrs. Bush, has spoken at a 
plenary session, I think would send a wrong message. So I reluctantly 
rise in opposition to the amendment out of respect to the Bush 
administration, having been on the losing side.
  But we are going to watch this. We are going to watch and see what 
UNESCO does, and I am glad this issue was raised by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul). But in light of the vote on the floor and in light of 
the Bush administration request and the President's speech, and in 
light of the First Lady attending and addressing the plenary session, I 
would ask defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 14683]]


  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and 
conclude with another statement from a director of UNESCO, who further 
explains exactly what they are up to. He said in June that ``the 
program remains committed to changing children's values so they think 
globally rather than in parochial national terms from their own 
country's viewpoint''. So if we talk about an attack on national 
sovereignty starting at the lowest level through an educational system, 
it is right here.
  The chairman, obviously, is not very enthusiastic about this. But my 
job as a representative is not to follow what other people tell me. My 
job is to read these bills and to know what they say and to represent 
my district. Because somebody asks us to finance this and our instincts 
tell us there is something very sinister about this, I would say that 
that is not a very strong reason to oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program under the heading 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Office of Justice Programs--state 
     and local law enforcement assistance'' may be used in 
     contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1373).

  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved. Pursuant to the order of 
the House of today, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a 
Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise once again this evening to propose an amendment 
similar in some respects to one I have proposed in the past and 
different in others, that is to say, it is similar in that it does 
this: It says we have a law on the books, it was passed in 1996, and 
the law says that all States and localities therein are prevented from 
impeding the flow of information to the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service. The successor agency is, of course, BICE. They are also 
prevented by the law from actually stopping any information from coming 
from the old INS and now BICE.
  That is what the law says. It is there, on the books, and every 
single time I offer this amendment the other side gets up and starts 
arguing the law as to whether or not we should have the law, why it 
should be in place, would we not be better off without a law? But that 
is not the purpose of my amendment, of course, to repeal the law. It is 
to enforce the law. That is all I ask.
  We are a body that makes laws. We should, of course, also encourage 
the enforcement of those laws or we should repeal them. That is what we 
should be doing here. It is, I suggest, quite inappropriate in a way 
for us to pass laws and then essentially tell the country and the 
people out there that we should wink at them; pretend they do not 
exist; pretend they are really not on the books, because enforcing them 
would be problematic from certain standpoints, especially politically.

                              {time}  1945

  Now, what kind of message does that send every time we do this? But 
every time there is a vote against my amendment, that is essentially 
what we are saying, that even though we have laws on the books, we will 
ignore them.
  My amendment is designed to prevent those local governments from 
obtaining SCAAP funding if they violate the law. That is it. If they 
are in line with the law, doing what the law requires of them to do, no 
problem. Presently, the law does not have any sort of mechanism that 
would suggest we are enforcing it. There is no penalty, and so we have 
got cities, counties, that are in fact violating the law. They are 
doing that with impunity. We should not allow that to continue. We 
should either repeal the law if we do not like it, or we should have 
some sort of mechanism to enforce it.
  I have proposed time and time again that we should try and enforce 
the law. That is all this amendment does.
  If State and local governments violate the Federal law and pass 
sanctuary policies that encourage illegal aliens to come here, why 
should any American taxpayer be asked to absorb these costs? That is 
what we are doing. SCAAP funds are funds that we provide to cities and 
counties for the purpose of reimbursing them for the costs of keeping 
people in their prisons who are here illegally. They are illegal 
aliens, and there are costs involved.
  On the one hand, we have counties submitting bills to the Federal 
Government for the incarceration of some of these folks, but on the 
other hand refusing to provide that information to the Bureau of 
Immigration Control and Enforcement, BICE. They want the money for what 
they say they are putting out for enforcement of the law, but then they 
refuse to actually give that information to BICE. It is not a situation 
that is sustainable and certainly not one that we should countenance. 
We should at least say if you are not going to abide by the law of the 
land that requires you to provide this information, you cannot get the 
money from the SCAAP funds. That is all it is.
  Again, I know we are going to get into this argument about whether or 
not we should have the law on the books. That is a different argument. 
Let us just argue whether or not once we have the law on the books we 
should not try to enforce it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) for 10 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  A similar amendment was offered on DHS, and it failed by a vote of 
148 to 259, so we are back to exactly the same thing. SCAAP funds are 
not available to States that violate current law, and the Justice 
Department tells us the gentleman's amendment would have no impact.
  I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. In the State of 
Virginia, we have a program where our State police are basically 
deputized to in essence enforce the immigration laws. But it is like 
Don Quixote. So what I would recommend the gentleman to do, and I 
mentioned this to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) earlier, the 
gentleman and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and others ought to 
sit down with the administration, with the Department of Justice and 
also with the Department of Homeland Security and fashion a regulation 
in that sense. I think there are other ways of doing this. I think you 
are just sort of coming up against it. My sense may be wrong. Maybe the 
148 will go to 152, I do not know.
  But I think the gentleman really wants to be successful and do 
something. However, the Department of Justice says the Tancredo 
amendment would have no effect on those who receive SCAAP grants. I am 
not going to take a lot more time, but I would urge the gentleman, and 
I will be glad to help the gentleman set up a meeting with BICE and 
with the Department of

[[Page 14684]]

Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to see how to do this. 
But since it does nothing and says nothing and is in essence the same 
amendment I believe was offered on homeland security, I think the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) defeated by 148 for and 259 
against, for that reason I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and 
offer to work with the gentleman, BICE, and the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King) to set up a meeting.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for extending his offer in helping the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) on his amendment.
  I think the gentleman has made a very clear point about the Tancredo 
amendment. I rise to oppose it because it is a law that is already in 
force; but more importantly when it comes to local and State 
governments and first responders and people dealing with homeland 
security, it is threatening to deny them funds because of some 
inadvertence that might occur as relates to Federal immigration laws.
  We recognize what the laws are in this land. We recognize the 
responsibilities of Federal law enforcement on immigration issues. But 
if we begin to start cutting resources from local communities, we can 
be assured that national security will be jeopardized, and that is what 
the Tancredo amendment does. It makes communities less safe.
  Let me say, for those of us who come from very diverse communities, 
it is particularly difficult for the police to establish relationships 
that are the foundation of successful police work if the impression is 
that resources are going to be cut if they do not do the work of the 
Federal Government. That means they are going to create an atmosphere 
of fear and intimidation and an attitude that anyone who has a 
different surname or looks differently is under the scrutiny of local 
law officials.
  I would hope that this amendment would not be supported, and of 
course recognize that in the exploitation possibilities you also have 
the potential of criminals exploiting the fear of immigrants by forcing 
local law enforcement authorities to be immigration officials. I would 
hope that this amendment would not be supported. It has been defeated, 
as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) said earlier, earlier in the 
year, in the homeland security legislation.
  I can tell Members it makes it very difficult for communities who are 
working toward better relationships with our immigrant communities. 
Might I say to my colleagues, this is not the way to enforce 
immigration laws. The way to do it is to have real immigration reform 
that will help secure the homeland and balance the rights of 
individuals within this country. I think we can do that by not having 
this amendment which then would further divide Federal and local 
officials by cutting funds which are so desperately needed for homeland 
security.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Representative Tom Tancredo's 
amendment to the Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Act for 
FY2005. The effect of this amendment would be to enact a provision from 
the CLEAR Act (H.R. 2671) and its Senate counterpart (S. 1906). These 
bills compel State and local police officers to become Federal 
immigration agents by denying them access to Federal funds they are 
already receiving if they refuse these additional duties. Specifically, 
the Tancredo amendment would deny funds to any State or local 
government that limits disclosure of immigration status.
  We count on State and local governments and law enforcement 
authorities as first responders when national security is threatened. 
Since 9/11, they have taken on significant new duties and are facing 
dwindling resources. Further cutting their resources is not going to 
help enhance national security, and, in fact, the Tancredo provision 
could make our communities less safe.
  In immigrant communities, it is particularly difficult for the police 
to establish the relationships that are the foundations for successful 
police work. Many immigrants come from countries in which people are 
afraid of police, who may be corrupt or even violent, and the prospect 
of being reported to the immigration service would be further reason 
for distrusting the police.
  In some cities, criminals have exploited the fear that immigrant 
communities have of all law enforcement officials. For instance in 
Durham, NC, thieves told their victims--in a community of migrant 
workers and new immigrants--that if they called the police they would 
be deported. Local police officers have found that people are being 
robbed multiple times and are not reporting the crimes because of such 
fear instilled by robbers. These immigrants are left vulnerable to 
crimes of all sorts, not just robbery.
  Many communities find it difficult financially to support a police 
force with the personnel and equipment necessary to perform regular 
police work. Having State and local police forces report immigration 
status to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, would 
be a misuse of these limited resources.
  ICE also has limited resources. It does not have the resources it 
needs to deport dangerous criminal aliens, prevent persons from 
unlawfully entering or remaining in the United States, and enforce 
immigration laws in the interior of the country. Responding to every 
State and local police officer's report of someone who appears to be an 
illegal alien would prevent ICE from properly prioritizing its efforts.
  Local police can and should report immigrants to the immigration 
service in some situations. The decision to contact the immigration 
service, however, should be a matter of police discretion.
  I urge you to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Tancredo amendment. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) stands 
in front of us today, as he has in the past, as a strong voice to try 
to gain the attention and support of Members of Congress towards a 
problem that we refuse to deal with. This Congress is refusing to deal 
with one of the greatest threats to the well-being of our people. In 
California, our education system is going down. The health care 
available to our people is being diluted and people are dying because 
of this. Our criminal justice system is breaking down. People are being 
murdered because we are not dealing with this issue. The issue, of 
course, is illegal immigration. We have to do something about it.
  In this case, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is simply 
saying the cities or States that will not help us enforce the laws that 
already exist, they should not be getting government money in the name 
of that enforcement.
  If we do not handle this situation, our people are going to pay an 
even heavier price. I can see a day when the Social Security system 
totally falls apart because we have not dealt with this issue. It is a 
disgrace that Congress is refusing to act upon this. At least support 
this issue which is very reasonable.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the gentleman from 
California that he left out in blaming immigrants the Chicago fire and 
the San Francisco earthquake, which they probably were also responsible 
for.
  It is amazing in 2004 we continue this immigrant-bashing situation. 
The fact of life is the gentleman read off a list of things that are 
falling apart in California somehow because people are not being 
reported or because local police departments are not engaging in 
activities that local police departments do not want to engage in.
  We had 24 discussions before, and it is a simple issue. Local law 
enforcement does not want to be involved in this issue. Regardless of 
what we like to see here and how much we would like to bash these 
folks, local law enforcement does not want to do it. Let me try to say 
once more why, because no one seems to be paying attention to this 
issue.
  Local law enforcement wants to be able to have a person, regardless 
of their immigration status, come to them and report a crime, come to 
them and participate in solving a crime. If

[[Page 14685]]

they now feel that the local police officer, the local sheriff, has 
been deputized, if you will, as an immigration officer, we are never 
going to get any help from the local community.
  Now, one issue is the fact that we may have people in this country 
who are not here with documents. That is one issue. But since they are 
here, what are we going to do, ignore them, ignore their ability to 
help us and solve a local crime, ignore their ability to help us be 
involved in the community?
  My God, we talk so much here about how much we want to help local law 
enforcement and how we stand for them and how much money we want to 
give them, and now we want to burden them with a situation that they, I 
repeat for the last time, do not want to be involved with. This 
amendment should be defeated for what it is, a Latino outreach program 
that will fail miserably.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Once again I keep thinking when I hear these arguments that somehow 
we have not gotten the point across of what exactly this is doing. I 
wish we had a big sign that said: This is the law and this is my 
amendment. This is the law that is on the books. This is not debatable 
at this point, or at least it is not part of my amendment.
  If the gentleman does not like the fact that we have a law on the 
books saying that the people of the cities and counties should help, or 
let me put it this way, there is a law that says that they should not 
actively oppose our attempts to actually enforce immigration law, that 
is what it is. It does not require anything. It does not require 
deputization of more people or to get them involved with the actual 
immigration enforcement. It just says you cannot take an action that 
prevents the flow of information or the acceptance of information. That 
is it. That is the law that is on the books. What we are trying to do 
is assess a penalty.
  The idea that local law enforcement, they do not want this because 
somehow people will not come forward, the reality is this, their task 
is to enforce the law also. They take an oath to do that, just as we 
do. Here we sit debating as to whether or not we should enforce a law 
we have already passed. That is the bizarre nature of this debate. It 
has nothing to do with immigrant bashing or any of the other stuff that 
gets brought up in this discussion.
  It has to do with whether or not the law on the books should be 
enforced. It is a simple measure that should not be clouded with all of 
the kind of rhetoric and epithets that are thrown around every time we 
start to debate this. It is the law. Should we have it? If we should 
not, let us repeal it. As long as it is there, let us enforce it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let us note we are not talking about 
legal immigrants. Over a million people are permitted in this country 
legally every year. We can be very proud of that. In fact, the people 
most concerned about illegal immigration in this country are the 
million legal immigrants every year who obey the rules and stand in 
line and who we are slapping in the face by permitting millions of 
illegals to come into our country.
  Trying to blur the distinction between legal and illegal is not an 
honest way of presenting the case. The bottom line is we are only 
talking about illegal immigration. We are not talking about local 
crime. I am not in favor of having the local judiciary to enforce 
criminal matters that are made criminal by the Federal Government. I 
am, however, in favor of the Federal Government presiding over its 
constitutional authority and obligation to control immigration policy 
in this country. And if States and cities want money from the Federal 
Government concerning illegal immigration and the incarceration of 
illegal immigrants, they will have to go along and enforce that Federal 
law because immigration is the rightful authority of the Federal 
Government.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. Chairman, let me just note this. We can make light of the fire 
that has swept through Chicago and destroyed homes and natural 
disasters. This is not a natural disaster that is befalling our people, 
and it is not funny. The fact is our health care system is breaking 
down in California and people are losing their lives. It is breaking 
down in other parts of the country. Our criminal justice system is 
breaking down. People are being murdered. Our citizens are losing their 
lives because we refuse to deal will illegal immigration.
  The Social Security System could fall apart in 10 years if this 
illegal immigration continues to overwhelm us. What are we doing? Why 
are we permitting our children to go into our educational institutions 
to have a diluted education? This is ridiculous.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano) 30 seconds.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California knows me 
well and knows I was not being funny when I mentioned the fact that the 
gentleman left out the Chicago fire and the San Francisco earthquake. 
My point was that the gentleman is blaming immigrants for everything 
that is wrong in this country. The fact of life is that that is what we 
do, and the fact of life is that sometimes we look at people who bash 
immigrants on a daily basis, and then when an amendment comes before 
us, we cannot believe that it is anything else. But more of the same, 
which is immigrant bashing, that is what it is. That is what it looks 
like, that is what it smells like, and that is how I see it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a difficult issue, because I want to respond to 
my friend, my colleague's advice and his willingness to work on this 
issue, and that is a strong allure, because number one, I know he is a 
gentleman of great integrity, and I do want to do more than just simply 
make a statement to, as he said, be a Don Quixote. I do want to in fact 
move this issue forward; and if that is the best way to do it, then 
perhaps what I will do is withdraw this amendment, but I will do so 
only after I once again state that it is important for this body to 
make laws and then enforce them.
  We call ourselves a Nation of laws ruled by law. There is only one 
way we can actually prove that. It is to stop this ridiculous winking 
at the laws we make. Enforce them or repeal them. That is all I ask, 
and that is what I hope that we will do. And I will work with the 
gentleman and take him up on his offer.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.


                  amendment no. 6 offered by Mr. Farr

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Farr:
       Insert before the short title at the end the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Justice may be used to prevent the States 
     of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, 
     Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington from implementing 
     State laws authorizing the use of medical marijuana in those 
     States.

  The CHAIRMAN. Points of order are reserved, and pursuant to the order 
of the House today, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is very straightforward. 
In simple terms, the Farr-Rohrabacher-Hinchey-Paul amendment prohibits 
the use of funds in the bill from preventing States that have medical 
marijuana laws from implementing them.
  As a result, the States have medical marijuana laws on the books they 
can

[[Page 14686]]

implement, regulate and enforce them, just like now. States that do not 
have medical marijuana laws on the books remain subject to the 
overarching Federal law.
  This amendment does not stop law enforcement officials from 
prosecuting illegal use of marijuana. This amendment does not encourage 
the use of marijuana. This amendment does not encourage the use of 
drugs in children. This amendment does not legalize any drugs. This 
amendment does not change the classification of marijuana. This 
amendment is recognized as States' rights to oversee the medical scope 
of practice of doctors in their States, to prescribe drugs as doctors 
see as necessary for medical conditions.
  Today's Los Angeles Times points out that the Justice Department's 
medical marijuana war seems increasingly out of step with the whole 
country. Last fall, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling 
barring Federal officials from prosecuting doctors for their 
recommendations.
  Just 2 weeks ago, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian 
Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainstream 
religious groups supported doctors' rights to prescribe pot as a when-
all-else-fails treatment for the seriously ill. The best way to thwart 
casual use of this drug is to let doctors prescribe it in closely 
circumscribed and regulated ways such as the States do.
  Now, there are nine States that have passed these laws. The voters 
are speaking, and they are doing it more in every State. Just recently 
Vermont. Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, 
Vermont, and Washington have enacted State medical marijuana laws. 
Because of these State laws, thousands of patients are able to 
alleviate their pain and suffering without fear of arrest by State or 
local authorities.
  The threat of arrest by Federal agents, however, still exists. In the 
past, the Federal Government has impeded research on medical use of 
marijuana, even though thousands of patients have testified, explained, 
and acknowledged that it helps relieve some of the debilitating 
symptoms, such as nausea, pain, loss of appetite associated with 
serious illness.
  Despite Federal admonitions against marijuana, the American people 
support medical marijuana and pretty overwhelmingly. Most national 
polls show the support around 70 percent.
  This amendment is not necessarily about the actual medical purpose of 
marijuana, though I know scores of doctors have attested to marijuana's 
medical benefits. In States where medical marijuana is legal, thousands 
of licensed physicians have recommended marijuana to their patients. 
This amendment is not about legalizing drugs, though some will argue 
that it should be.
  No. What this amendment is about is States rights. In so many areas 
we trust States rights. And I think of us here in the United States 
Congress. We allowed States to draw our district boundary lines.
  We allow States to set the fee we have to pay to run for office. We 
allow the States to create the primary procedures for getting elected 
to Congress. We allow the States to fashion Medicaid packages. We allow 
States to license doctors to practice. We trust the States to do what 
is best for their residents of that State. When it comes to health care 
policy or palliative care, the care of alleviating pain, nine States of 
the United States have determined that it is appropriate public policy 
to allow the use of marijuana as a prescribed treatment.
  If Congress respects States rights in so many other areas, why does 
it not respect it with regard to medical marijuana?
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the Federal Government 
from interfering with state medical marijuana laws. It would end the 
DEA raids on medical marijuana patients and caregivers who are acting 
in accordance with state law. It would not--let me repeat--it would not 
prevent the DEA from arresting individuals who are involved in 
marijuana-related activities unconnected to medical use.
  Here is the simple question posed by this amendment: Should the 
Federal Government arrest individuals who are trying to alleviate their 
own suffering or the suffering of others in compliance with state law?
  I am only too familiar with the tension between DEA law enforcement 
and state and locally-sanctioned marijuana cooperatives in California. 
On September 5, 2002 in Santa Cruz, California--my district--dozens of 
heavily armed DEA agents stormed into the home of Valerie and Mike 
Corral where the cooperative garden of the Wo/Men's Alliance for 
Medical Marijuana (WAMM), a medical marijuana hospice, is tended by 
collective members. They destroyed 167 plants, which would have been 
distributed--free of charge--to more than 200 seriously and terminally 
ill WAMM members. Although the Corrals did not resist, the agents 
pointed loaded rifles to their heads, forced them to the ground, and 
handcuffed their hands behind their backs. The DEA agents kept them 
handcuffed in their home for 4 hours before taking them 30 miles to the 
Federal courthouse in San Jose where they were eventually released 
without being charged. Meanwhile, Federal agents handcuffed the 
Corral's over-night guest, Suzanne Pfeil, a WAMM member who was 
disabled by polio, and detained two other members, one with AIDS and a 
caregiver. Pfeil happened to be sleeping when the raid occurred. 
Despite the fact that her leg braces and crutches were in plain sight, 
the agents demanded she stand, which she was unable to do with her 
hands cuffed. Pfeil's blood pressure shot up and she experienced chest 
pains. Agents then refused to call an ambulance. All this pain, 
confusion and fear--yet WAMM was operating with the full knowledge and 
consent of state and local authorities.
  Many people who oppose medical marijuana say that there is only 
anecdotal evidence of its effectiveness. But these anecdotes cannot be 
simply dismissed; they are the stories of real people who are 
suffering. Just this morning in Roll Call, there was a powerful example 
of this. Talk show host Montel Williams discussed his struggle to live 
with excruciating pain caused by multiple sclerosis. Montel Williams, a 
former Marine and decorated naval officer, who made anti-drug PSA's for 
the White House drug czar's office, explained in this article that 
marijuana is the ``only'' drug that allows him to function on a day-to-
day basis. Now if he is using marijuana with his doctor's advice and is 
following state law, why on earth should we waste Federal resources 
trying to prevent him from alleviating his own pain? And taking it a 
step further, if someone else is growing that marijuana for him and is 
following state law why should we take that medicine away from him by 
interfering with the grower?
  The answer most opponents of this amendment will give is that 
marijuana simply is not a medicine. But this had become an absurd 
claim. First of all, both the Netherlands and Canada have enacted 
medical marijuana laws, with marijuana available at pharmacies in the 
Netherlands. In the United States, nine states have medical marijuana 
laws that allow doctors to recommend marijuana to their patients. And 
in those states, hundreds of doctors have recommended marijuana to 
thousands of patients.
  Even our Federal Government has acknowledged the therapeutic benefits 
of marijuana. In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of 
Medicine conducted a study funded by the White House Office of National 
Drug Policy. The principle investigator from the study said upon its 
completion, ``We concluded that there are some limited circumstances in 
which we recommend smoking marijuana for medical use.'' An even 
stronger endorsement came from the DEA in 1988. Then, Administrative 
Law Judge Francis Young, after an exhaustive, 2-year study of 
marijuana, called for its rescheduling on the grounds that ``marijuana, 
in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active 
substances known to man.'' He concluded, even 60 years ago, that 
marijuana offered a ``currently accepted medical use in treatment.''
  Over the past year, medical marijuana has gained even wider 
acceptance. It has been endorsed by the American Nurses Association, 
whose 2.6 million members care for the Nation's most seriously ill 
patients; by the United Methodist Church, the Nation's third largest 
religious denomination; by the New York and Rhode Island Medical 
Societies; and by many other health care organizations. Other longtime 
supporters of medical marijuana include the New England Journal of 
Medicine, the American Bar Association, and the American Public Health 
Association.
  Do opponents of this amendment honestly believe the American Nurses 
Association, the New York State Medical Society, the United Methodist 
Church, the Episcopal Church, and others are supporting this issue 
because they

[[Page 14687]]

hope to legalize marijuana for all purposes? Of course that isn't the 
reason. These organizations support legal access to marijuana for 
medical purposes because they know one simple fact: it helps sick 
people.
  Other opponents of this amendment say that they will not support 
medical marijuana until more research is complete. The problem is that 
the Federal Government has effectively blocked research. To cite just 
one example, in July 2001, the University of Massachusetts applied to 
the DEA for a license to manufacture marijuana for medical research. 
This is the same kind of license a company called GW Pharmaceuticals 
applied for in England a few years ago. While GW Pharmaceuticals has 
now concluded Phase III trials and is nearing market approval for its 
marijuana spray, the DEA--3 years later--has not even bothered to deny 
the University of Massachusetts' license. Of course, they have not 
granted it, either. They have just let the application sit in limbo.
  Antoher application to the Federal Government, requesting permission 
to import just 10 grams of marijuana for research has languished for 10 
months. Does our government think 10 grams of marijuana is going to 
increase the drug problem in this Nation? Of course not. The Federal 
goal seems to be to purposely block research that would prove--or 
disprove, once and for all--that marijuana has therapeutic benefits.
  But let's assume for a minute that all of the obstacles to research 
were suddenly removed. That does not get us past the immediate 
question: Should the Federal Government, over the course of the next 
year, while research is proceeding, arrest patients and caregivers who 
are complying with state law in order to alleviate their own suffering 
or the suffering of others?
  Another objection raised by opponents of this amendment is that 
passing it would send the wrong message to children. It would make 
children think that marijuana is not dangerous. Let me tell you 
something. Children know how dangerous marijuana is already. Allowing 
seriously ill patients to use it will not change that. And associating 
the use of marijuana with AIDS and chemotherapy is not likely to 
increase its appeal. On the other hand, if you deny cancer, AIDS, and 
MS patients the opportunity to use this drug to alleviate their pain--
while permitting the medical use of powerful addictive drugs like 
Vicodin and OxyContin--the only message you are sending to children is 
that you are intellectually dishonest and completely lacking in 
compassion.
  The truth is, where medical marijuana is legal, there has been no 
increase in marijuana use among teens. In fact, in my home state of 
California, teen use of marijuana has dropped 34 percent among 7th 
graders, 44 percent among 9th graders, and 21 percent among 11th 
graders since the California medical marijuana initiative passed in 
1996. The same Institute of Medicine study described earlier noted, 
``there is no evidence that the medical marijuana debate has altered 
adolescents' perceptions of the risks associated with marijuana use.'' 
Listen closely today to hear whether opponents of this amendment back 
their warning about sending the wrong message to children with any 
evidence demonstrating that medical use has caused a change in attitude 
about recreational use; I doubt there will be any with any scientific 
weight.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is reasonably drafted and built on 
scientific evidence, judicial review, and medical studies. It reflects 
the grass roots demand and legislative will of nine of our United 
States. It is time for Congress to recognize the powerful dynamics of 
this issue and adopt my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This is 
a bad amendment. It will be bad for the country.
  Marijuana is the most abused drug in the United States. According to 
the Department of Health and Human Services, more young people are now 
in treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or for all other 
legal drugs combined. The amendment does not address the problem of 
marijuana abuse and possibly, perhaps probably, makes it worse by 
sending a message to young people that there can be health benefits 
from smoking marijuana.
  In testimony before the Committee on Government Reform, the DEA 
provided an example of how marijuana trafficking is occurring under the 
guise of medicine. And there is so much more I could say, and we have 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) here and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ose). This is not a good amendment. The message that 
this sends to the young people is absolutely wrong. This was 
overwhelmingly defeated the last time it came up. I urge defeat of the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman I yield 3 minutes and 15 seconds to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, today I call for a broad coalition of 
my colleagues to support the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment to H.R. 
4754, introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Over the past 8 years, 10 States have adopted laws that decriminalize 
the use of marijuana for medical purposes. These States have passed 
these laws to allow the use of marijuana to relieve intense pain that 
accompanies several debilitating diseases, including AIDS, cancer, 
multiple sclerosis, and glaucoma. In seven of these States, such as my 
own State of California, these laws were adopted by a direct referendum 
of the people.
  The Federal Government, however, has made it nearly impossible for 
these States to implement their own laws, the laws that the people 
voted for. The DEA has conducted numerous raids on homes of medical 
marijuana users, prosecuting patients who were using marijuana in 
accordance with State law to relieve intense pain and other symptoms 
caused by a variety of illnesses. Despite these State laws, the Justice 
Department is working overtime to put sick people and those who would 
help them in jail.
  It is time for the Federal Government to respect the rights of 
individual States to determine their own health and criminal justice 
policies on this matter. A growing movement of Americans from 
conservative to liberal is calling for the Federal Government to keep 
its hands off the States that wish to allow their citizens to use 
marijuana for medical purposes. In my State, the people have spoken 
overwhelmingly. Both Republican and Democrat counties voted for medical 
freedom. Our new Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has made it clear in 
regard to the Federal Government's interference with California's 
medical marijuana policy in his message to Washington, and what is it? 
It is ``Hasta la vista, baby.'' Even more poignant, Tom McClintock, 
Arnold's leading conservative opponent in the recent recall election, 
has spoken out even more strongly against the Federal interference with 
California's medical marijuana laws. The Governor of Maryland also, our 
former Republican colleague, Robert Ehrlich, has signed Maryland's new 
medical marijuana law and has lobbied Members of Congress on this 
issue.
  As a conservative, I am increasingly troubled by the federalization 
of criminal law that has occurred in recent years. It seems that more 
and more crimes are being declared to be Federal crimes. While 
sometimes this is appropriate, for example in immigration law, which is 
a federally mandated issue by our Constitution, but criminal justice 
constitutionally is the domain of the State and local government. This 
is especially true when the people of these many States determine by 
their own vote the policy concerning this specific personal behavior.
  It is time for the conservatives and liberals to join together in 
calling for the Federal Government to keep its hands off. Liberals, 
moderates, and conservatives should unite in order to protect the 
freedom of our people. This is a freedom issue, and it is also a 
humanitarian issue. We should make sure that the local people have a 
right to determine if the doctors in their community, and that is what 
we are talking about, the doctors are able to prescribe marijuana for 
people who are suffering from AIDS and suffering from cancer and other 
types of diseases. This is not fair, and it is not humane to go the 
other way; and it is un-American to centralize this type of criminal 
justice matter in the hands of Federal bureaucrats rather than the 
people who vote in our specific communities.

[[Page 14688]]


  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that as a 
physician before I came to Congress, medical marijuana is actually not 
necessary because the active ingredient in medical marijuana is delta-
9-tetrahydrocannabinol. This is a compound that is readily available 
not in a handful of States as medical marijuana is, but in every State 
of the Union. It is legal today. It is called Marinol. It is a pill. It 
is easy to take. And people who suffer from cancer, people who have 
anorexia from chemotherapy, people who suffer from AIDS may use Marinol 
today to their benefit.
  Mr. Chairman, it just challenges the imagination. As a physician, I 
wrote a lot of prescriptions for morphine for patients who were in 
pain. I would have never recommended to a patient that they go home and 
score some opium and smoke it. That would be an inappropriate way for 
them to deliver the drug.

                              {time}  2015

  This drug is delivered in a humane and compassionate way. It is 
delivered in a way that deals with the symptoms it is designed to deal 
with, and we do not explode the drug culture in this country by doing 
so.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Paul).
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, am a physician from Texas, but I have a little 
different opinion about Marinol. No doctor that I know of ever 
prescribes Marinol.
  I think marijuana is a helpful medical treatment for the people who 
have intractable nausea. I would like to point out this is not 
something strange that we are suggesting here. For the first 163 years 
of our history in this country, the Federal Government had total hands 
off, they never interfered with what the States were doing. They 
interfered only after 1938 through tax law. So this is something new.
  The States' rights issue is almost a dead issue in the Congress, but 
we ought to continue to talk about it, and I am delighted somebody has 
brought this up.
  But if you do have compassion and care for patients, they ought to 
have a freedom of choice. I think that is what this is all about, 
freedom of choice.
  I would like to point out one statistic. One year prior to 9/11 there 
were 750,000 arrests of people who used marijuana; there was one arrest 
for a suspect that was committing terrorism. Now, that, to me, is a 
misdirected law enforcement program that we could help address here by 
at least allowing the States to follow the laws that they already have 
on the books.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Burns).
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. Chairman, in 2001, the FDA approved the pain killer 
OxyContin, knowing that it had a high probability of being diverted for 
illicit use. We felt that the gain was worth the risk. The abuse, 
unfortunately, of OxyContin is now a nationwide epidemic.
  In spite of the fact that, unlike OxyContin, there are safe and 
effective and legal alternatives to smoking pot for pain relief, we are 
now considering the use of marijuana for its medical purposes.
  The active ingredient, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) 
pointed out, is readily available in an FDA-approved capsule. This pill 
delivers THC, it does not carry the dangers inherent with smoking 
marijuana, nor does it undermine the law enforcement efforts that fight 
illegal drug use.
  Mr. Chairman, the legalization of medical marijuana is simply the 
first step in a scheme to overturn all the substance abuse laws that we 
work hard to enforce today. We need to vote ``no'' on legalization of 
marijuana and its use in America.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute of the 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose)
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in absolute, 100 percent opposition to this 
amendment. I have listened to the arguments of my friends from Texas 
and my friend from California in one case and my friend from California 
in the other, and I have to say that their argument on States' rights 
is a unique application as it relates to so-called ``medical 
marijuana.'' But I have not yet heard a single bit of testimony dealing 
with whether or not there is any medical value to the application of 
marijuana in this case.
  Now, the so-called phrase ``medical marijuana'' is a misnomer. It was 
invented by the people who passed the proposition in California that, 
frankly, hoodwinked the voters of California into voting in favor of 
it. But I just want to run through a couple of things here.
  The FDA looks at all sorts of prescription drugs and pharmacological 
treatments, and they have looked at marijuana, and by and large, we 
have deferred to the FDA on all these analyses. But, all of a sudden, 
when it comes to so-called ``medical marijuana,'' the FDA is no longer 
competent. But I do want to enter into the Record that the FDA, in 
fact, did look at marijuana as a medical substance and found absolutely 
no value whatsoever to its use.
  Now, the FDA has, in fact, looked at Marinol, in which the active 
ingredient in so-called ``medical marijuana'' is present, THC, and has 
approved that for use in treating nausea and pain and the like, and it 
is readily available by prescription, a true prescription, from a 
doctor.
  Let us dwell for a minute in California, which I am familiar with, on 
this so-called ``medical marijuana'' and the facade that people go 
through to obtain it.
  First of all, the referendum requires that a doctor issue a so-called 
prescription. However, the doctor refuses to issue a prescription on a 
prescription form for so-called medical marijuana. They write it on a 
piece of blank paper, because the doctors know that it is not a 
prescription, it is a facade perpetrated upon the people of California 
that this has any medical qualities whatsoever.
  Now, my friend from Indiana is going to share with you the story of a 
tragic occurrence in San Francisco, and I am not going to jump the gun 
on him, because this is absolutely heartbreaking, what he is going to 
tell you. But I do want to tell you, that incident is not singular in 
nature.
  The fact of the matter is we have children, young people across this 
country, watching you and me and our peers across this country as it 
relates to the use of so-called medical marijuana, and if you think for 
one minute that they are going to turn a blind eye to our acquiescence, 
that just because it happens to be a little bit difficult to tell 
people ``No, you are not going to be able to smoke dope,'' just because 
it happens to be a little bit difficult to tell people that, that we 
are going to roll over and pass this prohibition on funds, just begs 
the imagination about what leadership really constitutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has the right to close.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thought the author of the amendment has the 
right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The chairman of the subcommittee, controlling time in 
opposition to the amendment, has the right to close.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment 
because my mother had glaucoma and we bought her marijuana because it 
was a relief, and that was before this bill was passed in the State of 
California.
  I support this amendment because it respects State authority, because 
the

[[Page 14689]]

people in our State believe medical marijuana is a way to relieve those 
suffering from cancer, from glaucoma, from AIDS, from spastic disorders 
and other debilitating diseases.
  This amendment will do only one thing: It will stop the Justice 
Department from punishing those who are abiding by their State laws. It 
changes no law.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, support this amendment so that 
those who suffer from debilitating diseases can get the relief that 
they need, and they can get it without fear of the Federal Government.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the comment of the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I am going to read here that in the State of 
California, teen use of marijuana has dropped 34 percent among seventh 
graders, 44 percent among ninth graders and 21 percent among eleventh 
graders since the California medical marijuana initiative passed in 
1996.
  Also, I would like to point out that this is not such a radical 
amendment. It only affects the States that have State laws, that have 
the enforcement. We have not heard from law enforcement opposing this. 
We have heard from the American Nursing Association, the United 
Methodist Church, the New York Medical Society, the Rhode Island 
Medical Society, the New England Journal of Medicine, the American Bar 
Association, the American Public Health Association and the Episcopal 
Church. They all support this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, first, do not let any Member kid 
themselves; if you cannot enforce a Federal law, you do not have a 
Federal law. This would eliminate our ability to enforce marijuana laws 
in States that have passed this.
  My friend from California alluded to a very sad case in the State of 
California. When we as Members use phrases like ``medical marijuana'' 
and responsible officials imply that drugs like marijuana are medical, 
tragedies like this happen.
  Irma Perez, age 14, the late Irma Perez, was overdosing on Ecstasy. 
Her friends had heard that marijuana was medical, and instead of 
getting her to a doctor, where they said she would have been saved, 
they gave her marijuana on top of her Ecstasy and she died.
  When we have silly debates like this, quite frankly, we bear 
responsibility. Yesterday, in Ohio, six people died, including a family 
of four, two adults and two children, when a young person on marijuana 
and alcohol collided into a truck that hit two other vehicles and 
killed six people.
  If you have medical marijuana laws, like has happened in a court case 
in the State of Oregon, drug testing laws for truck drivers have been 
thrown out. It is now being appealed higher, but it is not even clear 
that you can be assured that our congressional drug testing law for 
truck drivers will stand up, given the way the courts are interpreting 
this.
  In California, we have a doctor that has given 348 patients under 
this medical marijuana, including for anxiety and restless leg 
syndrome. In Oregon, we have a doctor who gave it to 4,000 people over 
the last few years. We have another doctor in California who uses it, 
we actually had this person at our hearing, for ADD and hyperactivity, 
even though she admitted she has no evidence that it worked for those 
things, but she felt it would make them feel better.
  You either believe you have an FDA or you do not have an FDA. We hear 
about all kinds of other things that FDA cracks down on. Either you 
have a national FDA or you do not have an FDA.
  Furthermore, just last week in Oakland, California, they pulled over 
a group of guys with about 66 pounds of marijuana. They said it was for 
medicinal purposes. They found where it was coming from, and they found 
a warehouse. In this warehouse, they found millions of dollars of 
marijuana where the people started fleeing, and then these advocates of 
medical marijuana in California said, Oh, it was so medical.
  The person who owned the building had already been busted for 
transporting illegal drugs. He had lost his license as a pawnbroker. 
But, no, this was medical marijuana. Some estimate that up to 90 
percent of the cases, this is the pro-medical marijuana cases, of 
marijuana use in California, would be classified as medical.
  That is why we have letters, and I will include these in the records, 
from the Community Antidrug Coalition, and Dr. Dean, who coordinates 
these efforts, says he opposes it; the Fraternal Order of Police; the 
Partnership for a Drug-Free America, who plead on behalf of the drug 
treatment and prevention groups in America to oppose this; the Drug-
Free America Foundation; and the U.S. Department of Justice, which is 
concerned that they will not be able to enforce any drug laws if we do 
not allow the Federal Government to enforce.
  We need to defeat this amendment because it is the wrong message to 
our youth, it is the wrong message to our law enforcement, it is the 
wrong message to our drug treatment people, it is the wrong message to 
the people in the streets of their neighborhoods trying to reclaim 
their often crime-ridden neighborhoods from drug dealers and addicts in 
their areas, and it is, quite frankly, unconstitutional.
  We fought a Civil War over nullification. States do not have the 
right. If we can have States nullify an existing Federal law, then on 
what grounds can this not happen under the same precedent, a lack of 
enforcement on environmental laws, of civil rights laws, of the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, of any law? Because once a State can 
nullify a Federal law by saying, We cannot enforce it, you do not have 
a Federal system.
  This is an amendment fraught with difficulties and should be 
overwhelmingly defeated by both sides for a multitude of reasons.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letters referred to 
earlier in my statement.

                                               Community Anti-Drug


                                        Coalitions of America,

                                     Alexandria, VA, July 1, 2004.
     Hon. Mark Souder,
     House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, 
         Drug Policy and Human Resources, Rayburn House Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the 5,000 coalition members 
     that Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) 
     represents, I am writing to strongly urge you to oppose an 
     amendment to be offered by Representative Maurice D. Hinchey 
     (D-NY) to the Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary and Related 
     Agencies FY 2005 Appropriations bill which would effectively 
     prohibit enforcement of Federal law with respect to use of 
     ``medical'' marijuana. I strongly urge you to oppose this 
     amendment not only because marijuana is an illegal, addictive 
     Schedule I drug, with no medicinal value, but also because 
     this sends the entirely wrong message to the youth of 
     America.
       Marijuana is not a harmless drug: it is the most widely 
     abused illicit drug in the nation. According to the Substance 
     Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Treatment 
     Episode Data Set, approximately 60% of adolescent treatment 
     cases in 2001 were for marijuana abuse. Research shows that 
     the decline in the use of any illegal drug is directly 
     related to its perception of harm or risk by the user. 
     Advertising smoked marijuana as medicine sends the wrong 
     message to America's youth--that marijuana is not dangerous. 
     Congressman Hinchey's amendment goes even further by removing 
     the ability of law enforcement officials to enforce Federal 
     law. The efforts of the drug legalization movement, to 
     promote the myth of ``medical'' marijuana and to stifle the 
     efforts of law enforcement agencies to enforce Federal law 
     severely dilutes the prevention efforts that community anti-
     drug coalitions across America are undertaking to communicate 
     marijuana is dangerous, it has serious consequences, and is 
     illegal.
       Congressman Hinchey's amendment is offered under the guise 
     of compassion towards seriously ill patients, when in reality 
     it is a ``Trojan horse'' to legalize marijuana. To date, the 
     FDA has not approved nor has it found any medicinal value in 
     smoked marijuana, which is why it remains a Schedule I 
     controlled substance. Furthermore, in the States that have 
     legalized marijuana for so-called ``medicinal'' purposes, 
     seriously ill, elderly patients are not the only patients 
     receiving marijuana--children are also. At a

[[Page 14690]]

     hearing before your Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug 
     Policy and Human Resources, Dr. Claudia Jensen, of Ventura, 
     California, testified that she prescribes marijuana as 
     medicine for adolescents under her care who have been 
     diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). In a policy 
     statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics stating 
     their opposition to the legalization of marijuana, they state 
     that ``Any change in the legal status of marijuana, even if 
     limited to adults, could effect the prevalence of use among 
     adolescents.'' What kind of a message are the youth of 
     America receiving when doctors willingly give children 
     marijuana--it tells children that marijuana is not a 
     dangerous drug.
       Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge you to help us protect our 
     nation's youth and oppose any and all amendments limiting the 
     enforcement of the Federal law pertaining to marijuana use. 
     Thank you for considering my views.
           Sincerely,

                                               Arthur T. Dean,

                                Major General, U.S. Army, Retired,
     Chairman and CEO.
                                  ____

                                                      Grand Lodge,


                                    Fraternal Order of Police,

                                     Washington, DC, July 6, 2004.
     Hon. Mark Souder,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and 
         Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing on behalf of the membership 
     of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you of our strong 
     opposition to an amendment which may be offered to H.R. 4754, 
     the appropriations measure for the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, State and the Judiciary, which is scheduled to be 
     considered on the House floor this week. The amendment, which 
     was offered last year by Representative Maurice D. Hinchey 
     (D-NY), would effectively prohibit enforcement of Federal law 
     with respect to marijuana in States that do not provide 
     penalties for the use of the drug for so-called ``medical'' 
     reasons.
       In these States, Federal enforcement is the only effective 
     enforcement of the laws prohibiting the possession and use of 
     marijuana. Federal efforts provide the sole deterrent to the 
     use of harder drugs and the commission of other crimes, 
     including violent crimes and crimes against property, which 
     go hand-in-hand with drug use and drug trafficking. Federal 
     investigations of marijuana producers also serve to disrupt 
     larger drug trafficking organizations, particularly in the 
     State of California where marijuana is sometimes traded for 
     precursor chemicals for methamphetamines, and in the Sate of 
     Washington, which is a significant gateway for high-potency 
     marijuana that can sell for the same price as heroin on many 
     of our nation's streets.
       Such an amendment threatens to cause a significant 
     disruptive effect on the combined efforts of State and local 
     law enforcement to reduce drug crime in every region of the 
     country. On behalf of the more than 318,000 members of the 
     Fraternal Order of Police, we urge its defeat. If I can be of 
     any further help on this issue, please feel free to contact 
     me or Executive Director Jim Pasco through my Washington 
     office.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Chuck Canterbury,
     National President.
                                  ____

                                                 Partnership for a


                                            Drug-Free America,

                                       New York, NY, July 7, 2004.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     Chairman, House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and State, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter is to express our opposition 
     to an amendment being proposed to the Commerce, Justice, 
     State FY 2005 appropriations bill, scheduled for 
     consideration today. Congressman Maurice Hinchey is proposing 
     an amendment that again seeks to prohibit the enforcement of 
     federal law pertaining to marijuana in states that have 
     decriminalized the use of marijuana for medicinal 
     application. The proposed amendment is likely to have the 
     unintended effect of handicapping federal law enforcement 
     agents from enforcing all laws pertaining to marijuana use 
     and trafficking. Therefore, we encourage you and members of 
     the committee to oppose this amendment.
       The issue of medical applications of smoked marijuana is 
     one for the medical and scientific communities to evaluate. 
     As you know, state-based referenda on this issue are not 
     homegrown initiatives, but rather are being driven and 
     financed by a handful of national organizations that seek to 
     legalize marijuana and other drugs. The position of the 
     medical community is quite clear on this issue. The American 
     Medical Association, for example, calls for further adequate 
     and well-controlled studies of smoked THC for serious medical 
     conditions, but the AMA recommends that marijuana be retained 
     in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act pending the 
     outcome of such studies.
       The last thing we need to do is making marijuana more 
     available on the streets of America. Please ensure that 
     federal law enforcement officials can enforce federal laws 
     relevant to marijuana.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                               Stephen J. Pasierb,
     President, Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____

                                       National Narcotic Officers'


                                       Associations Coalition,

                                    West Covina, CA, July 1, 2004.
     Hon. Mark Souder,
     Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on 
         Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Souder: I am writing on behalf of the forty 
     state narcotic officers associations and more than 60,000 
     state and local law enforcement officers that are represented 
     by the National Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition 
     (NNOAC) to offer our strong opposition to an amendment that 
     will be offered in the United States House of Representatives 
     that would effectively prohibit the enforcement of Federal 
     marijuana laws in states that do not provide penalties for 
     the use of what has been deemed ``medical'' marijuana.
       As you know, despite opposition by the American Medical 
     Association and other credible medical and health 
     organizations, drug legalization activists have chosen to 
     seek the medicalization or legalization of marijuana by 
     relying on the emotions of local voters rather than science 
     based data and the recommendations of the medical community. 
     This reckless approach has resulted in several states 
     adopting medical marijuana laws and relying on public emotion 
     rather than science to approve crude, smoked marijuana for 
     medical use. This action has circumvented the patient 
     protections provided in the Pure Food and Drug Act, which 
     have served to keep Americans safe from dangerous or untested 
     remedies since it was enacted in 1906.
       Because marijuana enforcement by Federal officials is now 
     the only effective enforcement of the marijuana laws in 
     several states where medical initiatives have all but 
     legalized the drug, the passage of this amendment would have 
     disastrous results. This enforcement of marijuana laws 
     provides a strong deterrent to the use of marijuana, which 
     also helps reduce the use of hard drugs and the resulting 
     property and violent crimes. Enforcement also sends a strong 
     message to our young people that marijuana use is dangerous 
     and unacceptable. And finally, law enforcement provides a 
     social stigma to marijuana use that helps to prevent the 
     normalization of drug use. Without this enforcement, many 
     people will be lured into believing that marijuana use is 
     safe and poses no threat of addiction.
       Federal investigations of marijuana cultivators also serve 
     to disrupt larger drug trafficking organizations, 
     particularly in the state of California, where marijuana is 
     sometimes traded for precursor chemicals for methamphetamine 
     into the state of Washington, which is a significant gateway 
     for high potency marijuana that can sell for the same price 
     as heroin. The HINCHEY Amendment threatens to cause a 
     significant disruptive effective on state and local law 
     enforcement of both drug laws and of other crimes affecting 
     public safety in states where it would apply.
       The members of the NNOAC strongly encourage you and your 
     colleagues in the Congress to support their local law 
     enforcement officers, health-care workers, educators, and 
     community anti-drug activists, who are dedicated to working 
     towards safe drug free communities by vigorously opposing 
     this dangerous amendment. The passage of the HINCHEY 
     Amendment would have a catastrophic effect and would result 
     in increased drug use and related violence, marijuana related 
     DUI collisions, lost productivity and work place accidents.
       Please accept the thanks of our 60,000 members for all that 
     you and your colleagues do to support law enforcement and to 
     help us keep this great nation safe and drug free.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Ronald E. Brooks,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                     July 6, 2004.
       Dear Representative: I have dedicated the past three 
     decades to fighting the war on drugs and as such, I am urging 
     you to oppose the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment because of 
     the staggering effect it will have on society.
       I have helped form public policy in the United States' 
     campaign against drugs through participation in the White 
     House Conference for a Drug Free America, as a member of the 
     Governor's Drug Policy Task Force in Florida and as a board 
     member of DARE Florida (Drug Abuse Resistance Education.) I 
     presently reside in Rome while my husband serves as the 
     United States Ambassador to the Republic of Italy.
       With this experience, I can tell you that drug legalization 
     efforts abound today in the United States with deceptive 
     campaigns that exploit the sick and dying. Medical excuse 
     marijuana is the most common tactic used by legalization 
     proponents. This new amendment intends to prohibit the U.S. 
     Justice Department (including the DEA) from interfering with 
     state medical excuse marijuana

[[Page 14691]]

     laws. If passed, the pro-drug lobby will once again undercut 
     the federal government.
       In reference to using the medical marijuana excuse, there 
     has never been controversy about the use of purified 
     chemicals in marijuana to treat any illness; however, 
     marijuana cigarettes are not medicine. The false portrayal of 
     smoked marijuana as a helpful medicine has contributed to the 
     increased use of marijuana and other drugs by young people. 
     Sixty percent of youths in drug treatment today are there for 
     marijuana addiction.
       In areas where medical excuse marijuana is legal, people 
     are toking up under the guise of treating conditions such as 
     premenstrual syndrome, athlete's foot and migraines. The 
     Institute of Medicine (IOM), found marijuana effective in 
     addressing symptoms of nausea, appetite loss, pain and 
     anxiety. However, the same report concluded that, ``smoked 
     marijuana is unlikely to be a safe medication for any chronic 
     medical condition.''
       Our nation is under attack by extremely well-financed 
     groups, whose sole intention is to profit from drug 
     legalization. They don't care about civil liberties or our 
     nation's children. They only care about getting rich at the 
     cost of a deteriorated society. They frequently use 
     compassion for the sick and dying as one of their 
     manipulative tactics to normalize drug use. These groups 
     would like nothing more than to eliminate governmental 
     regulation. It is imperative that state government be 
     accountable to federal government, especially when it comes 
     to drug policy.
       As a drug prevention and policy expert, caring mother and 
     grandmother, I urge you--do not vote for the Hinchey-
     Rohrabacher amendment.
           Sincerely,

                                             Betty S. Sembler,

                                                Founder and Chair,
     Drug-Free America Foundation.
                                  ____

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                     Washington, DC, July 7, 2004.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the 
         Judiciary, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Department of Justice would oppose 
     any amendment to appropriations legislation preventing the 
     Justice Department or the Drug Enforcement Administration 
     (``DEA'') from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act with 
     respect to marijuana either generally or in specified States. 
     Any such limitation would interfere with the protection of 
     public health and safety against marijuana, which is 
     dangerous to both users and non-users and is the most widely 
     abused illicit drug in America. Moreover, a provision 
     applying only to certain States would unfairly and 
     inappropriately prevent uniform enforcement of Federal law 
     nationwide.
       Marijuana is a widespread health and social concern. More 
     young people are currently in treatment for marijuana 
     dependency than for alcohol and all other illegal drugs 
     combined, and mentions of marijuana use in emergency room 
     visits have risen 176 percent since 1994, surpassing those of 
     heroin. Marijuana also can have a dangerous impact on non-
     users, as demonstrated by the problem of drugged driving. 
     Marijuana affects alertness, concentration, perception, 
     coordination, and reaction time--skills that are necessary 
     for safe driving. Use of marijuana and other illicit drugs 
     also comes at significant expense to society in terms of lost 
     productivity, public health care costs, and accidents. 
     Accordingly, the Justice Department and the DEA continue to 
     vigilantly enforce Federal laws against marijuana 
     trafficking. Any limitation on enforcement of the Controlled 
     Substances Act with respect to marijuana would jeopardize our 
     efforts to continue reducing youth drug use and to protect 
     the public.
       The same considerations are important for persons who, 
     contrary to controlling Federal law, would use smoked 
     marijuana for purported medical purposes. States are free to 
     define criminal acts and impose corresponding penalties, 
     under State law, in the manner they see fit. However, it does 
     not follow that the absence of penalties in a particular 
     State for marijuana use in these circumstances ``legalizes'' 
     conduct that remains clearly illegal under the Controlled 
     Substances Act. Moreover, this issue is not only one of legal 
     form; it also is a compelling problem of public health and 
     safety. Smoked marijuana has not been approved for use under 
     the rigorous Federal drug approval process conducted by the 
     Food and Drug Administration (``FDA''), which prohibits drugs 
     from being sold or distributed in interstate commerce as 
     medicine unless they have been proven in sound clinical 
     studies to be both safe and effective for their intended use. 
     To date, no sound scientific study has shown that smoking 
     marijuana is safe and effective for any disease or condition. 
     The Institute of Medicine has concluded that ``[t]here is 
     little future in smoked marijuana as a medically approved 
     medication,'' and the British Medical Association linked its 
     use to greater risk of heart disease, lung cancer, 
     bronchitis, and emphysema. The DEA, in conjunction with the 
     FDA, has approved and will continue to approve research into 
     whether discrete ingredients of marijuana can be adapted for 
     medical use. However, with respect to smoked marijuana, the 
     clear weight of evidence is that it is not medicine--it is 
     harmful.
       Finally, any amendment that would restrict enforcement and 
     prosecution in certain specifically named States, but not in 
     others, would prevent the Department of Justice from 
     uniformly enforcing the law throughout the United States. As 
     a practical matter, residents of States listed in such an 
     amendment would be exempted from Federal enforcement and 
     persecution for cultivation, distribution, and use of 
     marijuana in certain circumstances, while residents of other 
     States would continue to face potential criminal liability 
     for precisely the same conduct. We also note that the 
     amendment would effectively establish a classification among 
     residents of different States with respect to the enforcement 
     of the Federal drug laws. Consequently, Federal persecution 
     of persons in non-covered States for marijuana-related drug 
     violations potentially could be subject to challenge under 
     the equal protection requirements of the Due Process Clause 
     of the Fifth Amendment, particularly in States that may enact 
     future medical marijuana laws that are not covered by the 
     language of this provision.
       Again, the Department of Justice opposes any amendment 
     restricting enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act. We 
     appreciate your continued support of our efforts to continue 
     meeting the goals of the President's strategy to reduce youth 
     drug use in America.
       If we may be of further assistance in this matter, please 
     do not hesitate to contact us. The Office of Management and 
     Budget has advised that there is no objection to this report 
     from the standpoint of the Administration's program.
           Sincerely,
                                             William E. Moschella,
                                       Assistant Attorney General.

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered 
by my colleagues Sam Farr, Dana Rohrabacher, Maurice Hinchey, and Ron 
Paul, and I salute their courage in bringing it to the House floor.
  This amendment to the Fiscal Year 2005 Commerce, Justice, State, and 
Judiciary Appropriations bill would prohibit the Justice Department 
from spending any funds to undermine state medical marijuana laws. It 
would leave to the discretion of the states how they would alleviate 
the suffering of their citizens.
  Eleven states, including my home state of California, have adopted 
medical marijuana laws since 1996. Most of these laws were approved by 
a vote of the people. More than 70 percent of Americans support the 
right of patients to use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation.
  I am pleased to join organizations that support legal access to 
medical marijuana, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, 
the American Bar Association, the American Nurses Association, the 
American Public Health Association, and the AIDS Action Council.
  Religious denominations supporting legal access to medical marijuana 
or state discretion on this issue include the Episcopal Church, the 
Evangelical Lutheran Church, the National Council of Churches, the 
National Progressive Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church, the 
Union for Reform Judaism, the United Church of Christ, the Unitarian 
Universalist Association, and the United Methodist Church.
  Proven medicinal uses of marijuana include improving the quality of 
life for patients with cancer, multiple sclerosis, and other severe 
medical conditions.
  In my city of San Francisco, we have lost nearly 20,000 people to 
AIDS over the last two decades, and I have seen firsthand the suffering 
that accompanies this awful disease. Medical marijuana alleviates some 
of the most debilitating symptoms of AIDS, including pain, wasting, and 
nausea.
  In 1999, the Institute of Medicine issued a report that had been 
commissioned by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The study 
found that medical marijuana ``would be advantageous'' in the treatment 
of some diseases, and is ``potentially effective in treatment pain, 
nausea, and anorexia of AIDS wasting and other symptoms.''
  To fight the war on drug abuse effectively, we must get our 
priorities in order and fund treatment and education. Making criminals 
of seriously ill people who seek proven therapy is not a step toward 
controlling America's drug problem.
  Again, I commend Mr. Farr, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Hinchey, and Mr. Paul 
for their leadership on this issue, which affects the health and well-
being of so many Americans.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Farr/Rohrabacher/
Hinchey amendment, which will end federal raids on medical marijuana 
patients and providers in states where medical marijuana is legal.

[[Page 14692]]

  Despite marijuana's recognized therapeutic value, including a 
National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine report recommending 
its use in certain circumstances, federal law refuses to recognize its 
medicinal importance and safety. Instead, federal penalties for all 
marijuana use, regardless of purpose, includes up to a year in prison 
for the possession of even small amounts.
  But since 1996, eight states have enacted laws to allow very ill 
patients to use medical marijuana in spite of federal law. The present 
administration, however has sought to override such state statutes, 
viewing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes in the same light 
as the use of heroin or cocaine. In 2002, federal agents raided the Wo/
Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana or WAMM, an organization that 
under California state law legally dispensed marijuana to patients 
whose doctors had recommended it for pain and suffering. Eighty-five 
percent of WAMM's 225 members were terminally ill with cancer or AIDS.
  The federal government should use its power to help terminally ill 
citizens, not arrest them. And states deserve to have the right to make 
their own decisions regarding the use of medical marijuana. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired on this amendment. The question is 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) 
will be postponed.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Ose) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
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, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________