[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20554-20560]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3093, COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, 
             AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 562 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 562

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3093) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related 
     Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of 
     the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises 
     and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 
     that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 3093 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.
       Sec. 3. The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations is 
     authorized, on behalf of the Committee, to file a 
     supplemental report to accompany H.R. 3093.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Arcuri) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. For purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time 
yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCURI. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  House Resolution 562 provides an open rule for consideration of H.R. 
3093, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008.
  I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the committee and 
ranking member for reporting out a bill that not only does not pay lip 
service but makes critical investment in our Nation's communities.
  The bill provides $725 million for Community Oriented Policing 
Services, more commonly known as the COPS program, 25 percent above the 
current funding level. As a former prosecutor, I know how vitally 
important these programs are in assisting local law enforcement to hire 
and train law enforcement officers to participate in community 
policing, purchase and deploy new crime fighting technologies, and 
develop and test new and innovative policing strategies.
  The administration had proposed to modify the COPS program into a new 
discretionary grant program, but the committee has chosen instead to 
keep COPS as a separate dedicated grant program. This is a proven model 
for getting these grants to the communities that need them, and I 
applaud the committee for preserving this program.
  The bill includes $303 million for Economic Development 
Administration, the EDA. The EDA administers several economic 
development programs including public work grants for upgrading 
infrastructure, planning, and trade adjustment assistance for 
communities that bear the burden of jobs outsourced to other countries.
  Additionally, the legislation would direct the EDA to consider with 
favorable bias grant proposals which incorporate green technologies and 
strategies that would reduce energy consumption, reduce harmful gas 
emissions, and contribute to sustainability.
  The bill provides $50 million, 52 percent more than the current 
funding, for the Weed and Seed program. The Weed and Seed program helps 
localities develop programs to weed out and deter crime, and then take 
the all-important step that is so often left out of seeding the 
formerly high crime areas with programs to promote neighborhood 
revitalization. The funds will be used to carry out this mission in 
cities, such as my home in Utica, New York, and sponsor activities such 
as truancy prevention, conflict resolution, mentoring, and job training 
for at-risk youths.
  Additionally, the bill, this resolution, provides for consideration 
and includes $40 million for grants, technical assistance, and training 
to State and local governments to develop dedicated

[[Page 20555]]

drug courts that subject nonviolent offenders to an integrated mix of 
treatment, drug testing, incentives, and sanctions.
  As a DA, I quickly learned that no matter what initiatives law 
enforcement took to reduce the supply of drugs, it never really 
affected the demand for drugs which never seemed to diminish and, 
therefore, created a seemingly endless market for drug dealers. But 
when my office established the county's drug court program, I realized 
the powerful effect that the program had in helping enrolled 
participants get control of their addiction and thereby reducing their 
demand for drugs. The appropriation of $40 million for drug court 
provided by H.R. 3093 is $30 million more than the current level, and I 
congratulate the committee for increasing funds for this vital and 
proven weapon on the war on drugs.
  H.R. 3093 would also create incentives to fight illegal immigration. 
It would prohibit the Federal Government from using any of these funds 
on any entity that does not participate in the basic pilot program 
which allows employers to verify whether potential or current employees 
can legally work in the United States. This voluntary pilot program was 
created by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 
1996 and allows employers to verify employment status through an 
automated system linked to the Social Security Administration and 
Department of Homeland Security data bases.
  This legislation also includes $6.5 billion for the National Science 
Foundation. This level of funding will support the doubling of NSF's 
budget over the next 10 years, and represents a true commitment to 
investment in basic research and development, which will provide for 
innovation and future technologies. This commitment is an important 
part of the innovation agenda designed to maintain the United States' 
competitiveness.
  H.R. 3093 also includes over $17.6 billion for the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA's unique mission is to 
pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and 
aeronautics research; and this appropriation enables them to accomplish 
this mission by restoring some of the cuts made by the administration 
to science, aeronautics, and education portfolios at the agency. This 
recommendation also provides for the continued efforts of NASA's Moon-
Mars goals. The act calls on NASA to expand human knowledge, develop 
and operate advanced aeronautical and space-faring vehicles; encourage 
commercial use of space; coordinate with other U.S. agencies to 
maximize research results; cooperate with other nations in research and 
applications and to preserve U.S. preeminence in aeronautics and space.
  This bill also prohibits the use of funds by the FBI to issue 
National Security Letters in contravention of the statutes authorizing 
their use. National Security Letters enable the FBI to secretly review 
customer records of suspected foreign agents without judicial review. 
In March, the Department of Justice Inspector General reported that the 
FBI agents had in numerous cases misused National Security Letters 
without complying with either statutes or DOJ guidelines governing 
their use. This widespread abuse of secret investigatory powers 
undermines the very notions of liberty and freedom from tyranny upon 
which this Nation was founded. The prohibition on use of funds 
contained in H.R. 3093 will ensure that such abuse does not continue.
  Mr. Speaker, I have addressed only a handful of the important 
programs for which H.R. 3093 would appropriate funds. My remarks have 
focused on the criminal justice, NASA funding, and economic development 
aspects of the bill; but there are many other important areas addressed 
in this legislation. It provides funding for critical scientific 
research, including several programs which study global warming and 
climate change that the administration attempted to eliminate. The 
Appropriations Committee has approved a bill which would maintain the 
funding of this critical research, and I once again thank them for 
their work and welcome a chance to vote in favor of this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri) 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill 
provides more than $53.5 billion in discretionary spending for fiscal 
year 2008, which is over 6 percent more than last year's enacted level.

                              {time}  1145

  While I support some of the increases in this bill that support our 
national priorities, such as counterterrorism and crime-fighting 
initiatives, I'm concerned that this bill falls in line with the spend 
now, tax later philosophy of the Democrat majority. This philosophy, as 
outlined in the Democrats' budget plan, puts each taxpayer on the path 
toward an average $3,000 increase in their Federal tax bill. This, once 
again, is another burden for the average taxpayer to bear.
  Rather than prioritizing spending and making the tough choices, this 
bill aims to solve our Nation's problems by simply spending more money. 
This also ignores real threats to our security that must be addressed.
  So, Mr. Speaker, one very serious problem that must be addressed 
before Congress adjourns next week, and that is changing current law so 
that our Intelligence Community has the tools it needs to monitor the 
telephone conversations of foreign terrorists physically located in 
foreign countries.
  Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff earlier this month 
indicated that the United States remains vulnerable to another 
terrorist attack, and that recent chatter levels are near those levels 
prior to September 11, 2001. But because of our failure to respond to 
technological advances, current law ties the hands of our Intelligence 
Community since significant portions of our intelligence is being 
missed, intelligence that could prevent a future attack on our Nation.
  If we expect our Intelligence Community to do everything in their 
power under the law to protect our Nation against a future attack, then 
we must give them the resources and tools they need to stay ahead of 
those who wish to harm us.
  It is vital that we act immediately to modernize the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act in order to clarify that the United 
States no longer will be required to get a warrant to listen to 
terrorists who are not in the United States.
  Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. In order to clarify, change the law 
in order to clarify that the United States no longer will be required 
to get a warrant to listen to terrorists who are not in the United 
States. Each minute we wait to act, our Intelligence Community could be 
missing vital information, increasing our risk of another attack on 
U.S. soil.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question on the rule so that the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act can be immediately modernized.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules 
Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for his 
comments, and I couldn't agree with him more. Clearly, the safety of 
our Nation from foreign enemies is critical, and it's something that 
needs to be a priority and is a priority with this Congress and prior 
Congresses.
  But one thing that I think is critical that we can never forget is 
safety doesn't begin at our borders. Safety is something that we need 
to recognize within our borders as well, and this bill takes great 
strides in terms of ensuring that our children are safe when they go to 
school. It puts more police officers on the street. It increases 
funding for the DNA database to help us locate rapists and criminals 
who have committed crimes and locate them and bring them to justice. It 
funds the drug court program, which is critical in terms of dealing 
with people who are addicted to drugs.

[[Page 20556]]

  This bill takes a balanced approach to law enforcement, takes a 
balanced approach to what this country needs to keep our citizens safe, 
both internally and externally as well. And I believe that it is a very 
good bill, and that we should support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield as much 
time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, 
Mr. Dreier from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from Pasco for 
yielding to me. And I thank him for his management of this rule, as 
well as my new friend from New York (Mr. Arcuri).
  I have to say that I'm glad that there is bipartisan concern voiced 
about security, and I appreciate the remarks that my friend from New 
York has just made, Mr. Speaker, about the issue of ensuring that we 
provide security for our children and for anyone who possibly could 
face the challenge of being a victim of crime in this country.
  The fact of the matter is I am very, very supportive of the notion 
that Mr. Hastings is putting forward here that we need to do everything 
that we can to prevent those who want to, en masse, kill us, as 
Americans, from being able to do that.
  Now, it was 1978, Mr. Speaker, during the Cold War, that the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act was put into place. It was designed to 
deal with what today is very, very antiquated technology. I mean, I 
remember when we had this debate before about the notion of being able 
to follow one single telephone line that is out there. Well, when all 
we had were hard lines and one telephone line, courts would get a 
warrant to follow that one phone line because that's the only way 
people could communicate.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, we all know that the world, when it comes to 
telecommunications, certainly is a heck of a lot different than it was 
30 years ago, 29 years ago, 1978.
  And what is it that we're saying?
  Mr. Hastings is saying that, in recognition of the statements that 
were made most recently by the Secretary of Homeland Security Mr. 
Chertoff, that there is a higher level of chatter, and we need to do 
what we can to monitor it; coupled with statements made by the Director 
of National Intelligence, Director McConnell, who's made it very, very 
clear that we are today blind and deaf when it comes to the ability to 
monitor not people here in the United States, Mr. Speaker, we're 
talking about people who are foreigners and who are trying to do us in.
  And so Mr. Hastings is simply saying that what we need to do is 
defeat the previous question so that we can make in order a chance for 
us to deal with the issue of modernization of that three-decade-old 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which today hamstrings us when it 
comes to the need for us to try and prevent terrorists from killing 
Americans. It's just that simple. And that kind of modification, that 
kind of modernization, that kind of reform is absolutely essential if 
we're going to have the tools necessary to successfully prosecute the 
war on terror.
  And so I believe that every Member, Democrat and Republican alike, 
who's concerned about our need to ensure that people who are overseas 
and want to do us in, and that we cannot monitor, we should be able to 
do just that. And I think most thinking Americans believe that having 
the capability to monitor those in Iran, in Syria and in other 
countries who would want to do us in, that they should, in fact, be 
monitored, and we should get that information.
  Now, this bill itself does, as my friend from Pasco has said, have a 
number of good things in it. It has some very, very important items 
that will help us deal with the challenge of crime that exists in this 
country, and obviously it provides very important funding for a high 
priority that I have, and that is NASA funding. The jet propulsion 
laboratory in La Canada Flint Ridge, California, is a very important 
facility which has made great strides with its Mars program and a wide 
range of other programs that they're involved in.
  Mr. Speaker, this program also has funding for something that I 
believe is essential for us to realize, and it's on an issue that this 
place has debated time and time again, and it's one that we're still 
struggling over, and that is the issue of border security and the 
problem of illegal immigration.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be offering an amendment when this 
bill proceeds which will allow us to actually increase the funding for 
what is known as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP.
  Now, one of the things we found, we put this program into place in 
the mid-1990s, and we found that State and local governments are, in 
fact, shouldering the responsibility, the financial burden, of the 
incarceration of people who are in this country illegally and commit 
crimes. In my county alone of Los Angeles, the cost is $150 million a 
year, according to my friend who's the sheriff of Los Angeles County. 
He's said that to me repeatedly; $150 million a year to incarcerate 
people who are in this country illegally and have perpetrated crimes 
against our citizenry.
  It's not the responsibility of the City of Los Angeles, the County of 
Los Angeles or the State of California to shoulder that financial 
burden. The protection of international borders lies with the Federal 
Government, Washington, D.C., and that's why we have the SCAAP program.
  We need to secure our borders. We need to take the responsibility for 
securing our borders. And because we have not done that yet, and I 
still am optimistic about our chance to do that, we need to make sure 
that we reimburse the States and counties and cities that are, in fact, 
responsible for the financial burden today of incarceration of those 
people who are in this country illegally and have perpetrated crimes 
against us.
  And so I will be offering that amendment. We'll be transferring 
monies, Mr. Speaker, out of the administrative expenses of the 
Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice, and I hope that 
we will be able to have strong bipartisan support.
  I will say I'm very proud that our California delegation has, in 
years past, come together, Republicans and Democrats, working together 
to increase the level of funding for the State Criminal Alien 
Assistance Program. Last year I was proud to have offered an amendment 
that had a $50 million increase for the SCAAP funding level that 
brought it to the $405 million level where it is today, and we had 
Democrats and Republicans joining in support of the amendment that I 
offered.
  I hope very much, Mr. Speaker, that once again this year we'll have 
Democrats and Republicans who will join in support of the amendment 
that I will be offering that will have that increase in the funding 
level for SCAAP, so that we will be able to say to State and local 
governments that you are not going to be totally responsible for 
shouldering that burden.
  So I thank my friend for yielding. I want to join, again, in urging a 
``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can make this very 
important amendment in order for FISA reform. And I hope that when we 
do get to consideration of the bill itself, that we'll have strong 
bipartisan support for the very important amendment that I'm going to 
be offering to increase funding for SCAAP.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia, the chairman of the CJS subcommittee, Mr. Mollohan.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for 
consideration of the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, Science and related agencies.
  I would first like to thank distinguished Chairwoman Slaughter, 
Ranking Member Dreier and the entire Rules Committee for this open 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we bring before you today a balanced appropriation bill 
that's responsive to Member input on both sides of the aisle and 
reflects the

[[Page 20557]]

legislative priorities of this Congress. This bill is creative in 
addressing problems that face our Nation, such as the rising crime 
rates that can only be addressed through additional law enforcement 
resources, the need for scientific research and discovery to inspire 
our youth and maintain our competitive edge in an increasingly 
competitive world economy, and the need for our country to understand 
and address the documented phenomena of global climate change.
  In this diverse bill we have gone to great lengths to address these 
and many other issues, and, Mr. Speaker, I think the House will be 
pleased with the result. And again, I urge support for this rule.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first I'd like to say, as a former 
Justice Department official who worked on national security, wiretaps 
or FISAs, I can think of no more important issues facing this country 
and this Congress than the modernization of the FISA statute. And I 
hope and I plead with my colleagues to support this measure.
  I rise today to bring to the House's attention an issue dealing with 
changes to NASA's account structure required by H.R. 3093 and the 
challenges this provision will impose on NASA.
  Title III of this bill increases the number of appropriations 
accounts that fund NASA from three to seven, and it requires conversion 
to this new structure in fiscal year 2008. Implementing this change 
will impose a tremendous burden on NASA's accounting system, at an 
unknown cost, and it's unclear what the net advantage of such a 
structural change, what that would be.

                              {time}  1200

  The current structure with three accounts coupled with customary 
congressional direction contained in the committee report language 
provides the agency unambiguous guidance regarding spending levels of 
the program, project, and in some cases at the activity level.
  Since 2001, NASA has been implementing a new software package to 
standardize its accounting and financial software across all 11 of its 
centers, and at the same time NASA has been putting in place a new 
means of allocating overhead costs. These efforts have not yet been 
completed, and to now direct the agency to reformat its basic 
accounting system is especially burdensome and complex. It may also 
force the agency to reevaluate the manner in which it calculates 
overhead rates.
  In a letter addressed to the House Appropriations leadership last 
month on the account structure change, NASA Administrator Mike Griffin 
stated that ``it would have a severe and extensive impact upon NASA's 
financial system'' and ``would make maintaining NASA's ability to 
execute in full cost exceedingly complex.''
  H.R. 3093 also directs NASA to implement the account structure change 
in 2008, a task that NASA says it simply cannot do in the time 
permitted.
  So I strongly urge the committee leadership to reflect carefully on 
the concerns raised by Administrator Griffin and to work with NASA in 
the weeks ahead to reach an agreement on a budget structure that allows 
for greater transparency without undermining NASA's current accounting 
system.
  I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee for their hard work and for the resources 
provided to NASA in this bill.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont, my colleague from the Rules Committee (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New 
York, my colleague from Washington, and colleagues on the Rules 
Committee.
  Today, as you know, the House takes up the 10th of 12 appropriation 
measures, and this bill is all about continuing to make progress in 
America, in this Congress, in changing our domestic priorities. There 
are two points about this bill I want to address: first, law 
enforcement; second, science.
  Law enforcement in our communities is the front line of protecting 
our communities. It is best done locally. This legislation, bipartisan, 
by the way, reverses 5 years of cuts to local law enforcement grants at 
a time when we need it. Violent crime, unfortunately, is on the rise. 
This funds our local law enforcement communities to do the job of 
building and maintaining safe communities. It does soundly reject the 
administration's proposed cuts to undo funding formulas that have been 
particularly helpful with the small State minimum.
  The bill heavily invests in the safety and well-being of Americans, 
providing a total of $3.2 billion for State and local law enforcement 
efforts. $430 million will go to the Office on Violence Against Women. 
And, as you know, that strives to reduce the prevalence of violence 
committed against women. $100 million goes for the Cops on the Beat 
program, something that has been a major bipartisan success over the 
years.
  The second issue is science. I want specifically to applaud the 
subcommittee for its support of the sciences and the emerging 
multidisciplinary field of service science. That combines disciplines 
like computer science, operations research, industrial engineering, 
business strategy, and management sciences to meet the 21st century 
needs of the workforce. The National Science Foundation should review 
what is currently being done in the area of service science and explore 
what more can be done.
  The work of the NSF and the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, NIST, is critical to fostering greater U.S. innovation and 
competitiveness in science, technology, engineering, and math. The 
investment in these agencies is an investment in that education and the 
development of the crucial multidisciplinary skills that are required 
to maintain our workforce and compete in the world economy.
  As much more of our economy is service-based, we must ensure that our 
science agencies are focused on both research and education that 
promote innovation in service sectors such as education, health care, 
energy, telecommunications, and finance. The growing service sector in 
my State of Vermont is probably typical. It provides some of our best-
paying jobs, nearly 80 percent of our employment. Last year we exported 
more than a half billion dollars in services, and 8,000 Vermonters were 
employed because of foreign investment in that sector.
  This bill's investment in service-related research and STEM education 
through the NSF and NIST will foster innovation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), who is a 
leader in this body on national security issues.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is 
defeated today, we will offer an immediate amendment to reform the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
  The reform is very, very simple. It doesn't affect most programs, but 
all it does is say that you do not need a warrant to listen to foreign 
communications by foreigners who are in foreign countries. That is all 
it says. But it is critical that we make this change, and it is 
critical that we make this change immediately.
  I would say to my colleagues and to those Members of congressional 
staffs who are monitoring the proceedings on the floor here today, I 
have served in this Congress for 9 years. I served as a United States 
Air Force officer for 7 years and on the national security staff at the 
White House for 2. In my 9 years in the Congress, I have never been 
more concerned about Congress's failure to act than I am today.
  This is absolutely critical to the country to fix, and the only 
people that can fix it are Members of the United States Congress. We 
cannot work

[[Page 20558]]

around this law. We have to fix this law, and it is squarely in our 
laps to fix it.
  The leadership on both sides of the aisle and the Committee on 
Intelligence on both sides of the aisle have been briefed in detail 
about the problems our intelligence community is facing, that we have 
blinded them and forced them to stick their fingers in their ears 
because of anomalies in technology that have changed faster than we 
have been willing to change the law. And every one of us knows that it 
has already imperiled American lives. And yet this House sits here and 
does nothing, absolutely nothing, when we know that lives are at risk. 
We must allow our intelligence agencies to monitor terrorist 
communications without a warrant in the United States when they are 
listening to foreign communications.
  How the heck did we get ourselves in this place in the first place? 
In 1978, almost all long-haul communications were over the air, and for 
foreign intelligence collection, you didn't need a warrant; almost all 
short-haul communications, local calls, were over a wire, and you did.
  Now, because the technology has changed, the situation is completely 
reversed. Almost all local calls are over the air. There are 230 
million cell phones in this country. But that is not where the foreign 
intelligence is. Now almost all long-haul communications are over a 
wire, and we are forcing our intelligence agencies to go to judges to 
get probable cause on some terrorist who is overseas communicating with 
another terrorist overseas just because the point of the wiretap is in 
the United States. This is stupid and it is imperiling American lives.
  The danger is very serious. The Director of National Intelligence, 
Mr. McConnell, testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee 
recently that ``We are actually missing a significant portion of what 
we should be getting.''
  We all remember where we were the morning of 9/11. We remember whom 
we were with, what we were wearing, what we had for breakfast. But I 
wager nobody in this room remembers where they were when the British 
Government arrested 16 terrorists who were within 48 hours of walking 
onto airliners at Heathrow and blowing them up over the Atlantic. That 
happened a year ago in August. Within 48 hours, they were within 48 
hours, and the tragedy would have been greater than on 9/11. It didn't 
happen and you don't remember it because American, British, and 
Pakistani intelligence detected the plot before it was carried out.
  I have pleaded with my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee and 
with the leadership on both sides of the aisle in this House, and I 
pray to God that we will not need another 9/11 Commission after another 
national tragedy and they will be looking back and saying, Why didn't 
the Congress do something? They knew and they failed to act.
  Today you have an opportunity to insist that this body act because we 
do know we are failing to protect this country.
  I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and to 
immediately consider amendments to the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman's 
passion and concern. We are all very concerned for the safety of our 
country.
  But I think it is critical that we not forget the reason we are here 
today. We are here to debate a rule which is very concerned, which 
deals with a balanced approach to making our country safer 
domestically, to being concerned with putting more police officers on 
the street, for increasing funding for Drug Corps, for increasing 
funding for science and NASA. That is what we are here to do today. 
That is what we are here to debate, and I would strongly urge passage 
of this ruling.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Lampson).
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me this morning for this rule.
  I first want to thank the members of the committee and the 
subcommittee for their hard work on this very important bill, 
particularly including the part concerning NASA, which I want to speak 
about for just a minute. Chairman Obey and Chairman Mollohan have been 
tremendously dedicated to assisting me and making good things happen. I 
applaud them.
  Mr. Speaker, my district includes NASA's Johnson Space Center, the 
crown jewel of the Nation's space program. The Johnson Space Center 
serves as a key component of the southeast Texas economy, employing the 
best and brightest minds who serve as leaders in the sciences, 
education, business, and human space exploration, not to mention the 
important roles they and their families play in our local communities. 
I will aggressively champion the work and dedication of these 
hardworking Americans and the many benefits they bring to all of our 
districts and our country.
  Mr. Speaker, when we talk about fiscal responsibility and doing our 
best to practice good government, we must be mindful of programs that 
are important to fund, those that return more on the taxpayer dollar 
and are wise investments. And I can think of no better example than 
investing in our future and the future of NASA. Over the years, the 
math shows that every dollar invested in the space program is returned 
exponentially in the form of new products, new technologies, and new 
businesses. Relative to our entire Federal budget, NASA dollars' share 
comes to less than 1 percent, about six- or seven-tenths of a percent. 
By comparison, Americans spend over $45 billion a year on soft drinks.
  NASA research and technologies have provided law enforcement with 
advanced equipment to detect suspicious liquids and substances, 
protective gear for chemical analysis, safer oxygen tanks for 
firefighters, equipment to treat children's cancer, improved cardiac 
care techniques, advanced aircraft technology for safer commercial 
flights, satellite technology to improve our understanding of the 
Earth's climate, and more accurate weather forecasting to better 
protect us from natural disasters.
  So for less than one-third of our national soft drink budget, NASA 
pushes the boundaries of the final frontier, creating commerce, 
assisting with education, increasing our economic competitiveness, 
enhancing health care, monitoring climate change, building stronger 
bonds with our allies, and ensuring the survival of the human race.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I kindly ask my colleagues, take a good look at the 
myriad ways NASA has benefited our great Nation. For me and for many of 
the folks who work at NASA and on NASA matters on a day-to-day basis, 
this isn't a Republican or Democratic issue; it is a matter of keeping 
America at the top of the space race and continuing the unparalleled 
legacy of achievement that so many NASA employees and partners have 
achieved.

                              {time}  1215

  So I look forward to continuing to work with the committee members, 
the conferees and all my colleagues to increase NASA funding. I 
appreciate the work of the Rules Committee, and I ask all of our 
colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Let me talk about this process of defeating the previous question so 
we can take up the amendment regarding the FISA Act.
  This does not slow down the process at all. I want to repeat that, 
Mr. Speaker; this does not slow down the process at all. It simply 
makes in order, with the appropriate waivers, to discuss the amendment 
that was described by Mrs. Wilson from New Mexico.
  This is a very, very serious issue. It has been described by a number 
of people how important this is to our Intelligence Community. And by 
definition, it falls into the area of secure knowledge. But for those 
that are on the committees of jurisdiction, those that hear this on a 
regular basis, we need to act on it sooner than later. And we can act 
on it today without slowing down

[[Page 20559]]

the process whatsoever by defeating the previous question, voting 
``no'' on the previous question.
  I will be submitting an amendment that will be made in order, with 
the appropriate waivers, and we can debate the issue. It sounds to me, 
Mr. Speaker, that there is strong bipartisan support in order to 
achieve this end that has been described. We have the opportunity to do 
it now. We ought to do it before the August recess.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I am asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question. By defeating the previous question, we will give 
Members the ability to vote today on the merits of changing current law 
to ensure our Intelligence Community has the tools that they need to 
help protect our Nation from a potentially imminent terrorist attack.
  And with that, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the 
text of the amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, the Appropriations Committee has presented 
us with a bill that will provide funding agencies related to Commerce, 
Justice and Science for the fiscal year 2008.
  The bill contains a higher overall allocation than was requested by 
the President, but with very good reason. By all measures this bill 
will have a real, tangible impact on all Americans, improving their 
daily lives in many ways. It funds the Economic Development 
Administration, Weed & Seed program, prescription drug monitoring, 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science 
Foundation, NASA, the Census Bureau, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and 
community-oriented police services.
  And I would just like to mention in that regard, from a personal 
perspective, in my community in which I live, there is a small police 
department, 20 officers; that as a result of the community-oriented 
police in New Hartford, New York, they were able to get three 
additional police officers, increase their technology significantly. 
That's a 15 percent increase in officers to that department. The COPS 
program makes our streets safer.
  The Drug Corps program is a phenomenal program that this bill will 
continue to fund. And I would urge any of my colleagues in Congress to 
someday sit through a Drug Corps graduation program. When they see 
that, and they see the testimonies of the people who have finished, and 
listen to their families talk about how devastating drug addiction has 
been to their family and how this program has helped them, they would 
strongly support this bill and strongly support the Drug Corps program.
  In short, H.R. 3093 provides critical funding for programs that keep 
our streets safe, our economy prosperous, and allows our scientists to 
continue studying global warming and climate change.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a vote of ``yes'' on the previous 
question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 562 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution insert the following:
       Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, it shall be in order to consider the amendment 
     printed in section 5 of this resolution if offered by 
     Representative Hoekstra of Michigan or his designee. All 
     points of order against consideration of the amendment 
     printed in section 5 are waived.
       Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as 
     follows:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following: Subsection (f) of section 101 of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801) is 
     amended to read as follows--
       `(f) `Electronic surveillance' means--
       `(1) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, 
     or other surveillance device for acquiring information by 
     intentionally directing surveillance at a particular known 
     person who is reasonably believed to be in the United States 
     under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable 
     expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for 
     law enforcement purposes; or
       `(2) the intentional acquisition of the contents of any 
     communication under circumstances in which a person has a 
     reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be 
     required for law enforcement purposes, if both the sender and 
     all intended recipients are reasonably believed to be located 
     within the United States.'.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution ..... [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on 
ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-minute votes on 
adoption of the resolution (if ordered); and suspending the rules with 
respect to H.R. 2929; H. Res. 345; and H. Con. Res. 187.

[[Page 20560]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 195, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 716]

                               YEAS--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Baker
     Bishop (UT)
     Carson
     Clarke
     Cole (OK)
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Israel
     LaHood
     Marshall
     Melancon
     Murtha
     Stark
     Wamp
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1243

  Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. HELLER of Nevada and Mrs. MUSGRAVE changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. MARKEY, BOUCHER and MATHESON changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________