[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8316-8374]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2016

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 287 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. 2578.
  Will the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  1900


                     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. 2578) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Westmoreland (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
an amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) had been 
disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 25, line 20.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, for reimbursement of expenses of the 
     Department of Justice associated with processing cases under 
     the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to 
     exceed $8,000,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Trust Fund.

               salaries and expenses, antitrust division

       For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and 
     kindred laws, $162,246,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, 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 
     (and estimated to be $124,000,000 in fiscal year 2016), shall 
     be retained and used for necessary expenses in this 
     appropriation, and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the 
     general fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections 
     are received during fiscal year 2016, so as to result in a 
     final fiscal year 2016 appropriation from the general fund 
     estimated at $38,246,000.

             salaries and expenses, united states attorneys

       For necessary expenses of the Offices of the United States 
     Attorneys, including inter-governmental and cooperative 
     agreements, $1,995,000,000: Provided, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $7,200 shall be available 
     for official reception and representation expenses: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $25,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That each United 
     States Attorney shall establish or participate in a task 
     force on human trafficking.

                   united states trustee system fund

       For necessary expenses of the United States Trustee 
     Program, as authorized, $225,908,000, to remain available 
     until expended and to be derived from the United States 
     Trustee System Fund: Provided, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, deposits to the Fund shall be 
     available in such amounts as may be necessary to pay refunds 
     due depositors: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, $162,000,000 of offsetting 
     collections pursuant to section 589a(b) of title 28, United 
     States Code, shall be retained and used for necessary 
     expenses in this appropriation and shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated from the Fund shall be reduced as such 
     offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 2016, 
     so as to result in a final fiscal year 2016 appropriation 
     from the Fund estimated at $63,908,000.

      salaries and expenses, foreign claims settlement commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the 
     Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, including services as 
     authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     $2,326,000.

                     fees and expenses of witnesses

       For fees and expenses of witnesses, for expenses of 
     contracts for the procurement and supervision of expert 
     witnesses, for private counsel expenses, including advances, 
     and for expenses of foreign counsel, $270,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which not to exceed $16,000,000 
     is for construction of buildings for protected witness 
     safesites; not to exceed $3,000,000 is for the purchase and 
     maintenance of armored and other vehicles for witness 
     security caravans; and not to exceed $13,000,000 is for the 
     purchase, installation, maintenance, and upgrade of secure 
     telecommunications equipment and a secure

[[Page 8317]]

     automated information network to store and retrieve the 
     identities and locations of protected witnesses: Provided, 
     That amounts made available under this heading may not be 
     transferred pursuant to section 205 of this Act.

           salaries and expenses, community relations service

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service, 
     $13,000,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section 205 of 
     this Act, upon a determination by the Attorney General that 
     emergent circumstances require additional funding for 
     conflict resolution and violence prevention activities of the 
     Community Relations Service, the Attorney General may 
     transfer such amounts to the Community Relations Service, 
     from available appropriations for the current fiscal year for 
     the Department of Justice, as may be necessary to respond to 
     such circumstances: Provided further, That any transfer 
     pursuant to the preceding proviso shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming under section 505 of this Act and shall not be 
     available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.

                     United States Marshals Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals 
     Service, $1,220,000,000, of which not to exceed $6,000 shall 
     be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses, and not to exceed $15,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended.

                              construction

       For construction in space controlled, occupied or utilized 
     by the United States Marshals Service for prisoner holding 
     and related support, $11,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                       federal prisoner detention

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses related to United States prisoners 
     in the custody of the United States Marshals Service as 
     authorized by section 4013 of title 18, United States Code, 
     $1,058,081,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be considered ``funds 
     appropriated for State and local law enforcement assistance'' 
     pursuant to section 4013(b) of title 18, United States Code: 
     Provided further, That the United States Marshals Service 
     shall be responsible for managing the Justice Prisoner and 
     Alien Transportation System: Provided further, That any 
     unobligated balances available from funds appropriated under 
     the heading ``General Administration, Detention Trustee'' 
     shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation 
     under this heading.

                       National Security Division

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the 
     National Security Division, $95,000,000, of which not to 
     exceed $5,000,000 for information technology systems shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding section 205 of this Act, upon a determination 
     by the Attorney General that emergent circumstances require 
     additional funding for the activities of the National 
     Security Division, the Attorney General may transfer such 
     amounts to this heading from available appropriations for the 
     current fiscal year for the Department of Justice, as may be 
     necessary to respond to such circumstances: Provided further, 
     That any transfer pursuant to the preceding proviso shall be 
     treated as a reprogramming under section 505 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.

                      Interagency Law Enforcement

                 interagency crime and drug enforcement

       For necessary expenses for the identification, 
     investigation, and prosecution of individuals associated with 
     the most significant drug trafficking and affiliated money 
     laundering organizations not otherwise provided for, to 
     include inter-governmental agreements with State and local 
     law enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and 
     prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug 
     trafficking, $510,000,000, of which $50,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That any amounts 
     obligated from appropriations under this heading may be used 
     under authorities available to the organizations reimbursed 
     from this appropriation.

                    Federal Bureau of Investigation

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation for detection, investigation, and prosecution 
     of crimes against the United States, $8,489,786,000, of which 
     not to exceed $216,900,000 shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $184,500 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses.

                              {time}  1900


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Pittenger

  Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 32, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 72, line 7, after each of the dollar amounts, insert 
     ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership 
and hard work on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple, it is fair, it is fiscally 
responsible, and it strengthens our national security. My amendment 
reduces Federal spending for the Legal Services Corporation by $25 
million while leaving the program substantially intact. That money is 
then used to increase funds for the FBI in their critical 
counterterrorism efforts.
  The underlying bill appropriates $300 million for the LSC, but 
Congress has not authorized the LSC since 1980. Mr. Chairman, 35 years 
is much too long to leave a Federal program on autopilot. Even the 
nonpartisan CBO has recognized defunding the LSC is a way to rein in 
our out-of-control spending, noting that programs receiving LSC grants 
already receive funding from States, localities, and private entities, 
as well as from private attorneys involved in pro bono work. Community 
problems are best solved at the community level, not through the 
Federal bureaucracy.
  This amendment, however, does not suddenly end LSC and its programs. 
It simply reduces funding in a responsible and modest way and applies 
that money toward critical national security efforts. This amendment 
prioritizes the spending of taxpayer money on our current needs.
  Earlier this year, FBI Director James Comey said he has ``homegrown 
violent extremist investigations in every single State.'' Just last 
month, the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Secretary 
Johnson, said: ``We're very definitely in a new environment because of 
ISIL's effective use of social media, the Internet, which has the 
ability to reach into the homeland and possibly inspire others.'' He 
continued, saying, ``Because of the use of the Internet, we could have 
little or no notice in advance of an independent actor attempting to 
strike.'' But in a congressionally mandated report released in March of 
this year, the FBI Commissioner said, budget cuts ``severely hindered 
the FBI's intelligence and national security programs.''
  Mr. Chairman, given the constant, evolving, and new threats we face 
today from terrorism, it is common sense to reduce spending for a 
program which has other proven avenues of funding and prioritize the 
funding we do have for those seeking to protect us from terrorism.
  I encourage all my colleagues to support the amendment, and with 
that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hudson). The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee, over the time that I have been on the 
committee, each and every year has increased its appropriations to the 
FBI, and this year is no exception. The chairman, in his wisdom, 
working with a very tough allocation, has provided $8.5 billion--to be 
exact, $8.489 billion, which is a $111 million increase.
  I think that the gentleman, if his concern is about us providing 
adequate funding for the Bureau, can rest assured that the committee 
has taken every--they have taken that responsibility very seriously.
  If his concern or effort is to suggest that somehow pro bono lawyers 
are going to make up the difference for a cut at Legal Services, in a 
big city like Philadelphia, it may be so that we have law firms who can 
have pro bono partners who can spend their time helping people who are 
not going to be able to pay them, but in large swaths of our country, 
that is not the case.
  Legal Services was created and it helps people, many of whom are 
veterans, for instance, who are stationed

[[Page 8318]]

far away from home, who have to fight off efforts by people who are 
trying to repossess a car or do something else nefarious. They need 
access to the courts. And so it was President Nixon who created Legal 
Services, understanding that one of the things about our country, it is 
a country of laws. People have to have access to the courts, and they 
need representation.
  So I think there is already a justice gap, that is the percentage of 
people eligible to the numbers who are actually able to be helped, and 
I think this would be unwise. I hope and I believe that this House will 
not support this amendment because it would be taking from people who 
need it the most when there is no definitive need for it in terms of 
where it is being allocated.
  Mr. Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee, 
Congressman Cohen, my colleague who represents the city of Memphis.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Fattah. I join with him in 
opposing this amendment.
  Legal Services is funded at $375 million this year. This budget cuts 
it $75 million to $300 million. That is a large cut. That is over 20 
percent. It has been cut and cut and cut over the years.
  Nationally, 50 percent of all eligible potential clients are turned 
away from Legal Services because of a lack of funding. In my district 
in Memphis, they have lost $300,000, and the staff has been reduced 
from 50 to 38.
  Mr. Chairman, when we travel overseas, one of the things that almost 
every individual you meet up with tells us about America is, We envy 
your justice system. They envy our justice system because people have 
access to the courts to settle our differences.
  But if you are poor and/or uneducated and you don't have a lawyer, 
you don't have access, really, to the legal system; the other side 
will. If you are a domestic violence victim and you need an attorney 
and you don't have one, you are subject to further domestic violence. 
If you are a tenant in an apartment building and you are being run out, 
the apartment people are going to have attorneys and you won't, and you 
will be on the street.
  So we are talking about victims, domestic victims. We are talking 
about people being homeless. We are talking about individuals, American 
citizens, who won't have access to the courts, the envy of people 
around the world when they look at America, and we will be taking it 
away from them.
  I would ask the gentleman to find moneys for the FBI from somewhere 
else. The FBI helps bring about justice. But to take it away from an 
area that gives poor people of America justice--even though it does 
give money to the FBI to find criminals and hopefully bring justice to 
them on the criminal side, which is important--this is not the right 
place to take the money.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the spirit.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the time of both my 
colleagues. I want to recognize the extraordinary commitment that my 
colleague, Mr. Pittenger, has made to counterterrorism and trying to 
protect the safety and security of the United States.
  I will say, though, Mr. Chairman, I did work as a legal aid attorney, 
a legal aid volunteer many years ago when I was a law student. We spent 
countless hours trying to keep a roof over the head of tenants who were 
being kicked out of their home through no fault of their own because a 
landlord wasn't paying a mortgage. Now, you had people who were going 
homeless because they did nothing wrong but couldn't avail themselves 
of an attorney.
  To try to find, now, ways to gut that funding when, with low interest 
rates--one of the key methods of funding for Legal Services across this 
country is from interest on lawyer's trust accounts. Because of low 
interest rates, that funding has been basically nonexistent. In 
Massachusetts, that went from about $34 million a year down to $4 
million a year.
  We are gutting a very basic tenet of what this country is all about. 
We spend so much time in these Chambers, Mr. Chairman, talking about 
how these laws are shaped to touch people's lives and very little time 
speaking about the enforcement and protections that they provide. Mr. 
Chairman, this is that moment, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' 
on the amendment.
  MR. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PITTENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge the wonderful work of Mr. Kennedy and 
what he has done with Legal Services. I would say that Legal Services, 
frankly, has had a long and troubled history of using taxpayer money 
for political purposes.
  An LSC-affiliated agency once used Federal tax dollars to produce 
pamphlets and political cartoons for political advocacy purposes. Tax 
dollars were also used to train activists on how to lobby Congress for 
additional funding. The LSC is marked by misuse of taxpayer money and 
redundancy, as many of these programs are offered, as well, by the 
States.
  So I don't question that there is good work that is being done, but 
at the same time, I think it is prudent and logical that we look and 
see how this money is not being used wisely and, frankly, been 
inappropriately used.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very modest cut in this agency. I 
commend this amendment to the House and ask for their support, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              construction

       For necessary expenses, to include the cost of equipment, 
     furniture, and information technology requirements, related 
     to construction or acquisition of buildings, facilities and 
     sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law; 
     conversion, modification and extension of Federally-owned 
     buildings; preliminary planning and design of projects; and 
     operation and maintenance of secure work environment 
     facilities and secure networking capabilities; $57,982,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                    Drug Enforcement Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character pursuant 
     to section 530C of title 28, United States Code; and expenses 
     for conducting drug education and training programs, 
     including travel and related expenses for participants in 
     such programs and the distribution of items of token value 
     that promote the goals of such programs, $2,073,945,000; of 
     which not to exceed $75,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended and not to exceed $90,000 shall be available for 
     official reception and representation expenses.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk concerning 
rape kits.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 33, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 49, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment would increase by $4 million the bill's funding for 
grants to address the backlog of sexual assault kits at law enforcement 
agencies.
  DNA analysis has been revolutionary in helping to catch criminals and 
prevent crimes from occurring because of

[[Page 8319]]

DNA evidence. This evidence does us no good if it remains untested and 
sitting on a shelf in a lab somewhere.
  Despite progress over the last few years, and much progress most 
recently, there are still thousands of rape kits that remain untested--
potentially hundreds of thousands. That is potentially hundreds of 
thousands of victims whose assailants are never brought to justice left 
to prey on yet more women.
  Last year, my hometown paper, the Memphis Commercial Appeal, 
highlighted the tragic need to end this backlog once and for all. It 
described a serial rapist who was finally caught by police in 2012. He 
could have been stopped nearly a decade earlier if only his first 
victim's rape kit had been tested, but that kit wasn't, and, instead, 
he was able to attack five more women over the next 8 years.
  Missed opportunities like this happen all across our country every 
day. The trauma inflicted on victims of rape can be compounded when 
they know that their assailants run free while critical evidence goes 
untested.
  Fortunately, efforts are underway to reduce the backlog, and they are 
making a difference. In Memphis, our backlog reached more than 12,000, 
but police have now opened 488 investigations and issued 90 requests 
for indictment.
  But testing rape kits cost money, more than local law enforcement can 
afford. I appreciate the chairman's and the ranking member's commitment 
to eliminating the backlog and the funding that the committee has 
provided in the bill, but we need more.
  This amendment would increase by not quite 10 percent, an additional 
$4 million, and would take it from the Drug Enforcement Administration, 
a $2 billion agency that receives a $40 million increase in this bill. 
DEA would barely notice the difference.
  Moreover, DEA has been alarmingly irresponsible with money Congress 
has given it previously. An inspector general report recently found 
that DEA agents had ``sex parties'' with prostitutes funded by drug 
cartels in government-leased living quarters. And this followed an 
inspector general report that found the DEA paid hundreds of thousands 
of dollars for information from Amtrak that they could have obtained 
for free.
  I think the choice is clear: we should stand with victims of sexual 
assault.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment. It is so important that 
these kits are tested, that the assailants are brought to justice, and 
that additional women are not attacked by what are known to be serial 
rapists who are out on the streets.
  I would like to say a thank you to my partner on this amendment, 
Representative Carolyn Maloney, who has been a tireless advocate on 
this issue as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although 
I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Westmoreland). Without objection, the gentleman 
from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman is exactly 
right. We, in the bill, have increased funding to reduce the rape kit 
backlog. This is a vitally important tool that local police departments 
are using to get these people off the streets as quickly as possible.
  I accept the gentleman's amendment. There is no punishment severe 
enough nor swift enough for these people. I think it is very, very 
important that we get these rape kits handled as quickly as possible, 
so I urge Members to support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, we made some significant progress, but more 
needs to be done. I want to thank the gentleman for his amendment. The 
committee has made this a very high priority. I thank the chairman for 
his leadership in this regard. We are all in concurrence here.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the chairman, 
particularly, and the ranking member as well, for their help and their 
hard work on getting the moneys passed and for helping on this 
amendment.
  These rapists don't know State lines, and they cross State lines, so 
it is most appropriate that the Federal Government help the locals in 
finding people that perform these dastardly acts all over our country.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Ted Lieu of California

  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 33, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.
       Page 38, line 9, after the dollar amount insert 
     (``increased by $4,000,000'').
       Page 38, line 24, after the dollar amount insert 
     (``increased by $4,000,000'').
       Page 47, line 8, after the dollar amount insert 
     (``increased by $3,000,000'').

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Chairman, this amendment takes $9 
million out of the DEA's $2 billion salaries and expense budget and 
redirects it toward deficit reduction, as well as underfunded State and 
local programs to help children who suffer through child abuse, 
domestic abuse, and sexual assault.
  This amendment has been scored by the CBO as reducing budget 
authority by $2 million and reducing outlays by $6 million in fiscal 
year 2016.
  In the face of overwhelming support for lessening restrictions on 
marijuana, the DEA still spends over $18 million a year on domestic 
marijuana eradication programs. This simply takes some of that money 
away because some States have legalized it, making some of these 
eradication programs no longer necessary, and it redirects the money--
$2 million to lowering the deficit, $3 million to the Victims of Child 
Abuse Act, which supports justice and support for victims of child 
abuse, and $4 million to the Consolidated Youth Oriented program, which 
helps victims and the services they need to pursue safe and healthy 
lives.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although 
I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has a good 
amendment, and I would encourage Members to support it.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I concur.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Castro of Texas

  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 33, line 5, after the 1st dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 49, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.

[[Page 8320]]


  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the 
chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this bill.
  My amendment would add $10 million to the Community Trust Initiative 
account for police body-worn cameras, and would take those $10 million 
from the DEA account for salaries and expenses.
  Over the last several months, we have seen more and more encounters 
between members of our communities and law enforcement that have been 
too powerful to ignore. We have seen in those recordings instances of 
police abuse. We have seen instances where police were justified in the 
use of force. We have even seen instances where police went above and 
beyond doing their job.
  Mr. Chairman, over the last two decades or so, something changed--two 
things, in fact.
  First, we developed a technology so that basically each of us who 
walks around with a cell phone camera is a social documentarian of the 
things going on around us.
  The second thing that changed is the advent of social media, which 
allowed people not only to document their experiences, but also to 
widely distribute what they have documented to this country and to the 
world. Because of that, we have gotten a better indication of the 
interaction between law enforcement and members of our community.
  In this digital age, we have a responsibility to seek and to know the 
truth about those encounters. Local police departments, many of them--
in fact, 25 percent of the 17,000 police agencies in this country--are 
already using body cameras. Many more in States all over our Nation are 
seeking the funds to do this.
  The President of the United States asked for $50 million to allow 
local grants and moneys for local agencies to afford these body cameras 
and for the storage to make sure that they can keep that evidence.
  As you all know, this is a very expensive thing, and many departments 
have struggled with the funds to afford these things. So in the budget 
that has been proposed, the amount proposed is not $50 million, but $15 
million. This $10 million would simply bring us back up to half of what 
the President has requested at $25 million.
  I will also add that this is very popular among the American people: 
86 percent of Americans--Republicans and Democrats, people of every 
race and ethnicity, in every community across the country--support 
increased use of body cameras for officers. Even the association of 
police chiefs in our country supports this also.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although 
I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage Members to support it. 
The gentleman has a good amendment. I think the Community Trust 
Initiative program that we have created in the bill will rebuild that 
bond of trust between police officers and their community by making 
sure that these body cameras are available. My good friend from Texas--
Texas was the first State in the Union to pass a State law that says 
when, where, and how this data from the body cameras can be used. State 
Senator Royce West from Dallas passed that legislation. I had a chance 
to talk to him during the legislative session about a month and a half 
ago, talk to him about this, and I said: If you will pass this law in 
Texas and other States will pass it, my good friend, Mr. Fattah, and I, 
we made sure that the language in our bill follows State law. The State 
law in Georgia, the State law in Pennsylvania, in Texas, et cetera, 
will decide when, where, and how this data can be accessed by 
attorneys, by victims, and make sure it is not given to the media. 
State law will control that. It is a good program and a good amendment, 
and I encourage Members to support it.
  I am happy to yield to my good friend from Philadelphia.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and I thank the 
gentleman from Texas for offering this amendment. I also support it. We 
have already put some dollars available for this purpose, but adding 
another additional $10 million gets us closer to the goal that we want 
to seek in this effort, so I thank the gentleman.
  We have got a circumstance here where we are in total agreement and 
on one accord.
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his 
foresight and thank him for his work on this. I also want to thank a 
few folks: Congressmen Cleaver, Clay; Dana Rohrabacher, who was with me 
on this; Congressmen Schweikert, John Lewis, and Donald Norcross. 
Congressman Norcross did a lot of work on this in New Jersey. So thank 
you very much.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 33, line 5, after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.
       Page 72, line 7, after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We just had an amendment on the floor and the amendment took $25 
million from Legal Services. I had several amendments to file, and they 
went from $5 million for legal services up to $35 million. So what I 
thought might be the equitable thing to do would be, instead of going 
with the $35 million, which would have just been half of the cut, take 
the $25 million that Mr. Pittenger wanted to take away from them, take 
it away from the amendment that would have been best, the $35 million 
increase, and go for a $10 million increase, which would, in essence, 
be Mr. Pittenger's amendment against the amendment which would be a 
best practices that I would have recommended increasing $35 million.

                              {time}  1930

  This amendment would restore $10 million to the devastating cuts to 
Legal Services. Legal Services in 1995 was funded at $400 million. Just 
on inflationary dollars, today, that $400 million would be $600 
million; yet, in this budget, Legal Services would be funded at $300 
million, half of what it would be based on 1995 figures adjusted for 
inflation.
  We are proud of our legal system, and we are known for it all around 
the globe, but it can be complex. With all of the problems we have with 
the legal language, let alone just languages that we have in this 
Nation, it is too difficult for people to represent themselves in 
court.
  There is a saying: ``He who represents himself as a lawyer has a fool 
for a client.'' People need professional legal aid to get through the 
maze of the justice system. If you are poor in this country--and most 
people are--if you are uneducated--and many are--and scared when you go 
to court, you are not going to be able to successfully work against a 
private attorney on the other side. It just takes away from the whole 
idea of equal justice under the law.
  I talked earlier about domestic violence. There are ladies--and 
sometimes men--who need protective orders from abusive partners or 
seniors who have been victimized by fraudulent lenders as well. Legal 
assistance is vital to ensuring that these parties are treated fairly 
and are aware of their rights. That is why I am a champion of the Legal 
Services Corporation, which helps fund legal aid programs throughout 
the country.
  This bill, as I say, cuts $75 million, which would make many people 
in the Nation not have representation and unable to pursue justice. 
Nearly 50 percent of all eligible potential clients are

[[Page 8321]]

turned away from legal services nationally, and it has hurt people all 
over this country.
  The attorneys do heroic work, and there are serious consequences for 
reducing the funding to these folks. Unless we ensure legal assistance, 
we effectively shut the courthouse doors to many who won't be able to 
protect their rights.
  The decrease would come from the DEA. Again, the DEA has had 
numerous, numerous problems with agents who have gone rogue and have 
done things that you shouldn't do anywhere, least of all when you are a 
DEA agent representing our country. The funding in the hands of Legal 
Services could change the lives of thousands of people who need legal 
representation.
  This amendment is $25 million less than what I would have like to 
have gotten with the $35 million amendment, but I will take that. If we 
can get the 10, hopefully, Mr. Pittenger will be happy with the 25 cut 
from the 35 that we should have gotten, in my opinion, on top to 
restore the 75 that we have lost.
  Representatives Quigley, Castor, Schrader, and Joe Kennedy have all 
helped on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, once again, I rise in support of the Legal 
Services Corporation.
  This is an organization that is the major source of funding for legal 
aid offices all across this country. The funding, as my colleague 
indicated, has not kept pace with need, inflation, or reality.
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman--and I have seen as a legal 
aid volunteer in the courtrooms and then again as a prosecutor the 
impact of adequate legal representation. I spent hours and hours, along 
with other volunteers, trying to ensure that citizens of this country 
who, through no fault of their own, are being victimized by large 
interests or by folks who did know how to navigate the legal system 
could have adequate representation in the courts.
  Mr. Chairman, inside these halls, we debate with great vigor and 
great detail the nuances to every single piece of legislation, yet 
spend far too little time discussing the impact of how that is going to 
be enforced after it becomes law. That is what the Legal Services 
Corporation does.
  The fact is, in many ways, another source of funding for Legal 
Services is through the interest on lawyers' trusts accounts, IOLTA 
funding. With low interest rates over the course of past several years, 
that funding has been devastated.
  In Massachusetts alone, that used to be about $34 million a year 
through a separate fund that has been reduced to $4 million. The fact 
of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that Legal Services has already been 
decimated at a time when more and more people need to understand that 
they have access to a fair and just legal system. That is what this 
amendment seeks to do.
  That is why I am proud to support it, and I ask my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the Drug Enforcement Agency does 
extraordinarily important work in targeting high-level drug trafficking 
organizations--disrupting and dismantling them, attacking the economic 
basis of the drug trade, and contributing to counterterrorism 
activities that are tied to and financed by drugs.
  We have seen the absolute anarchy in northern Mexico. Mexico is a 
failed state. The northern part of the state is a complete disaster. We 
have got utter lawlessness along the Texas border, the southwest 
border, so it is so important that the DEA be given the resources that 
they need to do their job.
  I understand the concern about the Legal Services Corporation. I will 
be filing legislation to give attorneys a dollar-for-dollar deduction 
in their taxes for services that they donate to the poor. I think it is 
a far better way to get at the concern that we all have that legal 
services be provided to the poor by doing that through the Tax Code 
rather than by appropriating our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars. 
The DEA has a very, very important job to do.
  As for the concerns that the gentleman has raised and that I have 
heard other people raise about some of the activities of some senior 
level folks at the DEA, we have withheld money from the Department of 
Justice in our bill specifically to encourage the new Attorney General 
to discipline those high-level DEA officials who were involved in that 
embarrassing and disgraceful episode that we saw take place in Colombia 
that the inspector general uncovered.
  That kind of behavior is not acceptable, and they should all be 
fired, and we have encouraged the new Attorney General to do so 
immediately. However, I think the taking of additional money from the 
DEA is a bad idea, and I do encourage my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment. I will also point out that we have an initial $43 million in 
this bill for violence against women programs, specifically for legal 
assistance for domestic violence victims.
  I do urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment in order to 
protect the vital role that the DEA plays in the war on drugs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, let me be clear. This does not cut the DEA. 
It only reduces the amount of money it was increased by in the budget, 
and it was increased by something like $40 million in a $2 billion 
budget. It would take $10 million, which would make a big difference to 
Legal Services.
  Once the Rohrabacher-Cohen-Farr amendment passes, they won't be 
messing with States that have legalized medical marijuana, and it will 
give the DEA a lot more time to do the right things they need to do in 
northern Mexico and in other failed states; and as for the states that 
haven't failed, stay out of them.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) for any comments he may have.
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't want anyone to be confused here. On the floor, 
the chairman from the subcommittee and from the full committee has 
said--and I have said it--that we realize that the Legal Services 
Corporation and the shortfall needs to be addressed.
  I believe, before we pass a final bill, it will be addressed. There 
is no possibility that I am going to support a bill that has got $300 
million funding for Legal Services Corporation.
  There is this notion of a $10 million increase on top of a $25 
million cut. I don't want these votes to be viewed as some kind of 
ceiling for Legal Services, and I think we ought to be careful here to 
make sure, as the House is working through this, that we understand 
that the amount that the bill is at now is unacceptable. It has already 
been cut. Taking that cut and adding $10 million back to it is not a 
satisfactory response, notwithstanding the intentions of our colleague 
here.
  We want to address the bigger issue, which is the full funding for 
Legal Services. As we go forward in this effort, I want to make my 
intentions clear that I intend to fight to make sure that we live up to 
our commitment and our responsibilities in terms of fully funding Legal 
Services.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I want to assure my friend from Philadelphia, as we 
get down further into conference, that we have got priorities in the 
bill that we did not have enough money for, and we will work hard with 
you to try to find resources, but let's not take it from the DEA.
  I would urge Members to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise today to support the Cohen 
amendment and urge the House to oppose the excessive cuts to the 
nonprofit and independent Legal Services Corporation.
  Legal Services has a mission to ``provide equal access to the system 
of justice'' in America. It is the most important provider of civil 
legal aid for Americans who cannot afford

[[Page 8322]]

high-priced legal counsel. In fact, legal representation often is out 
of reach for many American families. This amendment will make the lives 
of millions of American families even more challenging. Plus, if you 
take away legal counsel, you also complicate the resolution of disputes 
for businesses and others as well. You all know Legal Services is not a 
Washington-based bureaucratic program. To the contrary, there are legal 
aid attorneys and professionals in every State, with more than 800 
offices. Legal Services' moneys are put to work back home across 
America outside of Washington.
  In my Tampa Bay community, Bay Area Legal Services helps to keep the 
wheels of justice turning for everyone. What type of legal help? 
Foreclosure, consumer assistance, domestic violence. Many of the 
domestic violence victims are simply trying to keep their children safe 
and their families together. Others include veterans returning from 
war, families with housing issues, those that were hit hard by natural 
disasters and are dealing with the aftermath, and families involved in 
child custody disputes. I have seen these advocates in action. Many 
Members of Congress actually refer cases to Legal Services groups in 
our area. They help families navigate the justice system. They also 
boost the economy through avoided costs and swift resolution of 
disputes.
  I would also like to remind my colleagues that Legal Services has 
already undergone significant cuts over the past few years. Funding for 
Legal Services was $420 million in fiscal year 2010. It was cut--
especially after sequestration in 2013--and any further cuts will do 
severe damage. This amendment jeopardizes access to justice and the 
rule of law.
  This year's bill is a destructive step backwards which threatens 
these vital community services by slashing funding by $75 million. This 
is the lowest level of funding since FY 1999. These devastating cuts 
will terminate over 1,000 full time staff including 430 attorney 
positions. Under these draconian cuts, Legal services offices across 
the country will be forced to close 25 offices, complete 150,000 fewer 
cases, and serve 350,000 fewer people.
  In exacting such severe cuts, your advice to families is, ``You can't 
get help''. ``You can't avoid a foreclosure''. ``You can't escape an 
abusive relationship or defend yourself against consumer scams''.
  We cannot allow hundreds of thousands of American veterans, elderly 
victims of foreclosure, and women and children desperate to escape 
domestic violence to be denied assistance.
  So I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the Cohen amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

          Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
     Firearms and Explosives, for training of State and local law 
     enforcement agencies with or without reimbursement, including 
     training in connection with the training and acquisition of 
     canines for explosives and fire accelerants detection; and 
     for provision of laboratory assistance to State and local law 
     enforcement agencies, with or without reimbursement, 
     $1,250,000,000, of which not to exceed $36,000 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses, not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 shall be available for the payment of attorneys' 
     fees as provided by section 924(d)(2) of title 18, United 
     States Code, and not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That none of the funds 
     appropriated herein shall be available to investigate or act 
     upon applications for relief from Federal firearms 
     disabilities under section 925(c) of title 18, United States 
     Code: Provided further, That such funds shall be available to 
     investigate and act upon applications filed by corporations 
     for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under section 
     925(c) of title 18, United States Code: Provided further, 
     That no funds made available by this or any other Act may be 
     used to transfer the functions, missions, or activities of 
     the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to 
     other agencies or Departments.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 33, line 19, insert after the dollar amount ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 42, line 24, insert after the dollar amount 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 46, line 7, insert after the dollar amount 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to stand with the veterans 
throughout the country by offering a simple amendment to bolster funds 
in this act for Veterans Treatment Courts.
  Veterans Treatment Courts promote sobriety and recovery through 
coordinated local partnerships among community corrections agencies, 
drug treatment providers, the judiciary, and other community support 
groups. Veterans Treatment Courts have been extremely successful since 
they were first created in 2008 by a Buffalo judge to combat the 
growing numbers of veterans appearing before the court that were 
addicted to drugs and alcohol, as well as suffering from mental 
illness.
  Many of our Nation's heroes returning from combat are traumatized due 
to the associated violence and pressure of war and often cope with such 
feelings with substance abuse. They need focused treatment and a 
helping hand, and these courts provide such an avenue.
  The alternative to Veterans Treatment Courts is often jail time. I 
think we can all agree that providing treatment for our veterans 
through community partnerships at the local level is a far better 
option than locking them up.
  My amendment pays for this modest increase for this critical 
initiative by reducing funds for the salaries and expenses for the 
overreaching Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives by $5 
million. I offered a very similar amendment last year, which was 
adopted by voice vote.
  The ATF's salaries and expenses are slated to receive an increase of 
$49 million from fiscal year 2015 enacted levels, which would bring the 
total appropriation level to $1.25 billion. My amendment redirects 
funds from bureaucrats in the mismanaged and overzealous ATF to a 
worthy treatment program for our Nation's veterans.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to, once again, show 
their support for the worthwhile program by passing my commonsense 
amendment.
  I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on 
this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment, but I am not opposed to it.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has a good amendment, and 
I encourage the House to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 33, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 42, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 46, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer another amendment to 
this bill, along with my colleague from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), that seeks 
to bolster another important program.

[[Page 8323]]

  First, I reiterate my thanks to the committee for the long hours they 
have dedicated to prioritizing limited resources in order to produce 
this bill, but I simply believe the House should not reward bad 
behavior for that type that the ATF has shown recently. My amendment is 
simple, and it is nearly identical to an amendment I offered last year, 
which was adopted by voice vote.
  The amendment shifts $5 million from the overreaching ATF bureaucrats 
to a worthy and effective program known as the Harold Rogers 
Prescription Drug Monitoring Program.

                              {time}  1945

  You ask why $5 million. Because that amount would bring the 
Prescription Drug Monitoring Program appropriations back to the level 
originally approved by the House last year. The gentleman, Mr. Rogers 
of Kentucky, is the chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, 
and he has been unrelenting on the issue of combating prescription drug 
abuse.
  This problem is truly plaguing our streets, our youth, and our 
communities. Prescription drug abuse is contributing to addiction, 
health deterioration, and even untimely death for too many across our 
country. Prescription drug abuse also fuels the demand for other 
illicit drugs, such as cocaine, methamphetamine, ecstasy, and heroin, 
along with human trafficking, gunrunning, and murder. Much of the 
solicitation activity flows over our southwestern border and into my 
home State of Arizona.
  The primary purpose of the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program is to 
enhance the capacity of regulatory and law enforcement agencies to 
collect and analyze controlled substance prescription data through a 
centralized database administered by an authorized State agency. States 
that have implemented the PDMP can collect and analyze this data much 
more effectively than States in which collection of this data requires 
manual review of pharmacy files.
  It is this body's duty, through the annual appropriations process, to 
evaluate which programs are worthwhile and which ones are not. The 
Prescription Drug Monitoring Program has shown promising results, but 
we must not give up. We must continue to think of our families, our 
friends, and our future generations.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. I thank 
Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Fattah.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am 
not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I support the effort here to increase 
funding for a very important program that is addressing a major problem 
in our country. I divorce myself from the offset, not in terms of the 
actual offset, but in any criticism of the ATF. I think that they have 
some very brave, courageous Americans who are trying to make our 
country safer. I think in lieu of the balancing act here, I support the 
amendment, and I agree with it.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  If I could also point out, actually, the ATF did the right thing 
here. I strenuously disagreed with the ammo ban and had a chance to 
meet with the head of the ATF, as I was the new chairman of the CJS 
Subcommittee, and walked him through the problems he was going to face 
on this House floor with amendments and problems with their budget and 
their spending plan this year.
  He is a patriot, former marine, and a lifelong law enforcement 
officer. He understood they had kind of gone beyond the bounds of the 
statute, so he agreed to drop the ban on .223 ammunition after I had a 
very good heart-to-heart meeting with him, and so ATF did the right 
thing. I think we should encourage good behavior.
  I want to recognize and I want to thank the new head of the ATF for 
doing the right thing and not going after law-abiding Americans' 
constitutional right to possess and use perfectly lawful .223 
ammunition and focus on enforcing the statute, which is designed to 
protect police officers from armor-piercing bullets that can be fired 
from pistols.
  ATF did the right thing here, but I think the gentleman has a good 
amendment. That money is going to a good cause. The Prescription Drug 
Monitoring Program is a good one. I share my colleague's support for 
the amendment. I want to encourage Members to vote for it, but I want 
to be sure the Record reflects that the ATF did the right thing in 
dropping the ammo ban, and I don't expect we are going to see another 
attempt by the ATF to attempt to ban .223 ammunition because the new 
chairman of the CJS Subcommittee will be on them immediately.
  Mr. FATTAH. We are in agreement again, maybe coming to it from 
different angles, but the important thing is we are at a ``yes'' on 
this amendment. The way we all get to these points may be different.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my friend.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Arizona for 
yielding me time to speak on this very important amendment. I want to 
thank him for his leadership.
  Prescription drug abuse has become an epidemic in my home State of 
Arkansas and throughout our country. I am so grateful for people like 
Chief Kirk Lane of Benton, Arkansas, who leads on this issue throughout 
my district.
  Tonight I speak from the well of our beloved House first as a dad, 
and a Congressman second. I have had personal experiences with the 
tragic loss of life that come as a result of prescription drug abuse, 
and many times our children and our loved ones are the ones who are so 
closely affected and impacted.
  My daughter is 18 years old, and she already knows four people in her 
age group who have lost their lives due to the influence of 
prescription drugs and the related impacts. That is tragic.
  I am proud that Arkansas recently passed legislation that gives law 
enforcement investigators access to our State's Prescription Drug 
Monitoring Program. This law in my State will enhance investigative 
capabilities and will give law enforcement investigators better ability 
to bring criminals to justice who are abusing prescription drug 
practices and trying to dump those drugs back on the street.
  This is a serious problem that deserves more of our attention, first 
at our dinner tables, in our schools, and in our capitol buildings. I 
am so proud to support Mr. Gosar's amendment that cuts money from the 
overhead at the ATF and will strengthen these prescription drug 
monitoring activities.
  I thank the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his kind words in 
support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and enter 
into a colloquy.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Blum).
  Mr. BLUM. Mr. Chairman, as a small-business man and a supporter of 
the private sector, I wish to commend the committee for the inclusion 
of report language which states: ``The committee encourages NOAA to 
purchase services from the private sector when such services are 
available, cost effective, and practicable.''
  As my friend from Texas knows, NOAA operates a fleet of survey ships 
for nautical charting as well as a fleet

[[Page 8324]]

of survey aircraft for aerial photography and LIDAR for mapping. 
However, the inspector general of the Department of Commerce has long 
recommended that the aircraft fleet be privatized, as aerial survey 
operations are better, faster, and less expensive when purchased from 
the private sector. In fact, the inspector general found NOAA survey 
operations cost 42 percent more than the private sector, which was then 
confirmed by a second NOAA-commissioned study.
  Rather than accept these cost savings and productivity improvement 
requirements, NOAA has continually acquired new planes, new aerial 
sensors, and new ships. This is not only poor stewardship of taxpayer 
money and inefficient use of resources, but results in the government 
duplicating and directly competing with private enterprise. There are 
numerous companies, including small businesses, ready and able to 
perform these services for NOAA at a reduced cost and increased 
quality.
  I have visited one such private sector mapping firm in my district 
and heard firsthand about how government agencies are engaged in this 
behavior, which hinders private economic growth and job creation.
  My question for the gentleman from Texas is: Regarding the language I 
quoted earlier, is it the intent of the committee to include 
contracting for such surveying and mapping services when there is a 
qualified, capable, and cost-effective solution available in the 
private sector?
  Mr. CULBERSON. I want to thank my colleague from Iowa for raising 
this important point, and the committee does expect NOAA to utilize the 
private sector for these services when they are available and cost 
effective and practicable. I deeply appreciate my friend's interest and 
look forward to continuing to work with him on these issues to ensure 
they are taken care of as we move through the process.
  Mr. BLUM. I thank my friend from Texas and appreciate his hard work 
on this important legislation.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield back the balance of my time.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Byrne

  Mr. BYRNE. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 33, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $250,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, my straightforward amendment would cut the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, by 20 
percent. That would result in $250 million worth of savings.
  Let me make one thing clear. I know that the ATF has an important 
mission to play in keeping our Nation safe and regulating everything 
from firearms to alcohol. That said, in the last few years, we have 
seen an outrageous growth in operations and regulations coming out of 
the ATF.
  How could we forget the Fast and Furious gun trafficking scheme that 
was allowed to go so far offtrack that 2,000 guns were allowed to flow 
to Mexican drug trafficking groups? Worst of all, a Federal law 
enforcement officer was killed with a gun from that operation.
  There was Operation Fearless, where an undercover operation in 
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, went horribly wrong. Convicted felons were given 
access to weapons, the fake storefront was burglarized, and $39,000 in 
merchandise was lost. The ATF even used someone with developmental 
disabilities in the operation and ultimately arrested him for his 
involvement.
  From Wichita, Kansas, to Portland, Oregon, to Atlanta, Georgia, the 
stories of botched operations and inappropriate action just goes on and 
on.
  Then there was the ATF's recent attempt to reclassify common M855 
ammunition as armor piercing, despite its exemption from this 
classification since 1986 for sporting purposes. Thankfully, this 
proposal was dropped after pressure from Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, the people I represent in southwest Alabama are tired 
of a Federal Government that doesn't live within its means. They want 
to see their elected officials in Washington get serious about making 
cuts to the Federal bureaucracy. My constituents also are tired of 
executive overreach and the Federal Government involving itself in 
areas where it simply doesn't belong.
  I know that the committee and Chairman Culberson have made real 
efforts to rein in the ATF, and I appreciate those efforts. I also 
understand that ATF is now under new leadership, and I hope that the 
new leaders get serious about much-needed reforms.
  I am all for safety and responsible gun ownership, and the ATF does 
have a role to play in that, but this amendment would simply require 
ATF to return to its core functions and responsibilities. It would 
cause ATF to look at itself in the mirror, find areas where they can 
cut back, and refocus on their true priorities.
  Ultimately, this amendment is about protecting our Second Amendment 
rights while also pushing for real reforms to Federal spending. I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I do understand the gentleman's concern. 
My constituents and all of us were upset with the ATF's attempt to ban 
.223 ammunition, but they did the right thing: they withdrew the ammo 
ban after I had a heart-to-heart with them. By doing the right thing, I 
think we should reward good behavior.
  I am monitoring them very closely. We have spending plan language in 
our bill that allows the subcommittee to have ongoing oversight over 
not only the ATF and Department of Justice, every agency under our 
jurisdiction has to submit a spending plan to us that is then subjected 
to careful ongoing oversight throughout the year; and if we cut ATF by 
$250 million, they are not able to do all the important work that they 
are now engaged in, and it would really devastate the agency.

                              {time}  2000

  There are a lot of dedicated law enforcement officers in that agency 
that are doing their very best to fight gangs and violent criminals.
  We have visited with the folks at ATF. They are not concerned about 
law-abiding citizens or a gun dealer who is following the law. They are 
focused on the criminal element in the country.
  So I would encourage Members, and I would be happy to work with you 
and share with you the ongoing oversight work that I am doing. I 
encourage you to visit with the new ATF Director. He is a very 
impressive man: a marine and a lifelong law enforcement officer who did 
the right thing here.
  The agency is devoted to protecting Americans' Second Amendment 
rights. As the new chairman, if I ever detect any deviation from that, 
I assure you this son of the South is going to make sure our Second 
Amendment rights are protected.
  I would encourage Members to oppose the amendment. I just don't want 
to see the ATF devastated.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for his superb 
work in this area. We are in great debt to you for all that you have 
done. And I am 100 percent confident you will continue to do that.
  I don't know the new leadership over there. I pray that it is truly 
new leadership. Because what has happened at ATF is simply not 
acceptable. And it is particularly not acceptable when it interferes 
with the Second Amendment rights of the people of the United States of 
America.
  So I thank the gentleman. I know that he will do everything he 
possibly can. I will take him up on his offer to meet the new 
leadership.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I urge Members to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?

[[Page 8325]]


  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. I visited at the ATF headquarters. In looking at their 
work particularly focused on explosives--and their new site in 
Alabama--looking at some of the work that they are doing around the 
country, it is so vitally important that I think at this time in our 
country's history for us to retreat from our commitment to this agency 
would be a very unfortunate and unwise decision.
  So I would hope that the House would vote in opposition to this 
amendment and make sure that as we go forward we can try to address 
whatever the concerns are. But cutting ATF by this amount of money 
would put so many Americans at risk, and I think it would be unwise.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Reclaiming my time, I join my colleague in urging a 
``no'' vote on this amendment, and will, again, work with my colleague 
in making sure the ATF continues to protect the Second Amendment rights 
of Americans.
  There is no greater power the Congress has than the power of the 
purse. I assure you as the new chairman that I am monitoring very, very 
closely to make sure that ATF, FBI, and the Department of Justice 
enforce the law and preserve our Second Amendment Rights.
  Therefore, I urge Members to vote ``no'', and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Buck

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 33, line 25, strike ``none of the'' and insert 
     ``such''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chair, I rise to strike language from this 
appropriations bill that denies hope, denies dignity, and denies 
Americans their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
  When I was district attorney in northern Colorado, a gentleman 
visited my office. He told me a story that I have heard from many, many 
others. He told me that 40 years ago, when he was in college, he gave 
his landlord a bad check. He pled guilty to a felony.
  The past 40 years, he has been a model citizen. He finished college. 
He work hard and raised a family. Now he wants to go hunting with his 
grandchild. He can't because he is a convicted felon.
  The law allows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives to restore this man's right to possess a firearm. The burden 
is on the applicant to prove that he is not a danger. ATF may 
investigate to make sure. This appropriations bill prohibits ATF from 
processing applications, from following the law established by Congress 
30 years ago.
  America is a compassionate country. We restore the right to vote in 
many States, and other rights. There is no good reason to prevent law-
abiding citizens from, at the very least, petitioning ATF to have their 
rights restored.
  The change I am seeking is fair and reasonable, and it is long 
overdue. People who are able to prove to ATF that their possession of a 
firearm would pose no danger to society would finally, after over two 
decades of unfair treatment, be permitted to make their case and have 
their rights restored.
  Not everyone who petitions ATF will have their rights restored. In 
fact, this bill does not intend in any way, shape, or form to allow a 
violent criminal to possess a firearm--only those nonviolent criminals 
that ATF deems are not a danger. Not everyone will have their rights 
restored, but Washington should not get in the way of Americans asking 
for a second chance.
  For these reasons, I respectfully request support for this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         Federal Prison System

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Prison System for the 
     administration, operation, and maintenance of Federal penal 
     and correctional institutions, and for the provision of 
     technical assistance and advice on corrections related issues 
     to foreign governments, $6,951,500,000: Provided, That the 
     Attorney General may transfer to the Department of Health and 
     Human Services such amounts as may be necessary for direct 
     expenditures by that Department for medical relief for 
     inmates of Federal penal and correctional institutions: 
     Provided further, That the Director of the Federal Prison 
     System, where necessary, may enter into contracts with a 
     fiscal agent or fiscal intermediary claims processor to 
     determine the amounts payable to persons who, on behalf of 
     the Federal Prison System, furnish health services to 
     individuals committed to the custody of the Federal Prison 
     System: Provided further, That not to exceed $5,400 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $50,000,000 shall remain 
     available for necessary operations until September 30, 2017: 
     Provided further, That, of the amounts provided for contract 
     confinement, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain available 
     until expended to make payments in advance for grants, 
     contracts and reimbursable agreements, and other expenses: 
     Provided further, That the Director of the Federal Prison 
     System may accept donated property and services relating to 
     the operation of the prison card program from a not-for-
     profit entity which has operated such program in the past, 
     notwithstanding the fact that such not-for-profit entity 
     furnishes services under contracts to the Federal Prison 
     System relating to the operation of pre-release services, 
     halfway houses, or other custodial facilities.

                        buildings and facilities

       For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new 
     facilities; purchase and acquisition of facilities and 
     remodeling, and equipping of such facilities for penal and 
     correctional use, including all necessary expenses incident 
     thereto, by contract or force account; and constructing, 
     remodeling, and equipping necessary buildings and facilities 
     at existing penal and correctional institutions, including 
     all necessary expenses incident thereto, by contract or force 
     account, $230,000,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which $145,000,000 shall be available only for costs related 
     to construction of new facilities: Provided, That labor of 
     United States prisoners may be used for work performed under 
     this appropriation.

                federal prison industries, incorporated

       The Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available, and in accord with 
     the law, and to make such contracts and commitments without 
     regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by section 9104 
     of title 31, United States Code, as may be necessary in 
     carrying out the program set forth in the budget for the 
     current fiscal year for such corporation.

   limitation on administrative expenses, federal prison industries, 
                              incorporated

       Not to exceed $2,700,000 of the funds of the Federal Prison 
     Industries, Incorporated, shall be available for its 
     administrative expenses, and for services as authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, to be computed 
     on an accrual basis to be determined in accordance with the 
     corporation's current prescribed accounting system, and such 
     amounts shall be exclusive of depreciation, payment of 
     claims, and expenditures which such accounting system 
     requires to be capitalized or charged to cost of commodities 
     acquired or produced, including selling and shipping 
     expenses, and expenses in connection with acquisition, 
     construction, operation, maintenance, improvement, 
     protection, or disposition of facilities and other property 
     belonging to the corporation or in which it has an interest.


                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Moore

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the gentlewoman offering the 
amendment at this point in the reading?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 34, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 42, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 44, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman

[[Page 8326]]

from Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Chair, my amendment transfers $2 million into the 
Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act for the purpose 
of expanding and improving police training to safely and appropriately 
respond to mentally ill individuals.
  Now, Mr. Chair, we have heard a lot lately in the news about high 
profile police-involved shootings that have become a major subject here 
around the country and here in Congress. Not surprising to some of us, 
especially those of us who hail from large urban cities, this is a 
widespread problem that has been around for a while.
  But today, I am offering this amendment to highlight one serious 
issue that I think should be a major part of our current national 
dialogue: ensuring that police have adequate training to identify 
persons with mental illness and to safely, when it is possible, resolve 
encounters during a crisis.
  Mr. Chair, indulge me for a moment while I tell you a story about a 
31-year-old man in my home district of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who, 
unfortunately, is no longer with us today. His name was Dontre 
Hamilton.
  Dontre, like many people in this country, suffered from a mental 
illness. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia 1 year prior to the 
incident and had been off his medication due to an insurance issue.
  On April 30 of last year, Dontre was taking a nap on a public park 
bench when employees of a nearby Starbucks called the police. Two 
police officers came and did a wellness check and left the scene, 
discerning that Mr. Hamilton was no threat to himself, nor to anyone in 
the park or the public.
  Soon thereafter, yet another call came from the Starbucks employee 
because this gentleman was sleeping on the public park bench. Another 
police officer, Officer Manney of the Milwaukee Police Department, 
arrived and started to pat down Dontre. This pat-down turned into a 
struggle, and Officer Manney pulled out his baton to help him subdue 
Mr. Hamilton.
  The struggle escalated, and Dontre got control of the baton and swung 
it at Officer Manney. This caused Officer Manney to draw his firearm 
and shoot 14 bullets into Dontre Hamilton.
  Officer Manney was terminated for conducting a pat-down in 
contravention of his training on dealing with mentally ill individuals 
but faced no charges in the death of Dontre Hamilton.
  Mr. Chair, perhaps this tragedy could have been prevented. Too often, 
our mental health infrastructure is woefully inadequate for many 
Americans. A lack of treatment can turn a treatable mental illness into 
a severe debilitating condition. Many can't hold a job or pay rent. 
Many end up homeless on the streets. In fact, more than 124,000 of the 
610,000 homeless people in the United States suffer from a severe 
mental illness.
  As a result of many failures in our system, our Nation's police 
officers have de facto become our country's first responders to crisis 
calls, including those individuals experiencing mental illness. Too 
often these calls, many intended to be out of concern for the 
individual in crisis, become a tragic fatality.
  As we know, mentally ill persons are not generally dangerous, Mr. 
Chair. In fact, they are actually more likely to become victims 
themselves than actual perpetrators of violence. Many of these tragic 
encounters could be prevented if police officers are trained and follow 
proper procedures.
  The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act is an 
important Federal initiative and tool that will help us bridge this 
gap. This law established a grant program called the Justice and Mental 
Health Collaboration Program which helps States and localities develop 
collaborative approaches to dealing with the intersection of criminal 
justice and mental health systems.
  One of the authorized grant uses under the program is training to 
police officers for exactly these purposes: to safely respond to crisis 
calls and limit the chance of a tragic and often preventable 
consequence.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am 
not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Woodall). Without objection, the gentleman from 
Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CULBERSON. The gentlewoman has a good amendment, and I want to 
encourage Members to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2015


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Connolly

  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Page 34, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,,000,000)''.
       Page 42, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 46, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman and 
the distinguished ranking member and their staffs for their cooperation 
on this amendment.
  The amendment increases the funding for Veterans Treatment Courts by 
$1 million. I offered a similar amendment last year that the House also 
adopted on a voice vote.
  With the additional funds provided by this amendment, a total of $6 
million would be available for such courts, which is still short of the 
$8 million Congress has authorized under the bipartisan Mentally Ill 
Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act.
  Our Nation's heroes are returning home from more than a decade of 
war. Upon their return, they bear the visible and invisible wounds of 
deployment. Substance abuse, post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic 
brain injury, and various mental health disorders can lead our 
returning heroes down a difficult and often lonely path during their 
transition to civilian life.
  Twenty percent of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans suffer from post-
traumatic stress disorder or major depression. One in six battle with 
substance abuse. Left undiagnosed or untreated, these illnesses can 
result in an encounter with the justice system. Worse yet, these 
illnesses can also lead to suicide, which veterans commit at twice the 
rate of our civilian population.
  Fortunately, specialized Veterans Treatment Courts are being 
developed across the country, including in my home county of Fairfax in 
Virginia, to help veterans who do find themselves in the justice system 
and suffer from substance addiction or mental health disorders so that 
they can alter their course and find the assistance they deserve, Mr. 
Chairman.
  The first such court was established in Buffalo, New York, in 2008; 
and since then, more than 200 have opened across the Nation. Hundreds 
more are currently going through the planning and training process.
  Today, there are more than 11,000 vets enrolled in Veterans Treatment 
Courts. Virginia is home to the sixth largest veteran population in the 
country, with nearly 850,000 veterans, more than 10 percent of whom 
live in my district, the 11th Congressional District of Virginia.
  The comprehensive treatment program provides eligible veterans with 
an alternative to jail and incarceration. Participating veterans must 
commit to an 18- to 24-month program, during which they receive group 
counseling, a dedicated veteran mentor, and enroll in vocational 
education and self-help programs.
  By bringing veteran service organizations, State veterans service 
departments, and volunteer mentors into the courtrooms, Veterans 
Treatment

[[Page 8327]]

Courts can promote community collaboration and connect veterans with 
the programs and benefits they have earned and that they may need.
  Having a veteran-only court docket ensures that everyone, from the 
judge to the volunteers, specializes in veterans care, and the 
involvement of fellow veterans allows the defendant to experience a 
camaraderie to which he or she became accustomed in the military.
  We know this model works, and it is our hope this amendment will 
provide these courts with the resources they need to help our veterans 
who fall into the justice system to get back on the right track and 
transition successfully back into the society they swore to defend.
  In closing, again, I want to thank the distinguished chairman, the 
distinguished ranking member, and their respective staffs for their 
cooperation in this matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although 
I support the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I think the gentleman has a good amendment, and I 
would encourage the Members to support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and enter 
into a colloquy with my good friend, the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Price).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Price) for a colloquy.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. 
Chairman.
  During the full committee consideration of this legislation, the 
chairman will recall that we discussed the accompanying report language 
that, for the first time, would allocate NSF research funding by 
directorate and, in particular, would disproportionately reduce funding 
for the Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences and the 
Directorate for Geosciences. This has raised critical questions and 
concerns within the scientific community.
  As the legislative process goes forward, I ask for the chairman's 
assurance that we can work together to preserve the National Science 
Foundation's traditional discretion and flexibility in allocating basic 
research funding among the Foundation's directorates.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I look forward to working with you, Dr. Price, and 
other members of the subcommittee and the full committee, as well as 
the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, to ensure that we protect 
the independence of the National Science Foundation.
  It is vitally important that America preserves its leadership role in 
the world, and scientific research and NSF and NASA have been a vital 
part of that.
  A strong supporter of our investment in the sciences, my favorite 
Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, liked to say that liberty was the 
firstborn of science.
  It is vital that we work together, as I will with you, sir, as we 
move through conference, to continue to preserve the flexibility and 
independence of the National Science Foundation. We, in the committee 
report, are simply working to make sure NSF prioritizes their funding, 
but I will continue to work with you throughout this process as we move 
forward.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman. This is 
critically important. I appreciate the chance to work on this, as the 
legislation moves forward.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               State and Local Law Enforcement Activities

                    Office on Violence Against Women

       violence against women prevention and prosecution programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance for the prevention and prosecution of violence 
     against women, as authorized by the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) (``the 1968 
     Act''); the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
     1994 (Public Law 103-322) (``the 1994 Act''); the Victims of 
     Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-647) (``the 1990 
     Act''); the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the 
     Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-
     21); the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 
     1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) (``the 1974 Act''); the Victims 
     of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public 
     Law 106-386) (``the 2000 Act''); the Violence Against Women 
     and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public 
     Law 109-162) (``the 2005 Act''); and the Violence Against 
     Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Public Law 113-4) (``the 
     2013 Act''); and for related victims services, $479,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That of the 
     amount provided--
       (1) $196,000,000 is for grants to combat violence against 
     women, as authorized by part T of the 1968 Act;
       (2) $28,000,000 is for transitional housing assistance 
     grants for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, 
     stalking, or sexual assault as authorized by section 40299 of 
     the 1994 Act;
       (3) $8,000,000 is for the National Institute of Justice for 
     research and evaluation of violence against women and related 
     issues addressed by grant programs of the Office on Violence 
     Against Women, which shall be transferred to and administered 
     by the Office of Justice Programs;
       (4) $11,000,000 is for a grant program to provide services 
     to advocate for and respond to youth victims of domestic 
     violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; 
     assistance to children and youth exposed to such violence; 
     programs to engage men and youth in preventing such violence; 
     and assistance to middle and high school students through 
     education and other services related to such violence: 
     Provided, That unobligated balances available for the 
     programs authorized by sections 41201, 41204, 41303 and 41305 
     of the 1994 Act, prior to its amendment by the 2013 Act, 
     shall be available for this program: Provided further, That 
     10 percent of the total amount available for this grant 
     program shall be available for grants under the program 
     authorized by section 2015 of the 1968 Act: Provided further, 
     That the definitions and grant conditions in section 40002 of 
     the 1994 Act shall apply to this program;
       (5) $51,000,000 is for grants to encourage arrest policies 
     as authorized by part U of the 1968 Act, of which $4,000,000 
     is for a homicide reduction initiative;
       (6) $35,000,000 is for sexual assault victims assistance, 
     as authorized by section 41601 of the 1994 Act;
       (7) $33,000,000 is for rural domestic violence and child 
     abuse enforcement assistance grants, including as authorized 
     by section 40295 of the 1994 Act;
       (8) $16,000,000 is for grants to reduce violent crimes 
     against women on campus, as authorized by section 304 of the 
     2005 Act;
       (9) $42,500,000 is for legal assistance for victims, as 
     authorized by section 1201 of the 2000 Act;
       (10) $4,500,000 is for enhanced training and services to 
     end violence against and abuse of women in later life, as 
     authorized by section 40802 of the 1994 Act;
       (11) $16,000,000 is for grants to support families in the 
     justice system, as authorized by section 1301 of the 2000 
     Act: Provided, That unobligated balances available for the 
     programs authorized by section 1301 of the 2000 Act and 
     section 41002 of the 1994 Act, prior to their amendment by 
     the 2013 Act, shall be available for this program;
       (12) $6,000,000 is for education and training to end 
     violence against and abuse of women with disabilities, as 
     authorized by section 1402 of the 2000 Act;
       (13) $500,000 is for the National Resource Center on 
     Workplace Responses to assist victims of domestic violence, 
     as authorized by section 41501 of the 1994 Act;
       (14) $1,000,000 is for analysis and research on violence 
     against Indian women, including as authorized by section 904 
     of the 2005 Act: Provided, That such funds may be transferred 
     to and administered by the Office of Justice Programs;
       (15) $500,000 is for a national clearinghouse that provides 
     training and technical assistance on issues relating to 
     sexual assault of American Indian and Alaska Native women;
        (16) $25,000,000 for victim services programs for victims 
     of trafficking, as authorized by section 107(b)(2) of Public 
     Law 106-386, for programs authorized under Public Law 109-
     164, or programs authorized under Public Law 113-4; and
       (17) $5,000,000 for the purposes authorized under the Rape 
     Survivor Child Custody Act.

[[Page 8328]]



                       Office of Justice Programs

               state and local law enforcement assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) (``the 1994 
     Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (``the 1968 Act''); the Justice for All Act of 2004 
     (Public Law 108-405); the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 
     (Public Law 101-647) (``the 1990 Act''); the Trafficking 
     Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 
     109-164); the Violence Against Women and Department of 
     Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162) 
     (``the 2005 Act''); the Adam Walsh Child Protection and 
     Safety Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-248) (``the Adam Walsh 
     Act''); the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection 
     Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-386); the NICS Improvement 
     Amendments Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-180); subtitle D of 
     title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 
     107-296) (``the 2002 Act''); the Second Chance Act of 2007 
     (Public Law 110-199); the Prioritizing Resources and 
     Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (Public 
     Law 110-403); the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (Public Law 
     98-473); the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime 
     Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public 
     Law 110-416); the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act 
     of 2013 (Public Law 113-4) (``the 2013 Act''); and other 
     programs, $1,015,400,000, to remain available until expended 
     as follows--
       (1) $409,000,000 for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 
     Assistance Grant program as authorized by subpart 1 of part E 
     of title I of the 1968 Act (except that section 1001(c), and 
     the special rules for Puerto Rico under section 505(g) of 
     title I of the 1968 Act shall not apply for purposes of this 
     Act), of which, notwithstanding such subpart 1, $20,000,000 
     is for grants for law enforcement activities associated with 
     the presidential nominating conventions, $15,000,000 is for 
     an Officer Robert Wilson III memorial initiative on 
     Preventing Violence Against Law Enforcement Officer 
     Resilience and Survivability (VALOR), $4,000,000 is for use 
     by the National Institute of Justice for research targeted 
     toward developing a better understanding of the domestic 
     radicalization phenomenon, and advancing evidence-based 
     strategies for effective intervention and prevention, 
     $22,500,000 is for the matching grant program for law 
     enforcement armor vests, as authorized by section 2501 of 
     title I of the 1968 Act, and $2,500,000 is for a program to 
     improve juvenile indigent defense;
       (2) $220,000,000 for the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
     Program, as authorized by section 241(i)(5) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)(5)): 
     Provided, That no jurisdiction shall request compensation for 
     any cost greater than the actual cost for Federal immigration 
     and other detainees housed in State and local detention 
     facilities;
       (3) $41,000,000 for Drug Courts, as authorized by section 
     1001(a)(25)(A) of title I of the 1968 Act;
       (4) $7,000,000 for mental health courts and adult and 
     juvenile collaboration program grants, as authorized by parts 
     V and HH of title I of the 1968 Act, and the Mentally Ill 
     Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and 
     Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-416);
       (5) $2,000,000 for the Capital Litigation Improvement Grant 
     Program, as authorized by section 426 of Public Law 108-405, 
     and for grants for wrongful conviction review;
       (6) $5,000,000 for economic, high technology and Internet 
     crime prevention grants, including as authorized by section 
     401 of Public Law 110-403;
       (7) $20,000,000 for sex offender management assistance, as 
     authorized by the Adam Walsh Act, and related activities;
       (8) $1,000,000 for the National Sex Offender Public 
     Website;
       (9) $73,000,000 for grants to States to upgrade criminal 
     and mental health records for the National Instant Criminal 
     Background Check System, including as authorized by the NICS 
     Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-180);
       (10) $125,000,000 for DNA-related and forensic programs and 
     activities, of which--
       (A) $117,000,000 is for a DNA analysis and capacity 
     enhancement program and for other local, State, and Federal 
     forensic activities, including the purposes authorized under 
     section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 
     (Public Law 106-546) (the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant 
     Program): Provided, That up to 4 percent of funds made 
     available under this paragraph may be used for the purposes 
     described in the DNA Training and Education for Law 
     Enforcement, Correctional Personnel, and Court Officers 
     program (Public Law 108-405, section 303);
       (B) $4,000,000 is for the purposes described in the Kirk 
     Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program (Public Law 
     108-405, section 412); and
       (C) $4,000,000 is for Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program 
     grants, including as authorized by section 304 of Public Law 
     108-405;
       (11) $6,000,000 for the court-appointed special advocate 
     program, as authorized by section 217 of the 1990 Act;
       (12) $5,000,000 for a veterans treatment courts program;
       (13) $11,000,000 for a program to monitor prescription 
     drugs and scheduled listed chemical products;
       (14) $13,000,000 for prison rape prevention and prosecution 
     grants to States and units of local government, and other 
     programs, as authorized by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 
     2003 (Public Law 108-79);
       (15) $75,000,000 is for the Comprehensive School Safety 
     Initiative; and
       (16) $2,400,000 for the operationalization, maintenance and 
     expansion of the National Missing and Unidentified Persons 
     System:
      Provided, That, if a unit of local government uses any of 
     the funds made available under this heading to increase the 
     number of law enforcement officers, the unit of local 
     government will achieve a net gain in the number of law 
     enforcement officers who perform non-administrative public 
     sector safety service.

                       juvenile justice programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance, the following amounts are made available until 
     expended--
       (1) $95,000,000 for youth mentoring grants;
       (2) $19,000,000 for programs authorized by the Victims of 
     Child Abuse Act of 1990;
       (3) $68,000,000 for missing and exploited children 
     programs, including as authorized by sections 404(b) and 
     405(a) of the 1974 Act (except that section 102(b)(4)(B) of 
     the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-401) 
     shall not apply for purposes of this Act); and
       (4) $1,500,000 for child abuse training programs for 
     judicial personnel and practitioners, as authorized by 
     section 222 of the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990.

                     public safety officer benefits

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For payments and expenses authorized under section 
     1001(a)(4) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968, such sums as are necessary (including 
     amounts for administrative costs), to remain available until 
     expended; and $16,300,000 for payments authorized by section 
     1201(b) of such Act and for educational assistance authorized 
     by section 1218 of such Act, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That notwithstanding section 205 of this 
     Act, upon a determination by the Attorney General that 
     emergent circumstances require additional funding for such 
     disability and education payments, the Attorney General may 
     transfer such amounts to ``Public Safety Officer Benefits'' 
     from available appropriations for the Department of Justice 
     as may be necessary to respond to such circumstances: 
     Provided further, That any transfer pursuant to the preceding 
     proviso shall be treated as a reprogramming under section 505 
     of this Act and shall not be available for obligation or 
     expenditure except in compliance with the procedures set 
     forth in that section.

                  Community Oriented Policing Services

             community oriented policing services programs

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance, the following amounts are made available until 
     expended: Provided, That any balances made available through 
     prior year deobligations shall only be available in 
     accordance with section 505 of this Act--
       (1) $11,000,000 for anti-methamphetamine-related 
     activities, which shall be transferred to the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration upon enactment of this Act;
       (2) $30,000,000 for assistance to Indian tribes;
       (3) $52,500,000 for initiatives to improve police-community 
     relations, as described in the report accompanying this Act;
       (4) $41,000,000 for a grant program for community-based 
     sexual assault response reform;
       (5) $68,000,000 for offender reentry programs and research, 
     as authorized by the Second Chance Act of 2007 (Public Law 
     110-199), without regard to the time limitations specified at 
     section 6(1) of such Act; and
       (6) $35,000,000 is for regional information sharing 
     activities, as authorized by part M of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.

               General Provisions--Department of Justice

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 201.  In addition to amounts otherwise made available 
     in this title for official reception and representation 
     expenses, a total of not to exceed $50,000 from funds 
     appropriated to the Department of Justice in this title shall 
     be available to the Attorney General for official reception 
     and representation expenses.
       Sec. 202.  None of the funds appropriated by this title 
     shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the 
     life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were 
     carried to term, or in the case of rape or incest: Provided, 
     That should this prohibition be declared unconstitutional by 
     a court of competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null 
     and void.
       Sec. 203.  None of the funds appropriated under this title 
     shall be used to require any

[[Page 8329]]

     person to perform, or facilitate in any way the performance 
     of, any abortion.
       Sec. 204.  Nothing in the preceding section shall remove 
     the obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to 
     provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to 
     receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided, 
     That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect 
     of section 203 intended to address the philosophical beliefs 
     of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
       Sec. 205.  Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation 
     made available for the current fiscal year for the Department 
     of Justice in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any 
     transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 206.  The Attorney General is authorized to extend 
     through September 30, 2016, the Personnel Management 
     Demonstration Project transferred to the Attorney General 
     pursuant to section 1115 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107-296; 28 U.S.C. 599B) without limitation on 
     the number of employees or the positions covered.
       Sec. 207.  None of the funds made available under this 
     title may be used by the Federal Bureau of Prisons or the 
     United States Marshals Service 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. 208. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used by Federal prisons to purchase cable television 
     services, or to rent or purchase audiovisual or electronic 
     media or equipment used primarily for recreational purposes.
       (b) Subsection (a) does not preclude the rental, 
     maintenance, or purchase of audiovisual or electronic media 
     or equipment for inmate training, religious, or educational 
     programs.
       Sec. 209.  None of the funds made available under this 
     title shall be obligated or expended for any new or enhanced 
     information technology program having total estimated 
     development costs in excess of $100,000,000, unless the 
     Deputy Attorney General and the investment review board 
     certify to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that the information 
     technology program has appropriate program management 
     controls and contractor oversight mechanisms in place, and 
     that the program is compatible with the enterprise 
     architecture of the Department of Justice.
       Sec. 210.  The notification thresholds and procedures set 
     forth in section 505 of this Act shall apply to deviations 
     from the amounts designated for specific activities in this 
     Act and in the report accompanying this Act, and to any use 
     of deobligated balances of funds provided under this title in 
     previous years.
       Sec. 211.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used to plan for, begin, continue, finish, process, or 
     approve a public-private competition under the Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any successor 
     administrative regulation, directive, or policy for work 
     performed by employees of Federal Prison Industries, 
     Incorporated.
       Sec. 212.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     funds shall be available for the salary, benefits, or 
     expenses of any United States Attorney assigned dual or 
     additional responsibilities by the Attorney General or his 
     designee that exempt that United States Attorney from the 
     residency requirements of section 545 of title 28, United 
     States Code.
       Sec. 213.  At the discretion of the Attorney General, and 
     in addition to any amounts that otherwise may be available 
     (or authorized to be made available) by law, with respect to 
     funds appropriated by this title under the headings 
     ``Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution 
     Programs'', ``State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance'', 
     ``Juvenile Justice Programs'', and ``Community Oriented 
     Policing Services Programs''--
       (1) up to 3 percent of funds made available to the Office 
     of Justice Programs for grant or reimbursement programs may 
     be used by such Office to provide training and technical 
     assistance; and
       (2) funds made available for grant or reimbursement 
     programs under such headings, except for amounts appropriated 
     specifically for research, evaluation, or statistical 
     programs administered by the National Institute of Justice 
     and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, may be transferred to 
     and merged with funds provided to the National Institute of 
     Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, to be used by 
     them for research, evaluation, or statistical purposes, 
     without regard to the authorizations for such grant or 
     reimbursement programs: Provided, That the transfer authority 
     in this paragraph is in addition to any other transfer 
     authority contained in this Act: Provided further, That any 
     transfer pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to the 
     notification procedures applicable to a reprogramming of 
     funds under section 505 of this Act.
       Sec. 214.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     section 20109(a) of subtitle A of title II of the Violent 
     Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 
     13709(a)) shall not apply to amounts made available by this 
     or any other Act.
       Sec. 215.  None of the funds made available under this or 
     any other Act, for fiscal year 2016 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, other than for the national instant criminal 
     background check system established under section 103 of the 
     Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note), 
     may be used by a Federal law enforcement officer to 
     facilitate the transfer of an operable firearm to an 
     individual if the Federal law enforcement officer knows or 
     suspects that the individual is an agent of a drug cartel, 
     unless law enforcement personnel of the United States 
     continuously monitor or control the firearm at all times.
       Sec. 216. (a) None of the income retained in the Department 
     of Justice Working Capital Fund pursuant to title I of Public 
     Law 102-140 (105 Stat. 784; 28 U.S.C. 527 note) shall be 
     available for obligation during fiscal year 2016, except up 
     to $40,000,000 may be obligated for implementation of a 
     unified Department of Justice financial management system.
       (b) Not to exceed $30,000,000 of the unobligated balances 
     transferred to the capital account of the Department of 
     Justice Working Capital Fund pursuant to title I of Public 
     Law 102-140 (105 Stat. 784; 28 U.S.C. 527 note) shall be 
     available for obligation in fiscal year 2016, and any use, 
     obligation, transfer or allocation of such funds shall be 
     treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this 
     Act.
       (c) Any use, obligation, transfer or allocation of excess 
     unobligated balances available under section 524(c)(8)(E) of 
     title 28, United States Code, shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this Act.
       (d) Of amounts available in the Assets Forfeiture Fund in 
     fiscal year 2016, $154,700,000 shall be for payments 
     associated with joint law enforcement operations as 
     authorized by section 524(c)(1)(I) of title 28, United States 
     Code, and $20,514,000 shall be for payments associated with 
     subparagraphs (B), (F), and (G) of section 524(c)(1) of title 
     28, United States Code.
       (e) The Attorney General shall submit a spending plan to 
     the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate not later than 30 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act detailing the planned 
     distribution of Assets Forfeiture Fund joint law enforcement 
     operations funding during fiscal year 2016.
       Sec. 217. (a) Of the funds appropriated by this Act under 
     each of the headings ``General Administration--Salaries and 
     Expenses'', ``United States Marshals Service--Salaries and 
     Expenses'', ``Federal Bureau of Investigation--Salaries and 
     Expenses'', ``Drug Enforcement Administration--Salaries and 
     Expenses'', and ``Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
     Explosives--Salaries and Expenses'', $20,000,000 shall not be 
     available for obligation until the Attorney General 
     demonstrates to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate that all recommendations 
     included in the Office of Inspector General of the Department 
     of Justice, Evaluation and Inspections Division Report 15-04 
     entitled ``The Handling of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct 
     Allegations by the Department's Law Enforcement Components'', 
     dated March, 2015, have been implemented or are in the 
     process of being implemented.
       (b) The Inspector General of the Department of Justice 
     shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate not later than 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act on the status of the 
     Department's implementation of recommendations included in 
     the report specified in subsection (a).
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice 
     Appropriations Act, 2016''.

                               TITLE III

                                SCIENCE

                Office of Science and Technology Policy

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the 
     National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and 
     Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.), hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, not to exceed 
     $2,250 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     and rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia, 
     $5,555,000.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration

                                science

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of science research and development 
     activities, including research, development, operations, 
     support, and services; maintenance and repair, facility 
     planning and design; space flight, spacecraft control, and 
     communications activities; program management; personnel and 
     related costs, including uniforms

[[Page 8330]]

     or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and 
     5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel expenses; 
     purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; and purchase, 
     lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of mission and 
     administrative aircraft, $5,237,500,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2017: Provided,That the formulation and 
     development costs (with development cost as defined under 
     section 30104 of title 51, United States Code) for the James 
     Webb Space Telescope shall not exceed $8,000,000,000: 
     Provided further, That should the individual identified under 
     subsection (c)(2)(E) of section 30104 of title 51, United 
     States Code, as responsible for the James Webb Space 
     Telescope determine that the development cost of the program 
     is likely to exceed that limitation, the individual shall 
     immediately notify the Administrator and the increase shall 
     be treated as if it meets the 30 percent threshold described 
     in subsection (f) of section 30104: Provided further, That, 
     $140,000,000 shall be for a Jupiter Europa mission to assure 
     progress on a mission which meets the Planetary Science 
     decadal objectives, consisting of an orbiter and studies of 
     both a surface element as well as sample analysis of plumes 
     emanating from the surface: Provided further, That NASA shall 
     use the Space Launch System as the launch vehicle for a 
     Jupiter Europa mission, plan for a launch no later than 2022, 
     and include in the fiscal year 2017 budget the five year 
     funding profile necessary to achieve those goals.

                              aeronautics

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of aeronautics research and development 
     activities, including research, development, operations, 
     support, and services; maintenance and repair, facility 
     planning and design; space flight, spacecraft control, and 
     communications activities; program management; personnel and 
     related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as 
     authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United 
     States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, 
     and operation of mission and administrative aircraft, 
     $600,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017.

                            space technology

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of space technology research and 
     development activities, including research, development, 
     operations, support, and services; maintenance and repair, 
     facility planning and design; space flight, spacecraft 
     control, and communications activities; program management; 
     personnel and related costs, including uniforms or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, 
     United States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, 
     maintenance, and operation of mission and administrative 
     aircraft, $625,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2017, of which $25,000,000 shall be for icy satellites 
     surface technology and test beds.

                              exploration

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of exploration research and development 
     activities, including research, development, operations, 
     support, and services; maintenance and repair, facility 
     planning and design; space flight, spacecraft control, and 
     communications activities; program management; personnel and 
     related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as 
     authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United 
     States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, 
     and operation of mission and administrative aircraft, 
     $4,759,300,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017: 
     Provided, That not less than $1,096,300,000 shall be for the 
     Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle: Provided further, That not 
     less than $2,313,000,000 shall be for the Space Launch 
     System, including no less than $1,850,000,000 for launch 
     vehicle development, which shall have a lift capability not 
     less than 130 metric tons and which shall have core elements 
     and an enhanced upper stage developed simultaneously: 
     Provided further, That of the amounts provided for launch 
     vehicle development, no less than $50,000,000 shall be for 
     enhanced upper stage development: Provided further, That of 
     the funds made available for the Space Launch System, 
     $410,000,000 shall be for exploration ground systems and 
     $53,000,000 shall be for program integration: Provided 
     further, That $1,000,000,000 shall be for commercial 
     spaceflight activities: Provided further, That $350,000,000 
     shall be for exploration research and development.

                            space operations

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of space operations research and 
     development activities, including research, development, 
     operations, support and services; space flight, spacecraft 
     control and communications activities, including operations, 
     production, and services; maintenance and repair, facility 
     planning and design; program management; personnel and 
     related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as 
     authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United 
     States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and 
     operation of mission and administrative aircraft, 
     $3,957,300,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017.

                               education

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of aerospace and aeronautical education 
     research and development activities, including research, 
     development, operations, support, and services; program 
     management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms 
     or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and 
     5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel expenses; 
     purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; and purchase, 
     lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of mission and 
     administrative aircraft, $119,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2017, of which $18,000,000 shall be for 
     the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 
     and $40,000,000 shall be for the National Space Grant College 
     program.

                 safety, security and mission services

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of science, aeronautics, space 
     technology, exploration, space operations and education 
     research and development activities, including research, 
     development, operations, support, and services; maintenance 
     and repair, facility planning and design; space flight, 
     spacecraft control, and communications activities; program 
     management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms 
     or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and 
     5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel expenses; 
     purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed 
     $63,000 for official reception and representation expenses; 
     and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of 
     mission and administrative aircraft, $2,768,600,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2017.

       construction and environmental compliance and restoration

       For necessary expenses for construction of facilities 
     including repair, rehabilitation, revitalization, and 
     modification of facilities, construction of new facilities 
     and additions to existing facilities, facility planning and 
     design, and restoration, and acquisition or condemnation of 
     real property, as authorized by law, and environmental 
     compliance and restoration, $425,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2021: Provided, That proceeds from leases 
     deposited into this account shall be available for a period 
     of 5 years to the extent and in amounts as provided in annual 
     appropriations Acts: Provided further, That notwithstanding 
     section 20145(b)(2)(A) of title 51, United States Code, such 
     proceeds referred to in the preceding proviso shall be 
     available for obligation for fiscal year 2016 in an amount 
     not to exceed $9,470,300: Provided further, That each annual 
     budget request shall include an annual estimate of gross 
     receipts and collections and proposed use of all funds 
     collected pursuant to section 20145 of title 51, United 
     States Code.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, 
     $37,400,000, of which $500,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2017.

                       administrative provisions

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Funds for any announced prize otherwise authorized shall 
     remain available, without fiscal year limitation, until the 
     prize is claimed or the offer is withdrawn.
       Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available 
     for the current fiscal year for the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration 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. Balances so 
     transferred shall be merged with and available for the same 
     purposes and the same time period as the appropriations to 
     which transferred. Any transfer pursuant to this provision 
     shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 
     505 of this Act and shall not be available for obligation 
     except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that 
     section.
        The spending plan required by this Act shall be provided 
     by NASA at the theme, program, project and activity level. 
     The spending plan, as well as any subsequent change of an 
     amount established in that spending plan that meets the 
     notification requirements of section 505 of this Act, shall 
     be treated as a reprogramming under section 505 of this Act 
     and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure 
     except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that 
     section.
       The unexpired balances of a previous account, for 
     activities for which funds are provided in this Act, may be 
     transferred to the new account established in this Act that 
     provides for such activities. Balances so transferred shall 
     be merged with the funds in the newly established account, 
     but shall be available under the same terms, conditions and 
     period of time as previously appropriated.

[[Page 8331]]



                      National Science Foundation

                    research and related activities

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.), and Public 
     Law 86-209 (42 U.S.C. 1880 et seq.); services as authorized 
     by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; maintenance 
     and operation of aircraft and purchase of flight services for 
     research support; acquisition of aircraft; and authorized 
     travel; $5,983,645,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2017, of which not to exceed $520,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for polar research and operations 
     support, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies for 
     operational and science support and logistical and other 
     related activities for the United States Antarctic program: 
     Provided, That receipts for scientific support services and 
     materials furnished by the National Research Centers and 
     other National Science Foundation supported research 
     facilities may be credited to this appropriation.

          major research equipment and facilities construction

       For necessary expenses for the acquisition, construction, 
     commissioning, and upgrading of major research equipment, 
     facilities, and other such capital assets pursuant to the 
     National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 et 
     seq.), including authorized travel, $200,030,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                     education and human resources

       For necessary expenses in carrying out science, mathematics 
     and engineering education and human resources programs and 
     activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 
     1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.), including services as 
     authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     authorized travel, and rental of conference rooms in the 
     District of Columbia, $866,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2017.

                 agency operations and award management

       For agency operations and award management necessary in 
     carrying out the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 
     U.S.C. 1861 et seq.); services authorized by section 3109 of 
     title 5, United States Code; hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 
     sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United States Code; rental 
     of conference rooms in the District of Columbia; and 
     reimbursement of the Department of Homeland Security for 
     security guard services; $325,000,000: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $8,280 is for official reception and representation 
     expenses: Provided further, That contracts may be entered 
     into under this heading in fiscal year 2016 for maintenance 
     and operation of facilities and for other services to be 
     provided during the next fiscal year: Provided further, That 
     of the amount provided for costs associated with the 
     acquisition, occupancy, and related costs of new headquarters 
     space, not more than $27,370,000 shall remain available until 
     expended.

                  office of the national science board

       For necessary expenses (including payment of salaries, 
     authorized travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, the 
     rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia, and 
     the employment of experts and consultants under section 3109 
     of title 5, United States Code) involved in carrying out 
     section 4 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 
     U.S.C. 1863) and Public Law 86-209 (42 U.S.C. 1880 et seq.), 
     $4,370,000: Provided, That not to exceed $2,500 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, 
     $15,160,000, of which $400,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2017.

                        administrative provision

       Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available 
     for the current fiscal year for the National Science 
     Foundation 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. Any transfer 
     pursuant to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming 
     of funds under section 505 of this Act and shall not be 
     available for obligation except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.
        This title may be cited as the ``Science Appropriations 
     Act, 2016''.

                                TITLE IV

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                       Commission on Civil Rights

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights, 
     including hire of passenger motor vehicles, $9,200,000: 
     Provided, 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: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be 
     used for any activity or expense that is not explicitly 
     authorized by section 3 of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 
     1983 (42 U.S.C. 1975a).

                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, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 
     the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Americans with Disabilities 
     Act of 1990, section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Genetic Information Non-
     Discrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 (Public Law 110-233), the 
     ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-325), and the 
     Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-2), 
     including services as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, 
     United States Code; hire of passenger motor vehicles as 
     authorized by section 1343(b) of title 31, United States 
     Code; nonmonetary awards to private citizens; and up to 
     $29,500,000 for payments to State and local enforcement 
     agencies for authorized services to the Commission, 
     $364,500,000: Provided, That the Commission is authorized to 
     make available for official reception and representation 
     expenses not to exceed $2,250 from available funds: Provided 
     further, That the Chair is authorized to accept and use any 
     gift or donation to carry out the work of the Commission.

                     International Trade Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the International Trade 
     Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     services as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United 
     States Code, and not to exceed $2,250 for official reception 
     and representation expenses, $84,500,000, 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, 
     $300,000,000, of which $266,900,000 is for basic field 
     programs and required independent audits; $5,100,000 is for 
     the Office of Inspector General, of which such amounts as may 
     be necessary may be used to conduct additional audits of 
     recipients; $19,000,000 is for management and grants 
     oversight; $4,000,000 is for client self-help and information 
     technology; $4,000,000 is for a Pro Bono Innovation Fund; and 
     $1,000,000 is for loan repayment assistance: Provided, That 
     the Legal Services Corporation may continue to provide 
     locality pay to officers and employees at a rate no greater 
     than that provided by the Federal Government to Washington, 
     DC-based employees as authorized by section 5304 of title 5, 
     United States Code, notwithstanding section 1005(d) of the 
     Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996(d)): Provided 
     further, That the authorities provided in section 205 of this 
     Act shall be applicable to the Legal Services Corporation: 
     Provided further, That, for the purposes of section 505 of 
     this Act, the Legal Services Corporation shall be considered 
     an agency of the United States Government.

          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 2015 and 2016, respectively.

                        Marine Mammal Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as 
     authorized by title II of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 
     1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), $3,340,000.

            Office of the United States Trade Representative

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States 
     Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as 
     authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     $54,250,000, of which $1,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $124,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses.

                        State Justice Institute

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as 
     authorized by the State Justice Institute Authorization Act 
     of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10701 et seq.) $5,121,000, of which 
     $500,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2017: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $2,250 shall be available for 
     official reception and representation expenses: Provided 
     further, That, for the purposes of section 505 of

[[Page 8332]]

     this Act, the State Justice Institute shall be considered an 
     agency of the United States Government.

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                        (including rescissions)

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 501.  No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 502.  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. 503.  The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     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. 504.  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. 505.  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 2016, 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 or initiates a new 
     program, project or activity; (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 or renames offices, programs or activities; 
     (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities 
     presently performed by Federal employees; (7) augments 
     existing programs, projects or activities in excess of 
     $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, or reduces by 10 
     percent funding for any program, project or activity, or 
     numbers of personnel by 10 percent; or (8) results from any 
     general savings, including savings from a reduction in 
     personnel, which would result in a change in existing 
     programs, projects or activities as approved by Congress; 
     unless the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are 
     notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds by 
     agencies (excluding agencies of the Department of Justice) 
     funded by this Act and 45 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds by agencies of the Department of 
     Justice funded by this Act.
       Sec. 506. (a) 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.
       (b)(1) To the extent practicable, with respect to 
     authorized purchases of promotional items, funds made 
     available by this Act shall be used to purchase items that 
     are manufactured, produced, or assembled in the United 
     States, its territories or possessions.
       (2) The term ``promotional items'' has the meaning given 
     the term in OMB Circular A-87, Attachment B, Item (1)(f)(3).
       Sec. 507. (a) The Departments of Commerce and Justice, the 
     National Science Foundation, and the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration shall provide to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     a quarterly report on the status of balances of 
     appropriations at the account level. For unobligated, 
     uncommitted balances and unobligated, committed balances the 
     quarterly reports shall separately identify the amounts 
     attributable to each source year of appropriation from which 
     the balances were derived. For balances that are obligated, 
     but unexpended, the quarterly reports shall separately 
     identify amounts by the year of obligation.
       (b) The report described in subsection (a) shall be 
     submitted within 30 days of the end of each quarter.
       (c) If a department or agency is unable to fulfill any 
     aspect of a reporting requirement described in subsection (a) 
     due to a limitation of a current accounting system, the 
     department or agency shall fulfill such aspect to the maximum 
     extent practicable under such accounting system and shall 
     identify and describe in each quarterly report the extent to 
     which such aspect is not fulfilled.
       Sec. 508.  Any costs incurred by a department or agency 
     funded under this Act resulting from, or to prevent, 
     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 505 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 for the Department of Commerce, this section 
     shall also apply to actions taken for the care and protection 
     of loan collateral or grant property.
       Sec. 509.  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. 510.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel of the 
     Department of Justice to obligate more than $2,705,164,000 
     during fiscal year 2016 from the fund established by section 
     1402 of Public Law 98-473 (42 U.S.C. 10601).
       Sec. 511.  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. 512.  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 appropriations Act.
       Sec. 513.  Any funds provided in this Act used to implement 
     E-Government Initiatives shall be subject to the procedures 
     set forth in section 505 of this Act.
       Sec. 514. (a) The Inspectors General of the Department of 
     Commerce, the Department of Justice, the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, 
     and the Legal Services Corporation shall conduct audits, 
     pursuant to the Inspector General Act (5 U.S.C. App.), of 
     grants or contracts for which funds are appropriated by this 
     Act, and shall submit reports to Congress on the progress of 
     such audits, which may include preliminary findings and a 
     description of areas of particular interest, within 180 days 
     after initiating such an audit and every 180 days thereafter 
     until any such audit is completed.
       (b) Within 60 days after the date on which an audit 
     described in subsection (a) by an Inspector General is 
     completed, the Secretary, Attorney General, Administrator, 
     Director, or President, as appropriate, shall make the 
     results of the audit available to the public on the Internet 
     website maintained by the Department, Administration, 
     Foundation, or Corporation, respectively. The results shall 
     be made available in redacted form to exclude--
       (1) any matter described in section 552(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code; and
       (2) sensitive personal information for any individual, the 
     public access to which could be used to commit identity theft 
     or for other inappropriate or unlawful purposes.
       (c) Any person awarded a grant or contract funded by 
     amounts appropriated by this Act shall submit a statement to 
     the Secretary of Commerce, the Attorney General, the 
     Administrator, Director, or President, as appropriate, 
     certifying that no funds derived from the grant or contract 
     will be made available through a subcontract or in any other 
     manner to another person who has a financial interest in the 
     person awarded the grant or contract.
       (d) The provisions of the preceding subsections of this 
     section shall take effect 30 days after the date on which the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Government 
     Ethics, determines that a uniform set of rules and 
     requirements, substantially similar to the requirements in 
     such subsections, consistently apply under the executive 
     branch ethics program to all Federal departments, agencies, 
     and entities.
       Sec. 515. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available under this Act may be used by the Departments 
     of Commerce and Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration, or the National Science Foundation to acquire 
     or renew a high-impact or moderate-impact information system, 
     as defined for security categorization in the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Federal 
     Information Processing Standard Publication 199, ``Standards 
     for Security Categorization of Federal Information and 
     Information Systems'' unless the agency has--
       (1) reviewed the supply chain risk for the information 
     systems against criteria developed by NIST and the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to inform acquisition decisions 
     for high-impact and moderate-impact information systems 
     within the Federal Government;
       (2) reviewed the supply chain risk from the presumptive 
     awardee against available and

[[Page 8333]]

     relevant threat information provided by the FBI and other 
     appropriate agencies; and
       (3) in consultation with the FBI or other appropriate 
     Federal entity, conducted an assessment of any risk of cyber-
     espionage or sabotage associated with the acquisition of such 
     system, including any risk associated with such system being 
     produced, manufactured, or assembled by one or more entities 
     identified by the United States Government as posing a cyber 
     threat, including but not limited to, those that may be 
     owned, directed, or subsidized by the People's Republic of 
     China.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act may be used to acquire a high-impact 
     or moderate-impact information system reviewed and assessed 
     under subsection (a) unless the head of the assessing entity 
     described in subsection (a) has--
       (1) developed, in consultation with NIST, the FBI and 
     supply chain risk management experts, a mitigation strategy 
     for any identified risks;
       (2) determined, in consultation with NIST and the FBI, that 
     the acquisition of such system is in the national interest of 
     the United States; and
       (3) reported that determination to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     and the agency Inspector General.
       Sec. 516.  None of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be used in any way whatsoever to support or justify the 
     use of torture by any official or contract employee of the 
     United States Government.
       Sec. 517. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     treaty, in fiscal year 2016 and each fiscal year thereafter, 
     none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under this Act or any other Act may be expended or obligated 
     by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United 
     States to pay administrative expenses or to compensate an 
     officer or employee of the United States in connection with 
     requiring an export license for the export to Canada of 
     components, parts, accessories or attachments for firearms 
     listed in Category I, section 121.1 of title 22, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (International Trafficking in Arms 
     Regulations (ITAR), part 121, as it existed on April 1, 2005) 
     with a total value not exceeding $500 wholesale in any 
     transaction, provided that the conditions of subsection (b) 
     of this section are met by the exporting party for such 
     articles.
       (b) The foregoing exemption from obtaining an export 
     license--
       (1) does not exempt an exporter from filing any Shipper's 
     Export Declaration or notification letter required by law, or 
     from being otherwise eligible under the laws of the United 
     States to possess, ship, transport, or export the articles 
     enumerated in subsection (a); and
       (2) does not permit the export without a license of--
       (A) fully automatic firearms and components and parts for 
     such firearms, other than for end use by the Federal 
     Government, or a Provincial or Municipal Government of 
     Canada;
       (B) barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames) or complete 
     breech mechanisms for any firearm listed in Category I, other 
     than for end use by the Federal Government, or a Provincial 
     or Municipal Government of Canada; or
       (C) articles for export from Canada to another foreign 
     destination.
       (c) In accordance with this section, the District Directors 
     of Customs and postmasters shall permit the permanent or 
     temporary export without a license of any unclassified 
     articles specified in subsection (a) to Canada for end use in 
     Canada or return to the United States, or temporary import of 
     Canadian-origin items from Canada for end use in the United 
     States or return to Canada for a Canadian citizen.
       (d) The President may require export licenses under this 
     section on a temporary basis if the President determines, 
     upon publication first in the Federal Register, that the 
     Government of Canada has implemented or maintained inadequate 
     import controls for the articles specified in subsection (a), 
     such that a significant diversion of such articles has and 
     continues to take place for use in international terrorism or 
     in the escalation of a conflict in another nation. The 
     President shall terminate the requirements of a license when 
     reasons for the temporary requirements have ceased.
       Sec. 518.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     fiscal year 2016 and each fiscal year thereafter, no 
     department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States 
     receiving appropriated funds under this Act or any other Act 
     shall obligate or expend in any way such funds to pay 
     administrative expenses or the compensation of any officer or 
     employee of the United States to deny any application 
     submitted pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(1)(B) and qualified 
     pursuant to 27 CFR section 478.112 or .113, for a permit to 
     import United States origin ``curios or relics'' firearms, 
     parts, or ammunition.
       Sec. 519.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to include in any new bilateral or multilateral trade 
     agreement the text of--
       (1) paragraph 2 of article 16.7 of the United States-
     Singapore Free Trade Agreement;
       (2) paragraph 4 of article 17.9 of the United States-
     Australia Free Trade Agreement; or
       (3) paragraph 4 of article 15.9 of the United States-
     Morocco Free Trade Agreement.
       Sec. 520.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to authorize or issue a national security letter in 
     contravention of any of the following laws authorizing the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation to issue national security 
     letters: The Right to Financial Privacy Act; The Electronic 
     Communications Privacy Act; The Fair Credit Reporting Act; 
     The National Security Act of 1947; USA PATRIOT Act; and the 
     laws amended by these Acts.
       Sec. 521.  If at any time during any quarter, the program 
     manager of a project within the jurisdiction of the 
     Departments of Commerce or Justice, the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration, or the National Science Foundation 
     totaling more than $75,000,000 has reasonable cause to 
     believe that the total program cost has increased by 10 
     percent or more, the program manager shall immediately inform 
     the respective Secretary, Administrator, or Director. The 
     Secretary, Administrator, or Director shall notify the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days in 
     writing of such increase, and shall include in such notice: 
     the date on which such determination was made; a statement of 
     the reasons for such increases; the action taken and proposed 
     to be taken to control future cost growth of the project; 
     changes made in the performance or schedule milestones and 
     the degree to which such changes have contributed to the 
     increase in total program costs or procurement costs; new 
     estimates of the total project or procurement costs; and a 
     statement validating that the project's management structure 
     is adequate to control total project or procurement costs.
       Sec. 522.  Funds appropriated by this Act, or made 
     available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for 
     intelligence or intelligence related activities are deemed to 
     be specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of 
     section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     414) during fiscal year 2016 until the enactment of the 
     Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2016.
       Sec. 523.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in 
     an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in 
     excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or 
     grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the 
     contract or grant that, to the best of its knowledge and 
     belief, the contractor or grantee has filed all Federal tax 
     returns required during the three years preceding the 
     certification, has not been convicted of a criminal offense 
     under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and has not, more 
     than 90 days prior to certification, been notified of any 
     unpaid Federal tax assessment for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied, unless the assessment is the subject of an 
     installment agreement or offer in compromise that has been 
     approved by the Internal Revenue Service and is not in 
     default, or the assessment is the subject of a non-frivolous 
     administrative or judicial proceeding.

                              (rescissions)

       Sec. 524. (a) Of the unobligated balances from prior year 
     appropriations available to the Department of Commerce's 
     National Technical Information Service, $10,000,000 are 
     rescinded.
       (b) Of the unobligated balances available to the Department 
     of Justice, the following funds are hereby rescinded, not 
     later than September 30, 2016, from the following accounts in 
     the specified amounts--
       (1) ``Working Capital Fund'', $100,000,000;
       (2) ``United States Marshals Service, Federal Prisoner 
     Detention'', $69,500,000;
       (3) ``Federal Bureau of Investigation, Salaries and 
     Expenses'', $120,000,000 from fines collected to defray 
     expenses for the automation of fingerprint identification and 
     criminal justice information services and associated costs;
       (4) ``State and Local Law Enforcement Activities, Office on 
     Violence Against Women, Violence Against Women Prevention and 
     Prosecution Programs'', $15,000,000;
       (5) ``State and Local Law Enforcement Activities, Office of 
     Justice Programs'', $40,000,000; and
       (6) ``State and Local Law Enforcement Activities, Community 
     Oriented Policing Services'', $20,000,000.
       (c) The Department of Justice shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate a report no later than September 1, 2016, 
     specifying the amount of each rescission made pursuant to 
     subsection (b).
       Sec. 525.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to purchase first class or premium airline travel in 
     contravention of sections 301-10.122 through 301-10.124 of 
     title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 526.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more 
     than 50 employees from a Federal department or agency at any 
     single conference occurring outside the United States unless 
     such conference is a law enforcement training or operational 
     conference for law enforcement personnel and the majority of 
     Federal employees in attendance are law enforcement personnel 
     stationed outside the United States.

[[Page 8334]]

       Sec. 527.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this or any other Act may be used to transfer, 
     release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within 
     the United States, its territories, or possessions Khalid 
     Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who--
       (1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States; and
       (2) is or was held on or after June 24, 2009, at the United 
     States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department 
     of Defense.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Strike section 527.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments. The first strikes 
section 527; the second strikes section 528. I had to put them in as 
two separate amendments because only one amendment pends at a time, but 
they are really together.
  Sections 527 and 528, which my amendment would strike, restricts the 
President's authority to move Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United 
States for trial.
  Mr. Chairman, simply put, it is time to punish Khalid Sheikh 
Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. In GTMO, he has not been 
tried, convicted, or punished. Meanwhile, Federal courts have tried, 
convicted, and punished more than 400 terrorists. None of them have 
ever escaped from a U.S. prison. No prison where they are located has 
ever been subjected to an attack.
  The only thing my friends who are opposed to closing Guantanamo have 
on their side is fear. Fear, Mr. Chairman. As they argue against this 
amendment, they will try to tell us that these men are dangerous and 
scary, that these men can harm us, that these men are the worst of the 
worst--and some may be--but these men are already in our custody.
  Like so many murderers and terrorists already in prison, they have no 
power over us. They have been shut off from the outside world for more 
than a decade.
  If there are terrible people in Guantanamo--and I am not denying that 
there are--then it is time for them to face the consequences of their 
actions in a U.S. court. And that is the rub. The terrorists that have 
been prosecuted and sentenced had their day in court and were found 
guilty.
  U.S. Federal courts have successfully tried and convicted criminals 
and terrorists during times of war and peace for hundreds of years, all 
while respecting the rights of due process that our Constitution 
demands.
  This leads me to believe that some of my colleagues do not believe in 
the American system of justice. They do not trust our American courts 
to do justice. I do not understand why.
  Through the centuries, our legal system has kept America safe by 
putting away dangerous individuals while protecting those who were 
innocent of the government's charges against them. That is the beauty 
of our system that has made it the envy of the world.
  The principles underpinning the system, the right to due process and 
to a fair trial, are built into our Constitution and are part of our 
most basic values. But in order for the system to work, you actually 
need to get your day in court.
  Without our amendment, this bill guarantees that we will continue 
holding people indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay.
  Even though we suspect that we are holding people who are terrorists, 
some of whom probably are, in fact, terrorists, none of this has been 
proven in a court of law. Without this amendment, we will continue to 
hold them indefinitely without charge, contrary to every tradition this 
country stands for, contrary to any notion of due process.
  The founding principles of the United States, that no person may be 
deprived of liberty without due process of law and certainly may not be 
deprived of liberty indefinitely without due process of law, demands 
that we close the detention facility at Guantanamo.
  We must close this facility, try these people, condemn the guilty, 
place them in supermax facilities, release the innocent, if there are 
any; and restore our national honor. I urge the support of this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure everyone in the 
House understands that what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is 
attempting to do is to give constitutional rights to foreign nationals 
captured on battlefields overseas who are being held in Guantanamo Bay. 
Never before in American history have we ever given foreign nationals--
enemy combatants captured overseas on a battlefield--constitutional 
rights, the most precious rights we have, that were fought for, bled 
for, died for by our forefathers on so many battlefields all over the 
world to preserve these precious rights reserved for the people of the 
United States of America. Mr. Nadler wants to extend the protections of 
this Constitution to the killers and the psychopaths who have killed so 
many Americans overseas.
  I could not disagree more strenuously. I know the House disagrees 
strenuously. We have voted on this repeatedly. And the House and the 
Congress have repeatedly affirmed this language, which says very 
clearly, ``none of the funds appropriated''--this is the language Mr. 
Nadler seeks to strike:
  ``None of the funds appropriated . . . in this or any other Act may 
be used to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to 
or within the United States . . . Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other 
detainee who is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed 
Forces . . . and is or was held on or after June 24, 2009 . . . at 
Guantanamo Bay.''
  During World War II, a group of Nazi saboteurs who landed on beaches 
in Long Island and in Florida were captured fairly rapidly by local 
police officers and local militia and were handed over to the U.S. 
military. Franklin Roosevelt did the right thing, and they immediately 
held these Nazis as military detainees. They were accorded a trial 
under the Code of Military Justice and executed, as they should have 
been, I think within about 60 days.
  This is not really an issue with the American people, who I hope, Mr. 
Chairman, are out watching tonight because there could not be a more 
dramatic contrast between the majority in the House that is 
representing the will of the Nation in seeing that our laws are 
enforced and the enemies of the United States are hunted down wherever 
they may hide.
  I had a constituent tell me Hamas stands for ``hiding among mosques 
and schools.'' Wherever these people may hide--they hide behind women 
and children. They will not face our soldiers on the battlefield. When 
we have met them on the battlefield, we have defeated them decisively.
  Where the men and women of the United States military find these 
people and hunt them down and kill them or capture them--if we have 
captured them and they have information that could save American lives, 
we bring them to Guantanamo Bay, and we have saved countless lives by 
holding them there.
  We, in this appropriations bill, make clear that we will not give 
these killers, these cowards, these terrorists, these foreign fighters 
on foreign battlefields the precious rights reserved for the people of 
the United States by this Constitution. And it is that simple.
  If you want to give terrorists, foreign fighters on foreign 
battlefields constitutional rights, you should vote with the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Vote against Mr. Nadler's amendment if you believe that the rights 
guaranteed by this Constitution are reserved for the people of the 
United States and that if you are an enemy

[[Page 8335]]

combatant, a foreign national fighting the United States, you are going 
to be dealt with severely and accorded the Code of Military Justice, as 
it should be.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 90 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, almost everything the gentleman just said is not 
apropos and is wrong.
  The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the people at 
Guantanamo have exactly the same constitutional rights--no more and no 
less--than they would have if brought to the United States. So it has 
nothing to do with giving constitutional rights to foreign nationals.
  Second of all, some of these people were, indeed, captured on foreign 
battlefields; some were not.
  Third of all, maybe they should be tried by military tribunals. But 
they have been held for 11, 12, 14, 15 years. We can't manage to try 
them by foreign tribunals. Put them in a Federal court. Try them. 
Convict them.

                              {time}  2045

  Put them in a Federal court, try them, and convict them. If you want 
to put them in a military tribunal, you can do that, fine. We haven't 
managed to. But the fact is, by staying in Guantanamo, they don't have 
any less, fewer, or more constitutional rights than are here. Anyone 
within the jurisdiction of the United States, according to the Supreme 
Court, has constitutional rights. We must treat them with due process. 
All this amendment says is treat them the way the Supreme Court has 
said we should: try them, condemn them, or find them innocent, as the 
case may be. Some may be innocent. Many of them are not. Some may be. 
We should follow our traditions.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment so that we can 
apply American concepts of justice as the Supreme Court has said we 
must.
  We can try them by military tribunal in Guantanamo or in the United 
States. We can try them in Federal Court. Military tribunals haven't 
worked. We haven't been able to make them work. Federal courts have 
worked. We should condemn the guilty and release the innocent, if there 
are any.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes
  Mr. FATTAH. It was not long after 9/11 that we held a conversation 
here in Washington, and the former Speaker was on a panel over in 
Rayburn, I think. We were discussing this, and he said, well, this is 
the situation that we find ourselves in after these attacks. And I 
asked Speaker Gingrich at the time, former Speaker, this notion of us 
being a nation of laws, what did that mean now. Because under former 
President Bush, the original President Bush, he had complained about 
the Chinese holding people without trial. We had issued a formal 
complaint that the Chinese were holding people without trial, using 
secret evidence and so forth and so on, and what did this mean now in 
the context of our own country's conduct. Speaker Gingrich said that, 
well, he wasn't really sure because we are at a difficult moment.
  So now we are here. We have had two Presidents who tried to close 
Guantanamo. President Bush who opened it, and his second administration 
wanted to end it, and then we had two Presidential elections in which 
the country voted for Barack Obama, who said he wanted to close this 
facility. We have a congressional majority that is not going to do it, 
that is going to put every impediment in the way of doing it.
  We have our national security enterprise that says that this is used 
as a recruitment tool against our interests, that this is working 
against the security of the United States. And, more important than 
perhaps even that is, I am sure, gnaws at our ideals as Americans that 
you would take someone, hold them, never try them, never produce any 
evidence in a tribunal of any type, military or civilian, and say that 
you are going to do it in perpetuity, that this is not the great Nation 
that our ideal speaks to. This is the act of something less than what 
we should be doing as a great country.
  Mr. Chairman, I know that it is not popular and Mr. Nadler's 
amendment is not going to probably enjoy majority support, but at the 
end of the day, we can't just ask what is popular or what is politic. 
At some point, we have to ask ourselves what is the right thing. If we 
can complain about China holding people without charge, with secret 
evidence and no trial and no access to lawyers, then we have to think 
about looking in the mirror and think about what we have allowed other 
people's actions to turn our country into in this circumstance.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Nadler amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me, if I could, Mr. Chairman, point out that President Obama has 
already said he wants to close Guantanamo Bay and bring these people 
into the United States. The 19th terrorist was captured in the United 
States, and therefore he was entitled to constitutional protection 
because he was in the United States.
  But the only thing standing between Barack Obama giving these 
terrorists and killers constitutional rights is this language in this 
appropriations bill which says none of the money in the United States 
can be used to transfer these killers into the United States. As soon 
as they touch our soil, they will be given constitutional rights. And 
that is exactly what Mr. Nadler wants to do with his amendment is give 
these precious constitutional rights to these killers and these cowards 
that have been captured on foreign battlefields, these foreign 
nationals who have never been afforded the protection of the United 
States Constitution, which is reserved for the people of the United 
States.
  They deserve what they have got. They are lucky to be alive. They are 
lucky to be in Guantanamo Bay. And I urge Members to vote against this 
amendment to ensure that these people are given what they deserve, and 
that is, whether it be life in prison or whatever lies ahead of them, 
that they will never again threaten the people of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no,'' against Mr. Nadler's 
amendment, to ensure that constitutional protections are only afforded 
to the people of the United States or those persons who are actually 
within our boundaries when they are captured or they commit a crime.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 528. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in this or any other Act may be used to 
     construct, acquire, or modify any facility in the United 
     States, its territories, or possessions to house any 
     individual described in subsection (c) for the purposes of 
     detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the 
     effective control of the Department of Defense.
       (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     any modification of facilities at United States Naval 
     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       (c) An individual described in this subsection is any 
     individual who, as of June 24, 2009, is located at United 
     States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and who--
       (1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of 
     the Armed Forces of the United States; and
       (2) is--

[[Page 8336]]

       (A) in the custody or under the effective control of the 
     Department of Defense; or
       (B) otherwise under detention at United States Naval 
     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to strike section 528.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Strike section 528.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this is really a continuation of our 
colloquy from the last amendment since they both seek to do the same 
thing. Let me just say a couple of things.
  Again, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that people in 
Guantanamo Bay have the same constitutional rights as people in 
Florida, New York, or Washington, so I do not seek to give people in 
Guantanamo Bay constitutional rights they do not already have. They 
have the constitutional rights. That was the Supreme Court decision, I 
think, in 2009 I think the decision was. They have the constitutional 
rights. Anyone under the jurisdiction and effective control of the 
United States has the constitutional rights, so that is not really in 
question.
  What is really in question is: Are we going to honor our obligations? 
Now, the gentleman says that some of these people are terrible people, 
that they are murderers. Some of them may be, and some of them are, but 
some of them may not be. They have not been tried. They ought to be 
tried.
  As the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, we have criticized the 
Chinese communists, and we have criticized many other nations for 
holding people in jail indefinitely, for not trying them and for not 
giving them any kind of due process. These people, like any other human 
beings, deserve some due process.
  Some of them, I am sure, have been terrorists. They ought to be 
condemned and put in jail forever. Some of them may not be. And some of 
them were captured on foreign battlefields and some were not. Some of 
them were simply victims of the Hatfields and the McCoys' feud between 
two tribes or clans in Afghanistan or wherever, and one clan said: Gee, 
the Americans are paying a $5,000 bounty, so why don't we tip them off 
to our enemy and tell them that they are a terrorist. Some of them were 
victims of that.
  The facts ought to come out. Some due process ought to be given. No 
one ought to be held in jail for life without a trial, without a 
hearing, and without some due process. That is what we stand for. And 
simply saying that Americans deserve due process but other people do 
not, A, it is wrong. Other people do not have constitutional rights, 
but if they are in the United States, they do. If they are in 
Guantanamo, they have constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has 
already said that.
  So the question here is: Are we going to bring them to a facility in 
the United States, a supermax facility? No one has escaped from them. 
It is cheaper. It saves the taxpayers a lot of money. Give them a 
military tribunal or a Federal trial and do what is right. That is what 
is at stake here.
  I will say one other thing. Our military has told us time and time 
again that the stain of Guantanamo, besides being a stain on our honor, 
is one of the greatest recruiting tools the terrorists have. They point 
to Guantanamo. They say: Look at those American hypocrites. They are 
persecuting Muslims. They are persecuting non-Americans.
  Well, they have a point. And other people think they have a point, 
and they get angry. They get radicalized, and they become terrorists 
against us.
  So why not, for the 120-odd people who are still at Guantanamo, the 
majority of whom have been judged not to pose a threat to this country 
by our own military authorities, do the right thing? Give them a trial. 
Throw them in jail for whatever lengthy period of time is indicated if 
they are guilty. And if they are not, then they ought to be released if 
they are not guilty of a crime, if they haven't been terrorists. We 
have to have some evidence. We can't simply point to someone and say, 
``He is guilty of a crime. He is a terrorist,'' without some evidence 
to that fact. That is our tradition. Mr. Chairman, that is what this 
amendment calls for.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, let me point out to all the Members of 
the House and those listening here this evening that the section Mr. 
Nadler attempts to strike is the only thing standing between President 
Barack Obama and his attempt to close Guantanamo Bay and transfer all 
these killers, these cowards, and these foreign nationals captured on 
the foreign battlefields either attempting to or having already killed 
American soldiers. This language that Mr. Nadler is attempting to 
strike prohibits, says:
  None of the funds appropriated by this or any other act may be used 
to construct or acquire or modify any facility in the United States to 
house any individual transferred into the United States from Guantanamo 
Bay.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we have got two provisions in this bill: no money 
to transfer anybody from Guantanamo into the United States--and that 
amendment, which will be a record vote, will be decisively defeated by 
the House in a minute--and then this amendment which Mr. Nadler is 
offering. We have put language in this bill for the last several years 
to make sure that President Obama cannot use Federal hard-earned 
taxpayer dollars to build a prison facility or modify it to house 
anybody transferred from Guantanamo.
  Now, this is very clear-cut. This is very simple. Obviously anybody 
held, if you are in a military tribunal, you get due process. That is 
not the issue. What Mr. Nadler is attempting to do with this amendment, 
again, is to give constitutional rights to foreign nationals captured 
on foreign battlefields engaged, and we are still at war with these 
people. We are still at war. And Mr. Nadler is attempting to extend 
constitutional protections fought for and died for by our ancestors to 
enemy combatants captured on foreign battlefields--never been done, 
absolutely unprecedented, and, frankly, unbelievable. I cannot even 
imagine the cost, the sacrifice, the burden on American taxpayers, the 
threat to American safety, for what?
  So these foreign nationals, these psychopathic killers in ISIL are 
going to respect us and like us because we give them a trial and gave 
them constitutional protection? Yeah, that is going to happen.
  Mr. Chairman, we are at war with a medieval mindset that is 
determined to destroy our way of life and our liberty. They are hostile 
to everything that our Founding Fathers fought for. These people would 
destroy this Constitution that we have had for over 200 years, worked 
so hard to preserve and protect.
  I cannot think of anything more destructive or damaging to the morale 
of our troops, to the morale of our Nation, and to all of those 
families who lost loved ones in the war on terror than to bring in 
these killers and cowards in the United States and grant them the 
protections guaranteed to American citizens in the United States 
Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, even the Nazis who came ashore on Long Island 
that the gentleman referred to before were tried in the military 
tribunal. They weren't simply thrown in jail and held forever. They 
were tried in a military tribunal, condemned, and then sentenced to 
death.
  All this amendment says is we should do the same thing, that people 
who are in the custody and the jurisdiction of

[[Page 8337]]

the United States already have constitutional rights. We are not giving 
them constitutional rights. The Supreme Court already said they have 
them. We are saying they should get a military tribunal or a civilian 
trial, whichever is chosen. This amendment doesn't deal with that. And 
they should be condemned or not.
  One more thing. The gentleman keeps saying that these people were 
enemies of the United States captured on the foreign battlefield. Some 
were and some were not.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Nadler, because the section we are 
dealing with is a prohibition against building a prison facility in the 
United States to house these people. So that is what the debate needs 
to be about. What you are attempting to strike is a prohibition against 
using our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to build a prison to house 
these killers.
  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriations bill. I just want 
everybody to know it is $2 million per inmate at Guantanamo. It is a 
premium facility, $2 million per inmate.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New York has 
expired.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the question before the House is whether 
or not our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars are going to be used to build 
a prison facility in the United States to house the terrorists and 
killers and cowards held in Guantanamo Bay. That is the question before 
us.
  Mr. NADLER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Does the gentleman not know what has been testified to 
repeatedly, that it will be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers' money to 
hold them in the United States than in Guantanamo?
  Mr. CULBERSON. Well, that may be your opinion, sir, but we will not, 
and will not ever, afford constitutional rights or house foreign 
fighters captured on a foreign battlefield who have been killing the 
men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States on a foreign 
battlefield, we are never going to house them in a prison in the United 
States. We are never going to give them constitutional rights. Those 
rights are reserved to the people of the United States and the people 
who commit crimes within the boundaries of the United States.
  The 19th terrorist, who didn't quite make it that day, was captured 
in the United States, and he was given a trial, as he should be. The 
Constitution extends protections to persons within the United States. 
These people, again, whom we are at war with have never been afforded 
constitutional protections. And you are right, the Nazis captured in 
Long Island and in Florida were given due process in a military 
tribunal, as these individuals have been given due process in military 
tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. That is the way it always has been and 
always should be.
  And certainly the Members of this House have voted repeatedly in the 
past, and I am confident they will vote again tonight to defeat this 
amendment to reaffirm that these precious rights in the United States 
Constitution are reserved for the people of the United States and will 
never be extended to enemy foreign fighters, particularly these cowards 
who have been waging war against women and children and won't come out 
and fight our men and women on the battlefield in open combat.
  This language in this bill is the only thing standing between 
President Barack Obama in his attempt to close Guantanamo Bay and move 
these people into prison facilities in the United States. So I urge 
Members to vote against Mr. Nadler's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and enter 
into a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield initially to my friend, Mr. 
Babin, and then will yield to Mr. Posey.
  Mr. BABIN. Mr. Chairman, I am seeking an increase of funding for the 
Commercial Crew Program in our Science budget.
  For the past several years, the United States taxpayers have been 
paying over $70 million a person to launch our astronauts to the 
International Space Station on Russian vehicles from Russian soil. We 
must end this reliance on the Russians as quickly as possible. We must 
set priorities within the NASA budget to make sure that the American 
astronauts are launched from American soil on American vehicles sooner 
rather than later.
  When it comes to spending within our NASA budget, it is important 
that we set a precedent of what we think is the most important thing to 
do. NASA is the only U.S. Government agency that has human spaceflight 
as its mission. If NASA doesn't do it, then it simply is not going to 
be done.
  This investment in Commercial Crew, which is managed out of Johnson 
Space Center in the 36th congressional District, would aid the 
development of U.S. human spaceflight capabilities and lay the 
foundation for future commercial transportation and end our dependence 
on the Russians.
  I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to ensure that we 
give this program the funding necessary to end our reliance on the 
Russians.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Mr. Babin. I want to assure you that as we 
work through this process in conference and the additional funding 
becomes available--and I do expect that as we move forward, if we have 
additional funding, we are going to make sure that any gaps or holes, 
whether it be in the Orion program or anywhere else, we are going to 
fill those holes and make sure that we are given as much support as we 
possibly can to Commercial Crew and to Orion.
  We funded the Orion program at the level the President requested. And 
if we get additional funds, we will do our very best to hit that mark 
also for the Commercial Crew Program.
  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. I am very supportive of the Commercial Crew Program, and 
I think that there is a shortfall in that particular program. I think 
that is what the gentleman is referring to in his hope that we can 
address that shortfall so that we don't have to spend what has now been 
about $500 million with our Russian counterparts in order to transport 
astronauts to the International Space Station.
  Mr. CULBERSON. We will work together. If we, as we say, find 
additional funds, we will do everything we can to help Orion.
  Mr. BABIN. Thank you for your consideration, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I will be happy also to yield to my good friend, Mr. 
Posey, for a colloquy as well.
  Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  This bill adequately funds the Space Launch System, the rocket which 
will carry the Orion capsule into space, and I am grateful for that.
  It adequately funds exploration ground systems, which are essential 
to getting Orion off the ground, and I am really grateful for that.
  But without sufficiently funding the Orion capsule, we will be 
delaying the deep space exploration missions. Orion is a very unique 
and very special spacecraft, unlike any we have ever sent into space, 
possessing capabilities to carry astronauts deeper into space than 
humans have ever gone before. The technological and engineering 
challenges are enormous, and it requires proper funding to get the job 
done.
  It is critical that Orion receives adequate funding to remain on 
schedule.

[[Page 8338]]

My rough calculations indicate this funding level, so much less than 
authorized, can result in the delay of having Orion online by as much 
as 2 years. Imagine having our space launch systems ready to go, our 
exploration ground systems ready to go, and no space capsule ready to 
fly for 2 more years after that. That would be disastrous.
  Unfortunately, when Congress assigns tasks to NASA and does not 
provide adequate funding, American's space program gets criticized and 
maligned for being behind schedule, when it is actually Congress that 
caused the problem.
  I thank my colleagues for their work on this issue, and I am hopeful 
that we can work together to make certain Orion gets enough funding to 
stay on schedule to carry humans into space, deep space, by 2021.
  I thank Chairman Culberson for his work on this and his assurance 
that we can work together to secure adequate funding to keep Orion on 
schedule.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I want to assure the gentleman that we will do so. I 
want to make sure to make the Record clear that we funded Orion at the 
level requested by NASA. We fully funded in exactly the number they 
asked for. If additional funds become available, and it looks like it 
is really going to help them speed up the program, we will certainly 
make those funds available to them, because we want to get Americans 
back into space as quickly as possible on an American built rocket. 
That is why you have seen us plus up the SLS heavy launch rocket 
program to accelerate that program, which will have so many uses. But, 
of course, you know I don't know there is any stronger advocate for 
NASA and America's space program than I am and you gentlemen are. I 
look forward to working with you.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I move to strike the last word with the gentleman 
from Texas.
  The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the gentleman cannot strike the 
last word.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Do I have the ability to strike the last word again to 
complete additional colloquy with the gentleman from Colorado?
  The Acting CHAIR. Only the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania can move to strike the last word under the rule.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word and enter 
into a colloquy with the gentleman from Colorado, my friend.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank the gentleman from Texas, and I thank my 
friend from Florida for speaking up on behalf of Orion.
  Orion is America's new spacecraft to take astronauts further into 
space than ever before and land our astronauts on Mars.
  Orion had its maiden test flight this past December, and it was a 
resounding success. The Orion program, as Mr. Posey stated, needs a 
full funding for this, and we believe it to be $1.35 billion for fiscal 
year '16 to meet those needs.
  I appreciate the committee including language in the committee report 
requiring NASA to provide an assessment of these challenges, but 
Congress needs to provide the resources necessary in fiscal year `16 to 
mitigate the entire risk and move this project forward.
  So I thank the gentleman from Texas for his support of the Orion 
program. We need to make sure it has sufficient resources to get our 
men and women, our astronauts, to Mars as quickly as possible.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I look forward to working with you and my colleague 
from Texas and our colleagues from Florida in ensuring everyone in this 
House supports NASA and the manned space program. And I will work 
closely with you and my colleagues to ensure that any additional 
funding that Orion needs that they receive as we move through this 
process and go into conference.
  As you noted, the bill that we have before us tonight funds Orion at 
the level requested by NASA. We gave them exactly what they asked for. 
We also asked them to give us reports on making sure they can meet 
their deadlines for testing the spacecraft and meeting their 
milestones. As they prove that to us and as we get further along and 
additional funds get available and they show us they need that, of 
course, we will put them at the top of the list.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank the gentleman. I look forward to staying on 
top of this so that as they move forward we have sufficient funding to 
really propel this project forward and get our astronauts to Mars.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I thank the gentleman. America will never surrender 
the high ground--outer space is the high ground of the 21st century--
and we are going to make sure to preserve America's leadership in space 
exploration, both manned and unmanned.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


  Vacating Demand for Recorded Vote on Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I am doing something I would rather not do. 
But the gentleman from Texas was so nice on my rape kit amendment, and 
we did save Texas and have Davy Crockett, a predecessor of mine, in 
Congress.
  I ask unanimous consent that my request for a recorded vote on the 
amendment I offered that the chair was against, that it be withdrawn, 
to the end that the amendment stand disposed of by the voice vote 
thereon.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the request for a recorded vote 
is withdrawn. Accordingly, the noes have it and the amendment is not 
adopted.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 529.  To the extent practicable, funds made available 
     in this Act should be used to purchase light bulbs that are 
     ``Energy Star'' qualified or have the ``Federal Energy 
     Management Program'' designation.
       Sec. 530.  The Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall instruct any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States receiving funds 
     appropriated under this Act to track undisbursed balances in 
     expired grant accounts and include in its annual performance 
     plan and performance and accountability reports the 
     following:
       (1) Details on future action the department, agency, or 
     instrumentality will take to resolve undisbursed balances in 
     expired grant accounts.
       (2) The method that the department, agency, or 
     instrumentality uses to track undisbursed balances in expired 
     grant accounts.
       (3) Identification of undisbursed balances in expired grant 
     accounts that may be returned to the Treasury of the United 
     States.
       (4) In the preceding 3 fiscal years, details on the total 
     number of expired grant accounts with undisbursed balances 
     (on the first day of each fiscal year) for the department, 
     agency, or instrumentality and the total finances that have 
     not been obligated to a specific project remaining in the 
     accounts.
       Sec. 531. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used for the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration (NASA) or the Office of Science and Technology 
     Policy (OSTP) to develop, design, plan, promulgate, 
     implement, or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or 
     contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or 
     coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-
     owned company unless such activities are specifically 
     authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to effectuate the hosting of official Chinese visitors 
     at facilities belonging to or utilized by NASA.
       (c) The limitations described in subsections (a) and (b) 
     shall not apply to activities which NASA or OSTP has 
     certified--
       (1) pose no risk of resulting in the transfer of 
     technology, data, or other information with national security 
     or economic security implications to China or a Chinese-owned 
     company; and
       (2) will not involve knowing interactions with officials 
     who have been determined by the United States to have direct 
     involvement with violations of human rights.
       (d) Any certification made under subsection (c) shall be 
     submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate, and the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, no later

[[Page 8339]]

     than 30 days prior to the activity in question and shall 
     include a description of the purpose of the activity, its 
     agenda, its major participants, and its location and timing.
       Sec. 532.  None of the funds made available by this or any 
     other Act, for fiscal year 2016 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter, may be used to pay the salaries or expenses of 
     personnel to deny, or fail to act on, an application for the 
     importation of any model of shotgun if--
       (1) all other requirements of law with respect to the 
     proposed importation are met; and
       (2) no application for the importation of such model of 
     shotgun, in the same configuration, had been denied by the 
     Attorney General prior to January 1, 2011, on the basis that 
     the shotgun was not particularly suitable for or readily 
     adaptable to sporting purposes.


                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Esty

  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 94, beginning on line 16, strike section 532.
       Page 96, beginning on line 12, strike section 537.

  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 532 and 537, two 
harmful gun riders in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, appropriations bills are not the proper place to 
address significant policy provisions. Instead, such changes to gun 
policy must be seriously and properly considered by Congress through 
the regular order. The American people deserve an open and transparent 
process where a full range of options can be frankly discussed and 
debated by the proper congressional committee and the entire House of 
Representatives.
  Over the past several years, various appropriations riders related to 
gun policy have had unintended consequences that could have been 
prevented had these issues been fully and thoroughly debated in 
Congress.
  Today is National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Today of all days we 
can and must do better. We should not allow contentious policy 
provisions related to important Federal policies governing firearms to 
be attached to these appropriations bills.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the Appropriations Committee and the House as a 
whole to stop inserting significant gun policy provisions into must-
pass spending bills.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.

                              {time}  2115

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 533. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to maintain or establish a computer network 
     unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and 
     exchanging of pornography.
       (b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall limit the use of funds 
     necessary for any Federal, State, tribal, or local law 
     enforcement agency or any other entity carrying out criminal 
     investigations, prosecution, adjudication, or other law-
     enforcement related activity.
       Sec. 534.  The Departments of Commerce and Justice, the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National 
     Science Foundation, the Commission on Civil Rights, the Equal 
     Employment Opportunity Commission, the International Trade 
     Commission, the Legal Services Corporation, the Marine Mammal 
     Commission, the Offices of Science and Technology Policy and 
     the United States Trade Representative, and the State Justice 
     Institute shall submit spending plans, signed by the 
     respective department or agency head, to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     within 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 535.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to implement the Arms Trade Treaty 
     until the Senate approves a resolution of ratification for 
     the Treaty.
       Sec. 536.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to relinquish the responsibility of the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration with 
     respect to Internet domain name system functions, including 
     responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone 
     file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions.
       Sec. 537.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to require a person licensed under section 923 of 
     title 18, United States Code, to report information to the 
     Department of Justice regarding the sale of multiple rifles 
     or shotguns to the same person.
       Sec. 538.  No funds provided in this Act shall be used to 
     deny the Inspectors General of the Departments of Commerce 
     and Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration, and the National Science Foundation timely 
     access to all records, documents, and other materials in the 
     custody or possession of the respective department or agency 
     or to prevent or impede the particular Inspector General's 
     access to such records, documents, and other materials, 
     unless in accordance with an express limitation of section 
     6(a) of the Inspector General Act, as amended, consistent 
     with the plain language of the Inspector General Act, as 
     amended. The Inspectors General of the Departments of 
     Commerce and Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration, and the National Science Foundation shall 
     report to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate within five calendar days any 
     failures to comply with this requirement.
       Sec. 539.  The Department of Commerce, the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science 
     Foundation, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy 
     shall provide a monthly report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     on any official travel to China by any employee of such 
     Department or agency, including the purpose of such travel.
       Sec. 540. (a) No funds made available in this Act may be 
     used to facilitate, permit, license, or promote exports to 
     the Cuban military or intelligence service or to any officer 
     of the Cuban military or intelligence service, or an 
     immediate family member thereof.
       (b) This section does not apply to exports of goods 
     permitted under the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export 
     Enhancement Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.).
       (c) In this section--
       (1) the term ``Cuban military or intelligence service'' 
     includes, but is not limited to, the Ministry of the 
     Revolutionary Armed Forces, and the Ministry of the Interior, 
     of Cuba, and any subsidiary of either such Ministry; and
       (2) the term ``immediate family member'' means a spouse, 
     sibling, son, daughter, parent, grandparent, grandchild, 
     aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Farr

  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk to strike 
section 540.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Strike section 540 (page 97, line 18 through page 98, line 
     10).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I am serving my 22nd year in the United 
States Congress, and I have never seen a provision in an appropriations 
bill like this.
  This amendment in there could be labeled the ``family feud.'' There 
is only one Member of Congress who is related to anybody in the 
leadership and in the military in Cuba, and he is the person who put 
this amendment in.
  What it does is it prohibits businesses from doing business in Cuba 
because it makes it almost impossible for any business to get a 
license. That is why the United States Chamber of Commerce; the 
National Foreign Trade Council; the Emergency Committee for American 
Trade; USA Engage, which is a trade group; and CubaNow, which is 
Florida's Cuban Americans, are all opposed to this provision of the 
bill and support my amendment to strike it.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record letters from CubaNow which are 
in support of my amendment.

       Dear Congressman Farr: We urge that House Members vote to 
     strip Section 540 from H.R. 2578, Commerce, Justice, Science, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016.
       This provision would turn back the strategic effort to 
     normalize relations between the U.S. and Cuba, harming 
     advancements to increased commerce with Cuba.
       Majorities of Americans, Cuban-Americans, and Cubans 
     support normalizing relations and ending the unilateral trade 
     embargo. Bipartisan support exists in both the

[[Page 8340]]

     House and Senate and throughout the business community and 
     the majority of civil society groups focused on Cuba.
       The question of Cuba policy should be approached 
     deliberatively in the full context of hemispheric relations.
       Please support the Farr amendment to strip Section 540 from 
     H.R. 2578.
           Sincerely,
     CubaNow;
     Emergency Committee for American Trade;
     Engage Cuba;
     Manchester Trade Limited, Inc.;
     National Foreign Trade Council;
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce;
     USA*Engage.
                                  ____


   #CubaNow Statement on Administration Veto Threats Over Cuba Policy

                            [From #CubaNow]

       Washington.--#CubaNow Political Director David Gomez issued 
     the following statement in support of the Obama 
     Administration's veto threats and congressional efforts to 
     eliminate attempts to limit or roll back the new Cuba policy:
       ``#CubaNow supports the recent veto threats issued by the 
     Obama Administration in regards to the House's current 
     Transportation and Commerce appropriations bills. As the 
     Administration noted, these bills include policy riders that 
     place unacceptable and regressive restrictions related to 
     Cuba, including Americans' right to travel to the Island and 
     the ability to do business with and support Cuba's growing 
     private sector. #CubaNow also supports the floor amendment by 
     Rep. Sam Farr to strike the restrictions from the Commerce 
     appropriations bill and other similar efforts in Congress to 
     keep spending bills free of bad policy that will do nothing 
     to help the Cuban people.''
       ``Congress should work on advancing U.S.-Cuba policy in a 
     constructive manner that recognizes there's no going back to 
     the failed ideas of yesterday. Only a small minority in 
     Congress continues to try to drag their feet. But the Cold 
     War is over, and it's time that Congress heeds the will of an 
     American public that by and large supports moving forward 
     with greater engagement. Our new direction will do more to 
     help Cuban civil society than riders that try to breathe life 
     into an unsuccessful half-century-old policy.''

  Mr. FARR. Almost every country in this hemisphere and almost every 
country in the world has normal trade relations with Cuba. We are 
trying to open those up so that businesses in America, particularly our 
agriculture and our other trading goods, can take advantage of the 
market in Cuba--not a big one, but an important one--because it is so 
close to shore.
  What this amendment does is it stops all of that. It targets the 
Cuban military by saying that anything related to the Cuban military 
and what they own, which is a lot of businesses in Cuba, may not be 
used to facilitate, permit, license, or promote exports to the Cuban 
military or intelligence services or the immediate families thereof.
  This is what is really so damaging. The term ``immediate family,'' as 
described in the bill, means a spouse, sibling, son, daughter, parent, 
grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew. Now, how does a 
businessperson in the United States know if any of those people are 
working for any of the agencies that this bill restricts from?
  It hurts American businesses, and it hurts Cubans. Let's stop living 
in the past. Let's strike this provision in the bill and support my 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I am glad this amendment is here.
  President Obama said--and he said this a while ago--that his policies 
are to help promote the Cuban people's independence from Cuban 
authorities.
  Now, no one can claim that the Cuban military and the Cuban 
intelligence community and their direct family members are not the 
Cuban authorities. Nothing is more authority than those two things. 
Let's unmask what this amendment does.
  The language in the mark, in the bill, simply affirms that we should 
not send exports--I will make this very clear--to the Cuban military or 
the intelligence community or their immediate families. In unmasking 
this amendment, what this amendment is saying is no, no, no, that we do 
support and that we do want to do business with the Cuban military and 
the Cuban intelligence services and their immediate families.
  By the way, it is the same military and intelligence services that 
brutalized the Cuban people, that beat prodemocracy demonstrators, that 
beat a number of American citizens in Panama recently, that illegally 
smuggles weapons, which has members of that Cuban military under 
indictment here in a U.S. Federal court for the murder of American 
citizens.
  I am glad this amendment is here because this amendment unmasks the 
underlying issue, and the chairman's mark specifically deals with--
again, as I mentioned--the Cuban military and the intelligence 
community and their immediate relatives.
  If this amendment were to happen, what we would be saying is that we 
want to do business, not with Cuba and not with the Cuban people, but 
with the Cuban military and the intelligence services and their direct 
relatives. Frankly, I am glad this amendment is here because it does 
unmask the issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Farr amendment.
  Section 540 is critical in ensuring that exports to Cuba reach and 
benefit the Cuban people, not the regime's military and intelligence 
services, which actively and aggressively collaborate with our enemies 
throughout the world. Still today, Cuba has one of the most robust spy 
networks in the United States. These are not the people we should be 
rewarding with American business.
  The most recent State Department report on Cuba's human rights 
conditions says that harsh prison conditions, arbitrary arrests, 
selective prosecution, and the denial of fair trials continue in the 
country.
  The iron fist of the Castro regime has cracked down on peaceful 
democratic activists with over 2,000 dissidents arrested since the 
President's December 17 announcement. Just this past Sunday, 59 members 
of the Ladies in White were arrested along with 25 other human rights 
activists--their crime? It was attending Sunday mass, Mr. Chairman.
  The oppression is not limited to Cuba's borders. According to high-
level military defectors from Venezuela's Government, there are between 
2,700 and 3,000 Cuban military and intelligence agents aiding in the 
crackdown against Venezuelan protesters and opposing American interests 
in that country.
  These are the thugs--the very individuals--who would most benefit 
from the Farr amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is a diversity of views in this 
Chamber with regard to our broader Cuba policy. What I cannot 
understand is why anyone would want to reward the individuals 
responsible for the deaths of Americans, for the oppression of the 
Cuban people, for spying against our country.
  I respectfully ask my colleagues to oppose the Farr amendment.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, rhetoric is really cheap here, but I would 
urge Members to read the bill and to read the second term.
  It reads:

       The term ``Cuban military intelligence service'' includes 
     but is not limited to the Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed 
     Forces and the Ministry of Interior of Cuba and any 
     subsidiary of such ministry.
       The term ``immediate family'' means spouse, sibling, son, 
     daughter, and so on.

  The analysis by our own Library of Congress says that this would 
severely hurt the consumer communication devices that would be sent to 
families in Cuba as part of the negotiations that are going on right 
now between the United States and the administration.
  It would also hurt materials, equipment, tools used by the private 
sector to construct or to renovate privately owned buildings, tools and 
equipment for private sector agriculture activity, tools and equipment 
and supplies and instruments used by the private sector.
  This provision just kills the ability for the United States to open 
up trade

[[Page 8341]]

that every other country has. This is just a ``family feud'' amendment. 
This is not good business, and that is why the business community is 
opposed.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. McClintock). The gentleman from California has 
2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FARR. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
  Once again, the other side is really pushing the envelope in terms of 
characterizing what this amendment actually does.
  This amendment would strike provisions included in this bill that 
would prohibit the Department of Commerce from issuing licenses for new 
types of exports that are permitted under the Obama administration's 
new policy of engagement with Cuba. This provision is not only an 
inappropriate policy rider in this appropriations bill, but, if 
included, it would put this House, once again, on the wrong side of 
history.
  Supporters of this provision claim that it would only prohibit 
exporting to anyone who works with the Cuban military, intelligence 
services, and their immediate families. The reality is that the effects 
of this provision are much, much broader.
  It would make it difficult for the Department of Commerce to issue 
licenses to companies that want to export to Cuba, U.S. companies that 
create jobs in the United States of America. This includes equipment 
and supplies for entrepreneurs that are related to running their own 
businesses here in America, and it includes the materials, equipment, 
and tools to construct or renovate privately owned businesses.
  Simply put, this rider is wrong. It is wrong for business, and it 
certainly should not be part of a bill that funds our critical 
Commerce, Justice, and Science programs.
  The majority of Americans and Cubans agree that U.S. policy toward 
Cuba has been an unpopular failure for more than 50 years. Instead of 
including misguided provisions that undermine the process of 
normalizing relations with Cuba, we should be moving toward increased 
exchanges, formal relations with our neighbors, and creating good-
paying jobs in the United States by allowing the exporting of U.S. 
products to Cuba.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out the language Mr. 
Farr is attempting to strike.
  It reads:

       No funds made available to do business with the Cuban 
     military or the intelligence services.

  The only thing standing between President Barack Obama's attempt to 
override the will of the people as expressed by Congress, which is we 
will not do business with Cuba, is the Federal law. President Obama is 
attempting to change that.
  The only thing stopping President Obama from doing business with Cuba 
is this language, and the language says you cannot do business with the 
Communist military in Cuba or with the Communist intelligence services.
  It is very straightforward. If you want to do business with the 
private sector in Cuba, go ahead. All this says is that you can't do 
business with the Communist military or with the Communist intelligence 
services.
  Therefore, we urge Members to vote ``no'' against this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Florida has expired.
  Mr. FARR. It is very interesting that the capitalist society out 
there supports my amendment: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Foreign Trade Council, Engage Cuba, the Emergency Committee for 
American Trade. They wrote a letter that they urge the House Members to 
strip section 540 from H.R. 2578, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
  The provision would turn back the strategic effort to normalize 
relations between the U.S. and Cuba, harming advancements to increase 
commerce with Cuba. The majorities of Americans, Cuban Americans, and 
Cubans support the normalization of relations and any unilateral trade 
embargo.
  Bipartisan support exists in both the House and the Senate and 
throughout the businesses community and with the majority of the civil 
society focused on Cuba. The question of Cuba policy should be 
approached deliberatively and in the full context of hemispheric 
relations.
  I urge the support of this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, we spend a lot of time making something 
simple complex. The problem here is that, in a small nation, an island 
like Cuba, trying to discern whether somebody is related--a cousin, a 
nephew, a so-and-so who might work for some entity--is very 
problematic.
  What this restriction would basically mean is that you wouldn't be 
able to do any business. That is notwithstanding everything else, 
notwithstanding the failure of the last 50 years, notwithstanding the 
fact that everybody else in the world is doing business in Cuba, this 
language would prevent us from being able to do any business there 
because you would not be able to predetermine whether there was a blood 
connection between some person you were selling a cell phone to and 
someone who, at some point, was a grunt in the military.

                              {time}  2130

  That is the issue. That is why we should support the Farr amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 541.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be expended during fiscal year 2016 for the shutdown of the 
     Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy or for the 
     preparation therefor.

                       spending reduction account

       Sec. 542.  The amount by which the applicable allocation of 
     new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of 
     proposed new budget authority is $0.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Schweikert

  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Curbelo of Florida). The Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Add at the end of the bill (before the short title), the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used to transfer cell site simulators, or IMSI 
     Catcher, or similar cell phone tower mimicking technology to 
     state and local law enforcement that haven't adopted 
     procedures for the use of such technology that protects the 
     constitutional rights of citizens.

  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from Arizona and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I will try to make this very quick 
because I know there is a point of order.
  This was one of those moments where there was a concern about new 
adopted technology. We have all heard the stories of some of these, 
shall we call them, dummy cell sites that are basically used to capture 
the phone calls

[[Page 8342]]

because they produce the largest, most powerful signal. Now, some of 
this technology that has been being used at the Federal Government 
level is being transferred to State and local law enforcement.
  The amendment is meant to be very simple and just says for the 
Federal Government to design, for Justice to design, protocols that the 
constitutional rights are being protected, that if a local law 
enforcement is going to use this capture technology, that they better 
darn well be following the Constitution, and before that technology is 
transferred, that there is an understanding, mechanics of that being 
laid out.
  We tried to make the amendment as simple and clear-cut as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a point of order against 
the amendment, reluctantly, because I agree with the gentleman's 
amendment because I share his concern about privacy matters; but 
because the amendment proposes to change existing law, and it 
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, it, therefore, 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  I do share the gentleman's concern. I think it is very important 
that, as the House debates these matters, that we remember that our 
most important right as Americans is to be left alone and our right of 
privacy. I am deeply concerned about these cell phone towers that are 
spoofed, that are designed to spoof our phones, and the government 
intruding into our zone of privacy that is now compromised by these 
electronic devices in so many ways.
  However, House rules state in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a 
general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing 
law.''
  This amendment does require a new determination by its express terms, 
and while I will certainly work with the gentleman as we move forward 
in conference to address this concern, make sure our privacy rights are 
protected, I do ask at this time for a ruling from the Chair on the 
substance of my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, with the chairman's friendship and 
commitment and where he is on understanding the importance of the 
issue, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

  Mr. ENGEL. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Commerce, the Department of 
     Justice, or any other Federal agency to lease or purchase new 
     light duty vehicles for any executive fleet, or for an 
     agency's fleet inventory, except in accordance with 
     Presidential Memorandum--Federal Fleet Performance, dated May 
     24, 2011.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, on May 24, 2011, President Obama issued a 
memorandum on Federal fleet performance that required all new light-
duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be alternative fuel vehicles, 
such as hybrid, electric, natural gas, or biofuel, by December 31, 
2015.
  My amendment echoes the President's memorandum by prohibiting funds 
in this act from being used to lease or purchase new light-duty 
vehicles unless that purchase is made in accord with the President's 
memorandum. I have submitted identical amendments to 16 different 
appropriations bills over the past few years, and every time they have 
been accepted by both the majority and the minority, so I hope my 
amendment will receive similar support today.
  Global oil prices are down. We no longer pay $147 per barrel. But 
despite increased production here in the United States, the global 
price of oil is still largely determined by OPEC. Spikes in oil prices 
have profound repercussions for our economy. The primary reason is that 
our cars and trucks run only on petroleum. We can change that with 
alternative technologies that exist today.
  The Federal Government operates the largest fleet of light-duty 
vehicles in America, over 633,000 vehicles. Nearly 50,000 of these 
vehicles are within the jurisdiction of this bill, being used by the 
Department of Commerce, Department of Justice, and the National Science 
Foundation.
  When I was in Brazil a few years ago, I saw how they diversified 
their fuel by greatly expanding their use of ethanol. People there can 
drive to a gas station and choose whether to fill their vehicle with 
gasoline or with ethanol or some other mix. They make their choice 
based on cost or whatever criteria they deem important. I want this 
same choice for American consumers.
  That is why I am proposing a bill this Congress, as I have in the 
past, which will provide for cars built in America to be able to run on 
a fuel instead of, or in addition to, gasoline. It doesn't cost much at 
all; and if they can do it in Brazil, we can do it here.
  In conclusion, expanding the role these alternative technologies play 
in our transportation economy will help break the leverage that foreign 
government-controlled oil companies hold over Americans. It will 
increase our Nation's domestic security and protect consumers. I ask 
that my colleagues support the Engel amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition, but I do 
not oppose the gentleman's amendment and would urge its adoption.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Fattah), my friend from Philadelphia.
  Mr. FATTAH. We had a big celebration at the Ben Franklin Institute in 
Philadelphia for electric cars, and there was such a variety of 
vehicles. Alternative fuels are important. I think that the gentleman's 
amendment is one that we have accepted in previous appropriation bills, 
and I concur with the chairman that we would accept it in this case.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I urge Members to support the amendment and urge its 
adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I conclude and say I thank my colleagues and 
look forward to continuing to work together with them in a bipartisan 
fashion for the good of the American people.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

  Mr. POE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk regarding the 
Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, with multiple cosponsors.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Except as provided by subsection (b), none of 
     the funds made available by this Act for the Department of 
     Justice or the Federal Bureau of Investigation may be used to 
     mandate or request that a person (as defined in section 
     101(m) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 
     (50 U.S.C. 1801(m)) alter the product or service of the 
     person to permit the electronic surveillance (as defined in 
     section 101(f) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)) of any user of 
     such product or service.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to mandates 
     or requests authorized under the Communications Assistance 
     for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).


[[Page 8343]]

  Mr. POE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have a simple, straightforward 
amendment to protect the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 
This is a very similar amendment that passed DOD Appropriations last 
year.
  I would like to thank Representatives Lofgren, Massie, Conyers, 
Amash, Nadler, Farenthold, Polis, Labrador, and Lieu for working with 
me as cosponsors on this important amendment.
  James Comey, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
recently asked Congress to update the law to ensure that the Federal 
Government can access information from Americans' cell phones and 
personal electronic devices in the future.
  Many U.S. technology companies have also been approached by the 
government agencies, urging them either through intimidation or just 
request to create back doors on their products' encryption system so 
the government can access it later down the road. We have all learned 
recently about the government's abuse of section 215 under the PATRIOT 
Act and abuse under section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act.
  Basically what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman, is prohibit the 
government from going to Apple, for example, and telling Apple that 
they want an encryption in cell phones that they sell to Americans, an 
encryption that would allow the FBI to have access to this information, 
which would include not just conversations, not just include emails, 
but it would also include text messaging as well.
  This is a straightforward amendment. This prohibits the Federal 
Government--specifically, the FBI--from going in and receiving this 
information. Privacy is important. It is under our Constitution. There 
should be no doubt that the Federal Government should have no access to 
our cell phones and the information that is in those cell phones. That 
is what this amendment does.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in 
opposition, but I do not oppose the gentleman's amendment. I agree with 
his amendment and encourage the House to support it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized on 
her reservation.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I had also sought to seek the time in 
opposition, although I also do not oppose the amendment.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Does the gentlewoman support the amendment?
  Ms. LOFGREN. I support the amendment, as does the gentleman.
  Mr. CULBERSON. That was my point. I think it is important. We are 
here in this Chamber looking at George Mason, who refused to sign the 
Constitution because he was so concerned that the power of the Federal 
Government would just absolutely obliterate----
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
  Does the gentlewoman withdraw her reservation?
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, further reserving, I was wondering if the 
Democratic side of the aisle might be able to split the time. That is 
why I was reserving the right to object.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to split the time with 
the gentlewoman. I am claiming the time in opposition, although I do 
not oppose it. The gentleman still has some time remaining on his 
initial time. I will yield in just a moment, but I really think it is 
important in this age of electronic communication that we in the 
Congress debate and be keenly aware of the new boundaries.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
  Ms. LOFGREN. I withdraw my reservation.
  The Acting CHAIR. The reservation is withdrawn.
  Without objection, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, my neighbor and good friend, Judge Ted 
Poe, brings a very important point to the floor tonight.
  In this new era of expanding technology that now intrudes on every 
aspect of our lives, it is very important to remember the admonition 
that Benjamin Franklin gave us--that those who would surrender a little 
freedom to gain a little safety are soon going to find themselves with 
neither.
  I do find it instructive that we are here on this House floor looking 
at George Mason, who is on the right here, who refused to sign the 
Constitution because he was so concerned the Federal Government would 
become omnipotent and obliterate the rights of individuals and the 
rights of the States to control those issues that deal exclusively with 
the States.
  My favorite Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, was keenly aware of 
and concerned about the power of the Federal Government. We are 
entering into a whole new era now where the government has got the 
ability to intrude on every aspect of our life.
  I share Judge Poe's concern. I support his amendment, and I urge the 
House to support it. If the FBI has a court order, if the National 
Security Agency gets a court order, I believe they could get access to 
what they need to get access to. Just like cracking a safe.
  In fact, I asked this question, if I could, of Director Comey in 
front of our subcommittee. He said these new iPhones--I dropped my 
iPhone 5 and had to get a 6--he said these can't be cracked. So, 
therefore, you would have to open them up like you would a safe, as you 
had to order safes, I bet, opened on occasion, Judge Poe.
  So I agree with the amendment, and I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As Mr. Poe recognized, this is a very diverse group of authors who 
don't agree on everything, but this is very important for a reason.
  First, it is fundamental that our privacy be protected; that the 
Fourth Amendment be adhered to. Secondly, we all know--and if you ask 
any computer scientist, they will tell you--that once the vulnerability 
is introduced for a good reason, it is available for hacking for very 
bad reasons. Finally, for competitiveness. Think how competitive it is 
to sell an American product around the world when everyone knows that 
it is compromised. Not a really good marketing tool.
  Last year, as Mr. Poe mentioned, we had almost precisely this 
amendment on the floor as an amendment to the DOD appropriations. What 
was the vote on that amendment? It was 293-123; overwhelming.
  So I am hoping that Members will not flip-flop, that they will, in 
fact, vote the way they did last year.
  And I will just go a little trip down memory road. When I was first 
elected to the Congress, I took my oath of office January 4, 1995, and 
I met Bob Goodlatte for the very first time. And he and I went all over 
this Congress to try and work on decontrol of encryption.
  Although a lot of people we talked to in 1995 had no idea what we 
were talking about when we talked about encryption, ultimately that 
bipartisan effort was successful. We must not let that successful 
effort to protect privacy, to protect technology, be eroded at this 
point.
  So I look forward to a very strong vote on this. I think it is 
important that we have a vote, even though there is agreement, just to 
send the message to the other body how serious that we are.

[[Page 8344]]


  Mr. CULBERSON. Our most important right as Americans is to be left 
alone. If you are a law-abiding American, you are secure in your home 
and your possessions. Your home is your castle.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. We might not agree on everything, but I think we agree 
on the Fourth Amendment. So this is a great day for this body to come 
together across the aisle for that purpose. And I thank the gentleman 
for yielding
  Mr. CULBERSON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. I just wanted to indicate that on behalf of the minority, 
we support your amendment and are prepared to agree to it.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Massie).
  Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Judge Poe, for introducing this amendment. 
This was substantially the same amendment that we offered last summer 
that passed with a veto-proof majority 293-123.
  Back doors are bad for three reasons. When the government forces 
companies to put back doors or weaken their encryption, it is bad for 
security because hackers are going to find these back doors and other 
foreign countries will find these back doors.
  It is bad for privacy because the Fourth Amendment can be violated. 
And it is bad for business. As my colleague Zoe Lofgren from California 
mentioned, it is bad for business because it makes us less competitive 
overseas. Who wants to buy a piece of defective software that was made 
defective by our government?
  So I urge Members to vote for this amendment because it would prevent 
all of these bad things from occurring.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. POE of Texas. In conclusion, I want to thank the minority, Ms. 
Lofgren, and all the cosponsors on this, as well as the chairman of the 
subcommittee, for their support.
  On the issue of privacy, in this time where we have threats to this 
country, we can have security and we can certainly have privacy, and we 
can have the Constitution be followed as well.
  The Fourth Amendment has always required that if the government wants 
to search, the government must follow certain rules. And those rules 
are that you must get a warrant from a judge based on probable cause. 
That is still the law of the land, even in 2015.
  All this amendment does is ensure the fact that the government--the 
FBI--follows the Constitution. The idea that the Federal Government 
wants to have encryption in American cell phones so they can have 
access to the information is repulsive. So all this does is keep the 
Federal Government out of our business without appropriate 
constitutional protections.
  I ask for support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reaffirm that, as Judge 
Poe has written this amendment, there is an exception in here that if 
the government gets a court order, they can go in and put a back door 
on the phone when the judge says there is a compelling reason to do so.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Certainly. The law--the Constitution--still applies 
that the government must go and get a warrant based upon probable cause 
under the Fourth Amendment. Of course, there are exceptions to 
warrantless search.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Reclaiming my time, the way the amendment is written, 
the government can't just force all phone companies to build a back 
door into all telephones. You have got to have a court order on that 
specific phone, on that specific person, before you can do it. That is 
absolutely reasonable. That is what Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson 
intended for us to do.
  Therefore, I support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to execute a subpoena of tangible things pursuant to 
     section 506 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 876) 
     that does not include the following sentence: ``This subpoena 
     limits the collection of any tangible things (including phone 
     numbers dialed, telephone numbers of incoming calls, and the 
     duration of calls) to those tangible things identified by a 
     term that specifically identifies an individual, account, 
     address, or personal device, and that limits, to the greatest 
     extent reasonably practicable, the scope of the tangible 
     things sought.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Colorado and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, here in Congress we have just been spending 
a lot of time and energy discussing NSA surveillance. The American 
public--and now, Members of Congress in both Chambers--have spoken 
clearly that the kind of bulk data collection the NSA has engaged in 
needs to be stopped. However, there is a corresponding change that we 
need to make with regard to the Drug Enforcement Administration.
  In a series of revelations from 2013 to 2015, it came to light that 
the DEA had for more than 20 years been gathering a vast database of 
information on America's personal communications. There was no 
congressional authority for this program and no oversight by Congress 
or any area of the Federal Government.
  Legal experts who weighed in after the program was finally made 
public have said without hesitation that the program was illegal.
  In 2013, the Department of Justice brought this program to an end, 
but there is nothing to stop the government or the DOJ from resuming it 
at will unless Congress acts by inserting this language in the 
appropriations bill. Without this language, the DEA could once again 
unilaterally sweep up the communications records of millions of 
Americans.
  There is no reason that, as we work to end the unconstitutional 
surveillance that the NSA has engaged in, we should continue to allow 
the DOJ to have the very same abuses.
  This is a corresponding piece of legislation to something that 
already passed the House with regard to the NSA by an overwhelming 
majority.
  I urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan amendment that we 
worked on with Mr. Griffith, Mr. Schweikert, Mr. Nadler, and Mr. 
Farenthold to simply prohibit DOJ from using Federal funds to engage in 
bulk data collection of Americans' phone records or other data, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Just being given Mr. Polis' amendment, I oppose the 
idea of bulk data collection. I would like to accept the gentleman's 
amendment because of my previous expressed concerns about how we want 
to make sure we are protecting the privacy of law-abiding Americans.
  So I would accept the gentleman's amendment with the understanding 
that I would work with him. There may be unintended consequences here 
that I am not immediately aware of. Judiciary Committee staff is 
working with ours right now to make sure we have got our arms around 
this.
  I want to make sure that if the DEA has a valid court order, a valid 
subpoena, that they can go after lawbreakers and complete their 
investigations. Again, we want to protect the privacy of law-abiding 
Americans.

[[Page 8345]]


  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. I think with the understanding that the chairman has laid 
out, your accepting this amendment would move us forward, and I agree. 
I think we have a clear understanding that you are accepting it, but we 
will work together to make sure it doesn't have any unintended 
consequences.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Reclaiming my time, with that understanding, I want to 
make sure we reserve the right of DEA to get a court order to do their 
work. With that understanding, I withdraw my opposition and will accept 
the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler), the coauthor of the amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment to prevent bulk collection 
of data at the Department of Justice.
  Last month, this House spoke loud and clear that we oppose the 
National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata. 
Today, the Senate joined us in that judgment, and, together, we have 
reaffirmed our commitment to the Fourth Amendment and to protecting 
Americans from unconstitutional government surveillance.
  We learned earlier this year that long before the NSA program ban, 
the Drug Enforcement Administration engaged in its own bulk collection 
program that provided a model for the NSA to use nearly a decade later. 
This program included logs of virtually all telephone calls from the 
U.S. to as many as 116 countries, ostensibly linked to drug 
trafficking, all without a court order and without authorization from 
Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. Although the DOJ has since shut down 
this program, there is nothing preventing the Department from renewing 
it in secret without authorization, as it did before. This amendment 
would ensure that it remains dormant and that Americans' privacy 
remains secure.
  I thank Mr. Polis and the other cosponsors of the amendment, and I 
thank the gentleman from Texas for accepting this amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Farenthold).
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and 
thank my colleague from Texas for agreeing to accept it.
  This has been a great victory this week in our ability to work with 
the Senate to rein in what I believe to be the unconstitutional bulk 
data collection by the NSA.
  Just because we stopped the NSA doesn't mean we shouldn't be ever 
vigilant. With the reports of the DEA engaging in similar activities, 
it is absolutely appropriate that we use the power of the purse to 
ensure that this type of spying on American citizens--this bulk data 
collection--is stopped.
  This is no different from the general warrants that were complained 
about when the King of England would send troops to rifle through 
people's desks just looking for stuff. It is the exact same thing in 
the digital age. I encourage my colleagues to support it and look 
forward to working with my colleague, Mr. Culberson, in making sure it 
does become part of this bill.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. POLIS. In conclusion, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Culberson). It is, indeed, the intended language and we believe 
the actual language of the amendment that would not interfere with any 
valid court orders or warrants. We are happy to work with them in that 
regard.
  The amendment is designed to pertain to bulk collection of data, 
which was never specifically authorized by Congress.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Texas accepting the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Each amount made available by this Act, except 
     those amounts made available to the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, is hereby reduced by 1 percent.
       (b) The reduction in subsection (a) shall not apply with 
     respect to the following accounts of the Department of 
     Justice:
       (1) ``Fees and Expenses of Witnesses''.
       (2) ``Public Safety Officer Benefits''.
       (3) ``United States Trustee System Fund''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to begin by 
thanking the committee and Chairman Culberson for their tremendous work 
that they have put into this bill, identifying ways to reduce spending 
and to be a good steward of the taxpayers' money.
  This funding bill is $51.4 billion, and I would like to point out 
that that is $661 million below the President's request. Good work on 
behalf of our team.
  Now, I am one of those that thinks more needs to be done, especially 
when we look at the discretionary spending. There is more we should do. 
My amendment calls for a 1 percent across-the-board spending reduction. 
That would reduce the budget authority by $540 million and outlays by 
$340 million in Fiscal Year 2016.
  I am fully aware of the opposition that exists to across-the-board 
cuts by many of the appropriators, and I have many times stood on this 
floor and heard how they think this is just a little bit of a cut too 
much.
  However, we are nearly $18.3 trillion in debt. Indeed, Admiral 
Mullen, on July 6, 2010, said the greatest threat to our Nation's 
security is our Nation's debt.
  Getting our spending under control is an important step for us to 
take. That is why we need to move forward and do what many of our 
States have done and institute across-the-board cuts to save one penny 
out of a dollar.
  Engage the rank-and-file Federal employees. Have them bring to the 
table their best ideas. Our children are depending on us to do this in 
order to maintain the fiscal sovereignty of our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. It is important for the House to oppose this amendment 
because, as in our personal lives or our business lives, the 
Appropriations Committee has prioritized the very precious and scarce, 
hard-earned taxpayer dollars that we are entrusted to appropriate to 
make sure that they are spent on the most urgent priorities first.
  We do not want to cut, as Mrs. Blackburn would, the FBI. We do not 
want to cut our operations of our cybersecurity forces, as Mrs. 
Blackburn would. I do not want to cut the work that is being done by 
our law enforcement officials across the country, as Mrs. Blackburn 
would.
  This amendment would also cut, for example, the good work that is 
being done by the U.S. Marshals Service. This would cut the 55 new 
immigration judges that we have included in the bill.
  This would cut the amount of money we set aside for the operation of 
our prison system, of the ATF, all Federal law enforcement agencies 
that perform such a vital role. We prioritized them and made sure they 
are protected from cuts.
  I would oppose this amendment on the basis that we do not want to cut 
Federal law enforcement.
  We also don't want to cut our Nation's investment in the sciences and 
the National Science Foundation or our work to preserve America's 
leadership role in space exploration.

[[Page 8346]]

  We want to make sure that we are doing all that we can to accelerate 
our work in bringing American astronauts back into space on an 
American-made rocket as quickly as possible. This amendment would cut 
NASA.
  We have, in the bill, however, cut or eliminated dozens of programs 
that their authorization has expired--or their usefulness has expired. 
We went in and dramatically cut programs that were not effective 
anymore, completely eliminated programs.
  We found all kinds of savings in this bill, and I am sure that our 
priorities are ones that the good people of Tennessee that Mrs. 
Blackburn represents would share. I know her constituents share, as we 
do, a commitment to law enforcement, to scientific research, to 
America's space program; and they would probably also agree with our 
cuts to the Department of Commerce, our unavoidable cuts really to the 
Census.
  We did our best to protect the important work that our men and women 
in uniform who enforce the laws of the United States do. This amendment 
would be a blunt cut across the board to all of these worthwhile 
programs, and I urge the Members to oppose it.
  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. I wanted to say that I concur completely with the 
chairman, and I am opposed to the amendment.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chairman, I appreciate, as I said, the work 
that the committee has done, but I think it is imperative that we 
realize the burden that we are placing on future generations.
  Quite frankly, I think it is rather selfish of this body to force 
future generations--our children and grandchildren--to pay for the out-
of-control spending of today.
  Have we done a good job? Yes. Could we do a superlative? Absolutely, 
we could. Cutting one penny out of a dollar is a wise step. I don't 
know of anybody that thinks we are underspent. I know a lot of people 
that think we are overspent and that we are overtaxed.
  What it is going to take in order to get our fiscal house in order 
and to secure this Nation for future generations is, yes, indeed, 
targeted cuts. It is going to take across-the-board cuts, and it is 
going to take everybody agreeing that we don't have a revenue problem, 
we have a spending problem.
  That is a component of our budget and appropriations process that the 
American people are demanding that we get under control. It is not 
necessarily a debate about worthiness. There are lots of good programs 
and essential programs.
  What it is, is a debate about stewardship, making certain that we are 
focusing and that we are doing the extra work that is necessary to get 
the spending under control.
  As I said, this is $51.4 billion in discretionary funding that is in 
this appropriations bill. It is below the President's request. The 
committee is to be commended for that.
  Taking the step of a 1 percent cut, you are talking about $540 
million in budget authority and $340 million reduction in outlays. It 
is a goal that we should set for ourselves. It is doable. It is 
attainable.
  We should take a playbook and a lesson from the States and the 
counties and the communities that we represent and make the effort to 
reduce the spending just a little bit more.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I 
have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The gentleman from Texas has 2\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I want to point out also that the 
amendment before us would cut 1 percent from eliminating the backlog of 
rape kits that are piling up in local police departments all over the 
country. We increased funding to eliminate that backlog of rape kits.
  We increased funding to help forensic labs at the local level. We 
increased funding to make sure that programs to prevent violence 
against women are fully funded. This amendment would cut those funding 
increases for violence against women.

                              {time}  2210

  It is not the annual appropriations bill that is the biggest part of 
the problem. All of us need to recognize that we have got to look at 
the entire Federal budget.
  The annual appropriations bill only represents one-third of the 
problem. The other two-thirds of the problem are the automatic 
mandatory problems: the looming bankruptcy of Medicare, the looming 
bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicaid, the incredible burden that 
ObamaCare has placed on individual Americans--it threatens to bankrupt 
the entire healthcare system--the national debt, and the interest on 
the national debt.
  The American taxpayers are, indeed, taxed too much, but the biggest 
part of the spending problem is on these automatic programs that are 
consuming two-thirds of the Nation's resources.
  In fact, if you pay off all those existing--just paying for these 
existing programs, the mandatory programs, which you have to think of 
as America's mortgage and interest payments, once you pay Social 
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the debt, veterans benefits, 
you are only left with $689 billion to run the entire Federal 
Government, which is enough money to run the government through July 
27. ``National credit card day'' is what I call it. July 27 is the day 
when we run out of existing revenue, and we are living on borrowed 
money to be paid off by our kids.
  A far better way to deal with this problem is to deal with the 
looming bankruptcy of Medicare, Social Security, and to deal with the 
national debt and deficit, the two-thirds of the problem out there, and 
not look at some 1 percent cut on the one-third of the budget that we 
have already prioritized and cut everywhere we possibly can while 
protecting law enforcement. We are protecting our investment in the 
sciences and space exploration.
  I urge the Members to reject this amendment, and I would urge the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) to work with us throughout 
the year as we develop these appropriations bills and help us find cuts 
in programs and prioritization of funding, rather than bringing the 
amendment to the floor at the last minute.
  I urge Members to vote against this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for Federal 
     Prison Systems--Salaries and Expenses, and increasing the 
     amount made available for Office of Justice Programs--Office 
     of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention, by 
     $69,515,000.

  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from Virginia and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Chair, this amendment that I am offering today would repurpose 
just

[[Page 8347]]

1 percent of the funding for the Federal prison system and restore 
funding for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
  Madam Chair, the underlying bill zeros out both title II formula 
grants and title V discretionary grants for prevention and early 
intervention programs, which were funded last year at approximately $70 
million. To ensure that our State juvenile justice systems are not 
irreparably damaged, this amendment would take just 1 percent away from 
our Federal prison systems, approximately $70 million, to maintain our 
commitment to prevention and early intervention.
  The prison system can take steps to deal with this reduction by 
limiting duplicate prosecutions or pursuing evidence-based alternatives 
to incarceration, particularly for first-time offenders. These 
practices not only will save money, but will also improve public 
safety.
  We have a choice, Madam Chair. We can invest in prisons after the 
fact, or we can invest in prevention and early intervention before the 
fact and eliminate what the Children's Defense Fund calls the Cradle to 
Prison Pipeline.
  Madam Chair, at this point, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cardenas).
  Mr. CARDENAS. Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to 
my colleague and friend Congressman Scott's amendment and to encourage 
this body to restore critical funding for the Office of Juvenile 
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
  This existing appropriations bill decimates funding for title II 
State formula grants and title V local delinquency prevention programs 
which are essential investments that are proven to reduce crime.
  This amendment would provide $69,515,000, the equivalent of less than 
1 percent of the Federal prison budget, which is a small investment 
when you consider the cost of incarcerating a youth is an average of 
$88,000 per year. That is hundreds of dollars a day to incarcerate a 
youth. Evidence-based alternatives to incarceration for youth costs as 
little as $11 per day.
  These proven juvenile crime prevention methods cost pennies compared 
to the incarceration of our young people. Members from both parties 
have espoused the importance of investing in our children. Conservative 
organizations have been among the loudest advocates for reforming our 
criminal justice system--in particular, for our youth--to move from an 
incarceration-based system to one that funds proven research-based 
alternatives to putting behind bars America's children. There is a 
bipartisan consensus on this, ladies and gentlemen.
  While this amendment will be withdrawn, I hope we can work together 
to fund these critical programs to give our children the opportunity to 
be productive members of our communities, reduce crime, and save 
billions of tax dollars going forward.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I would like to thank the ranking member of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce for raising this important 
issue. I assure him that it is my intention that we will be working 
between here and the final bill to improve upon this area in the bill.
  I thank the chairman for all of his work in this regard.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I thank the gentleman for allowing us to debate because I understand 
the point of order will be sustained.
  There will be other opportunities during the legislative process, as 
the ranking member of the subcommittee has indicated, to deal with this 
issue.
  The way the bill has been drafted, it was impossible to get an 
amendment in order, but there will be other possibilities later on in 
the process, and I would hope the chair and the ranking member will 
work effectively to make sure that we deal with the choice that we 
have, whether we are going to just put money away for young people to 
get in trouble and then deal with it or we can deal with it in advance 
with prevention and early intervention. This is what this amendment 
would do.
  Madam Chair, if the gentleman is going to assert his point of order, 
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and deal with the 
issue later on in the process.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                      Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

  Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Add, at the end of title V of the bill, the following:
       Sec. 5__. (a) For each fiscal year after the expiration of 
     the period specified in subsection (b) in which a State 
     receives funds for a program referred to in subsection 
     (c)(2), the State shall require that all individuals enrolled 
     in an academy of a law enforcement agency of the State and 
     all law enforcement officers of the State fulfill a training 
     session on sensitivity each fiscal year, including training 
     on ethnic and racial bias, cultural diversity, and police 
     interaction with the disabled, mentally ill, and new 
     immigrants. In the case of individuals attending an academy, 
     such training session shall be for 8 hours, and in the case 
     of all other law enforcement officers, the training session 
     shall be for 4 hours.
       (b)(1) Each State shall have not more than 120 days, 
     beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, to comply 
     with subsection (a), except that--
       (A) the Attorney General may grant an additional 120 days 
     to a State that is making good faith efforts to comply with 
     such subsection; and
       (B) the Attorney General shall waive the requirements of 
     subsection (a) if compliance with such subsection by a State 
     would be unconstitutional under the constitution of such 
     State.
       (2) For any fiscal year after the expiration of the period 
     specified in paragraph (1), a State that fails to comply with 
     subsection (a), shall, at the discretion of the Attorney 
     General, be subject to not more than a 20-percent reduction 
     of the funds that would otherwise be allocated for that 
     fiscal year to the State under subpart 1 of part E of title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), whether characterized as the Edward 
     Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance 
     Programs, the Local Government Law Enforcement Block Grants 
     Program, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant 
     Program, or otherwise.
       (c) Amounts not allocated under a program referred to in 
     subsection (b)(2) to a State for failure to fully comply with 
     subsection (a) shall be reallocated under that program to 
     States that have not failed to comply with such subsection.

  Ms. LEE (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  2220

  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman from California and 
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I want to thank the chair and our ranking 
member for your leadership on this subcommittee for your interest and 
support on this amendment. I recognize the point of order and plan to 
withdraw the amendment.
  Recent events in Ferguson, Staten Island, Baltimore, and around the 
country really illustrate the need for significant reform in police 
interaction in communities that they are sworn to serve and protect. 
That is why this amendment would require the States receiving funding 
from the Department of Justice's Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 
Assistance Program put academy students and law enforcement officers 
through sensitivity training on ethnic and racial bias, cultural 
diversity, and police interaction with the

[[Page 8348]]

disabled, mentally ill, and new immigrants.
  As you know, DOJ's Byrne JAG Grant Program is the primary provider of 
Federal criminal justice funding to State and local jurisdictions 
supporting a wide range of law enforcement and court activities. Our 
law enforcement agencies and officers play a critical role in 
protecting the safety of our communities. We need them to work 
cooperatively and competently along with our community members if we 
want to protect the public safety and the integrity of our 
neighborhoods.
  This is a major issue in many congressional districts where many 
officers live outside of the communities they serve and do not have the 
training to deal with a diverse constituency. Madam Chairman, I know 
that we all agree that the status quo is simply unacceptable.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay), my colleague who has demonstrated incredible leadership on this 
issue and continues to work in a bipartisan fashion on this very 
commonsense policy.
  Mr. CLAY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment. FBI Director 
James Comey's February 12, 2015, speech, entitled, ``Hard Truths: Law 
Enforcement and Race,'' addressed what he characterized as a 
``disconnect between police and minority communities.'' Director Comey 
challenged officers to ``acknowledge the widespread existence of 
unconscious bias.'' We appreciate his candor and acknowledgment of 
issues we have long felt.
  Experience in our communities indicates negative police interaction, 
and excessive force disproportionately affects communities of color, 
but there are other communities who would also benefit from better law 
enforcement relations.
  As FBI Director, Mr. Comey requires all new agents and analysts to 
study the agency's interaction with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 
followed by a visit to the King Memorial. The FBI's required study 
serves as recognition that in order to truly see each other as people, 
we must recognize our shortcomings and create and identify 
opportunities to understand, respect, and be decent to one another.
  Police officer sensitivity training and annual retraining demonstrate 
a commitment to communities across this Nation. As Members of Congress, 
it is a practice we must encourage. In Ferguson, Staten Island, 
Cleveland, North Charleston and Baltimore, the need for reform is as 
clear as it is urgent.
  Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), our ranking member.
  Mr. FATTAH. I want to thank the gentlewoman for her steadfastness and 
her focus on this matter and pledge to her that I am going to work with 
the chairman as we go forward to see that we get this incorporated in 
the final product of our bill.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I continue to reserve the point of order pending the 
gentlewoman's withdrawal of the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I want to reassure my colleague that I will continue 
to work with her and my ranking member, to work on this as we move 
through conference, as we discussed in full committee.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman's withdrawing the amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Chair, I want to thank our ranking member and our 
chairman for their commitment to continue to work on this very 
important issue, along with Congressman Clay.
  Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce section 221 of title 13, United States 
     Code, with respect to the survey, conducted by the Secretary 
     of Commerce, commonly referred to as the ``American Community 
     Survey''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chair, we are all familiar with the Census that takes place 
every 10 years where there is a counting of the people in America. The 
Census Bureau also has another project, not constitutionally required, 
but something that they do called the American Community Survey, which 
is a partial sampling of about 3 million Americans a year.
  A survey is sent out, and I will read from this 28-page survey. It is 
48 questions long, and the questions have nothing to do with how many 
people live in your house. Some of the questions are like this:
  When do you leave for work?
  When does your spouse leave for work?
  When do your kids leave for school?
  Does anyone suffer from a mental illness in the residence?
  Does your house have a sink with a faucet?
  Does anyone have trouble walking?
  Does anyone have trouble getting dressed or bathed?
  So there are 48 question like this, and failure to abide by and fill 
out this document and send it back to the Census Bureau could result in 
a fine.
  Now, people in my district have called my office from all over the 
country about getting this thing in the mail and the harassment by the 
Census Bureau and subcontractors, including the fact that I have a 
single parent in my district that called and was complaining about the 
fact that the Census Bureau person would sit in the front of her house 
waiting for her to come home from work and then go to the door and peak 
through the windows trying to get her to fill out this page, or these 
28 pages and send them back to the Census Bureau. So harassment takes 
place. And some people are threatened with a fine that is imposed for 
failure to abide by the survey.
  Now, what this amendment does, it does not eliminate the American 
Community Survey. The ranking member and I had a discussion, I guess, 
about 5 hours ago on the House floor about whether it is a good idea or 
not. It doesn't even stop the survey from being conducted.

                              {time}  2230

  All it does is prohibit the Federal Government from imposing a 
penalty for failure to fill out the survey. That results in the fact 
that people then can voluntarily fill out this form and send it back if 
they want to. If they don't want to voluntarily have their privacy 
invaded by the government, then they don't have to fill it back out and 
don't have to worry about a fine.
  That is what this amendment does: prohibits funding to allow the fine 
to be collected, thus making the survey voluntary.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I supported the gentleman's last amendment. 
I strongly oppose this amendment.
  It is impossible for me to conceive that we want to run the greatest 
country on the face of the Earth without

[[Page 8349]]

data, without information, without knowledge of what the circumstances 
of the citizens of the country are--how many daycare slots, where to 
locate VA hospitals, all of the other information that is generated 
through this community survey.
  Now, I note that there is talk about a fine, but we haven't been able 
to identify anybody who has ever been fined. We do know that our 
neighbors to the north, when the Canadians moved to a voluntary system 
in their rural areas, they stopped getting almost any compliance.
  If the Federal Government is going to plan in terms of Federal 
highways, in terms of Federal programming, and a whole range of items 
that flow through formal grants, not through earmarks, but by knowledge 
of what is happening in communities, these surveys are critical.
  The idea that we would say we are going to run this great country, we 
don't want any information, we are going to put on blindfolds and just 
kind of hope for the best when we are making public policy about 
education and housing and transportation needs or health care needs, it 
doesn't make a lot of sense. It may have some popularity politically, 
but as a notion for actual intentional leadership for our Nation, to 
say that we want to separate ourselves from actual information about 
what is going on in these communities, I think that the gentleman, as 
right as he was in the original amendment that I supported him on, in 
this particular matter I think he is headed in the wrong direction.
  I would ask my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--put the party 
aside, put the national interest first, and know for certainty that no 
person would ever--you are always talking about running the government 
like a business--no one would run a business without utilizing data to 
understand the marketplace.
  At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I 
have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Culberson), chairman of the committee.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman.
  I want to express my strong support for my neighbor and good friend 
Judge Poe's amendment because, again, our most important right as 
Americans is to be left alone.
  In fact, the data, and I agree with my ranking member that this data 
is important, but it can be included as a part of the Census itself. 
Any really essential questions the Department of Commerce can include 
within the core questions of the Census. They don't have to send this 
long intrusive and detailed and very invasive survey out to every 
American and subject Americans to the threat of a $10,000 fine if they 
don't comply.
  I support the gentleman's amendment as a further reflection of our 
commitment on this subcommittee and in this Congress to protect 
America's right to privacy and to be left alone by their government, as 
Mr. Mason and Mr. Jefferson intended.
  I urge Members to support Mr. Poe's amendment. And remember, if the 
government needs this data, they can just put it in the basic Census 
itself.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, how much time is remaining between the 
gentleman who is the proponent and myself?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. FATTAH. And I assume he has the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIR. Yes, he does.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, let me remind the House that we had another 
Texan--he was the President of the United States--and it was under his 
administration that the questions that were put together in the 
community survey were developed under that administration.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania does have the right to close.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, well, then at this point, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for bringing up 
the American Community Survey and where it came from. That is 
irrelevant. The issue is Americans should not be required to give 
personal information to the Federal Government. If they want to fill 
out this form, go for it. Make it voluntary. Fill it out and send the 
Federal Government all the information you can come up with about what 
takes place in your residence. But it should not be required.
  The Federal Government could get this information some other way. 
They could go to polling. The idea that they have got to go door to 
door to get this information when information is gathered all over the 
country by different businesses not going door to door--the government 
can do it other ways and not violate the right of privacy.
  I would ask that this amendment be adopted that basically requires 
the American Community Survey to be voluntary, and that the fine that 
is allowed by law not be allowed or not be collected under this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, let me close by just saying that I just want 
to make sure that, because there is some antipathy about, sometimes, 
anything that may emanate from this administration, I just want to make 
it clear that this was not some Democratic scheme here to gather up 
people's private information; that this is actually a legitimate 
activity of the Federal Government. It is one joined in by the Chamber 
of Commerce and other business organizations who tell us that this is 
vitally important.
  I think just from a commonsense basis, we actually know as 
politicians, because when we are engaged in activities that are 
important, we try to get a lot of information. So we know it is 
important. It is actually important for making sure that Federal 
programs are focused on the priorities of your community. And if we 
don't have the knowledge of how many people need daycare slots or how 
many veterans there are or what the other circumstances are in a 
particular community, it is impossible to do the planning that is 
necessary.
  I would ask that we reject this amendment and that we continue to use 
data as a basis to make informed decisions here at the national level.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Foster

  Mr. FOSTER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, offered 
jointly with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), my colleague.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 543.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to fund any Experimental Program to Stimulate 
     Competitive Research (EPSCoR) program.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Illinois and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FOSTER. Madam Chair, every year, hundreds of billions of dollars 
is transferred out of States that pay far more in Federal taxes than 
they receive back in Federal spending--the so-called ``payer States.'' 
And this money is transferred into States that receive a lot more 
Federal spending than they pay in taxes--the ``taker States.'' This is 
an enormous and economically unjustifiable redistribution of wealth 
between the States.
  The payer States can be characterized in a number of ways, but most 
of the payer States are large population States, while virtually all of 
the taker States are smaller, which means that they are overrepresented 
in the Senate.
  Over time, Senators from these States have inserted hundreds of 
programs that systematically steer money

[[Page 8350]]

into the taker States. Our amendment takes a first small step to begin 
rolling back these taker State preferences by eliminating one of the 
most unjustifiable of them all: the Experimental Program to Stimulate 
Competitive Research, commonly referred to as EPSCoR.

                              {time}  2240

  EPSCoR was started as an experimental program in 1978 with the goal 
of redistributing Federal research dollars into States that 
traditionally received less than their ``fair share'' of NSF funding.
  However, because ``fair share'' was determined on a per State basis, 
rather than on a per capita basis, it has devolved into just another 
program that steers money into smaller States that already get far more 
than their fair share of Federal spending.
  Since no allowance is made for whether the State has a big or a small 
population, the EPSCoR program systematically discriminates against 
researchers simply because they come from States with large 
populations. The EPSCoR States are hardly lacking for Federal largesse.
  According to the Tax Foundation, in a typical year, the EPSCoR States 
received approximately $60 billion more in Federal spending than they 
paid in Federal taxes.
  How does one justify a program that excludes researchers in States 
like Florida or Texas, which over the past 3 years got only an average 
of about $7 per capita in NSF funding while steering money into States 
like Rhode Island, Alaska, and New Hampshire, which already got 5 times 
more?
  Why should a researcher at Brown University in Rhode Island be 
eligible for a grant set-aside that is unavailable to researchers at 
SMU, FSU, UCLA, Rutgers, or Northern Illinois?
  As a scientist, I find that it is not surprising that it is very 
difficult to find supporters for EPSCoR in the scientific community. 
Precious research funding would be far better spent in a competitive, 
merit-based process as it will be if our amendment is adopted.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Garrett), the cosponsor of my amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT. I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster) for his 
work on this issue. I am honored to serve alongside him on the Payer 
State Caucus as well.
  Madam Chair, this program is yet another example of good intentions 
and bad policy. What was intended to be a temporary assistance to a 
select group of States to build a research infrastructure and then exit 
the program has become a permanent and growing pot of taxpayer 
subsidies. This, of course, is in addition to the permanent and growing 
pot of subsidies the government has already enacted for the States.
  For three decades, 30 years after establishment, this program 
continues to be called--what?--an experimental program, and no State--
none--has graduated from the program; yet it exists 30 years later.
  This can only demonstrate one thing, Madam Chair, that this is yet 
another example of ineffective, wasteful redistribution programs that 
the taxpayers are compelled to financially support. The Foster-Garrett 
amendment would relieve the taxpayers of this burden.
  Again, I thank Mr. Foster for his work in protecting the payer 
States, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. FOSTER. I thank my colleague from New Jersey.
  Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, this program is designed to ensure that 
academic institutions and industry can develop science and engineering 
capabilities that are outside of traditional research hubs.
  The partnerships support areas of strategic importance in such 
disciplines as aerospace and aerospace-related research. I do urge a 
``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.
  I now yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment which would 
eliminate the EPSCoR program.
  For more than 60 years, the National Science Foundation has provided 
academic research funding to colleges and universities around the 
Nation, and it has been critical to ongoing research that is essential 
to maintaining our competitive edge in scientific advancement.
  The NSF's Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, 
commonly known as EPSCoR, is an authorized program whose mission is to 
help balance the allocation of NSF and other Federal research and 
development funding to avoid the undue concentration of money to only a 
few States.
  This successful program has had a profound impact on my home State of 
Rhode Island, allowing nine of our academic institutions to increase 
research capacity, to enrich the experience of their students, and to 
contribute to advances in a variety of fields.
  Currently, 25 States, including Rhode Island, and 3 jurisdictions 
account for only about 10 percent of all NSF funding, despite the fact 
that these States account for 20 percent of the U.S. population. EPSCoR 
has helped to stabilize this imbalance in funding and should continue 
to do so in the 2016 fiscal year and beyond.
  In order to ensure robust academic research and outcomes across the 
country, geographic diversity in funding should be considered to ensure 
that we are taking advantage of the particular experiences, knowledge, 
and perspectives of academics and institutions from every State. This 
amendment to eliminate this successful program would be a step backward 
for the United States' commitment to research and development.
  Investments in critical programs, such as EPSCoR, are essential to 
creating jobs, innovating for the future, maintaining our competitive 
edge in scientific research and a global economy.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in strongly opposing this amendment.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I would ask Members to vote ``no.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FOSTER. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Goodlatte

  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel of the 
     Department of Justice to negotiate or conclude a settlement 
     with the Federal Government that includes terms requiring the 
     defendant to donate or contribute funds to an organization or 
     individual.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My amendment prevents the Department of Justice from requiring 
mandatory donations as part of settlement agreements. The Department of 
Justice is systematically subverting Congress' budget authority by 
using settlements to funnel money to third-party groups.
  An investigation by the House Judiciary and Financial Services 
Committees reveals that, in just the last 10 months, the Department of 
Justice has

[[Page 8351]]

used mandatory donations to direct as much as half a billion dollars to 
activist groups.
  These payments occur entirely outside of the congressional 
appropriations and oversight process. In some cases, the Department of 
Justice is using mandatory donations to restore funding that Congress 
specifically cut. This is money that could otherwise be going directly 
to victims.
  The Department of Justice continues to resist document requests, but 
what little has been provided confirms that activist groups which stood 
to gain from mandatory donation provisions were involved in placing 
those provisions in the settlements.
  The committees raised concerns with the Department of Justice in 
2014, but instead of suspending the practice, the Department of Justice 
has doubled down. It recently entered into an over $50 million 
settlement relating to robo-signing; $7.5 million of that did not make 
it to victims.

                              {time}  2250

  Instead, it went to a third party. Incredibly, the settlement 
specifically provided that there would be no oversight of the money.
  The situation is even more egregious when one considers that the 
required donation will nearly double the net assets of the DOJ-
specified recipient. It is deeply troubling for that to happen at the 
unilateral discretion of the executive branch.
  This amendment takes no money away from any organization. It is 
purely prospective. It ensures that settlement money goes either 
directly to victims or to the Treasury for elected representatives to 
decide how it is to be spent.
  It is critical that we act. The Department of Justice is ignoring 
Congress' concerns, increasing the use of third-party payments, even as 
we object. The purpose of enforcement actions is punishment and redress 
to actual victims. Carrying that concept to communities at large or 
activist community groups, however worthy, is a matter for the 
legislative branch and is not to be conducted at the unilateral 
discretion of the executive.
  This is fundamentally a bipartisan institutional issue. There was 
abuse of third-party payments in the Bush administration. This 
amendment is about preserving Congress' appropriations authority. I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I am not planning on strongly objecting to 
this, but I want to make a few points. One is that this is something 
that should be dealt with in an authorizing circumstance, but I think 
because it is on an appropriations bill, it could have unintended 
consequences.
  As I understand the plain English of what is being said, an 
administration faced with, for instance, the Gulf oil spill could not 
have been involved in a settlement in which various entities received 
dollars to try to find redress for harm that was created in the Gulf. I 
think that that would be very problematic because there were a lot of 
groups--fishermen, other associations, chambers of commerce, others--
who received support through that settlement.
  I just think we ought to be careful. It would probably be better that 
there be hearings and that there be an understanding around what this 
actually means. I have offered my own bipartisan-supported legislation 
that would create a congressional framework for settlements. I am not 
opposed to the thrust of what is being said here.
  I do recognize that there have been circumstances in past 
administrations. I am not aware of the instances that the chairman 
speaks of now, but I would just hope that rather than rushing forward, 
we would be mindful that this is probably the kind of thing that we 
really would want authorizers to handle and not have it tucked into an 
appropriations bill at this time. Plus, if you really think that the 
executive branch is using their authority, the idea that they would 
then sign it away by signing our appropriations bill, if it is so 
meaningful to them, it might slow down the passage of our very 
important piece of legislation.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for his concern 
about this. I want to assure the gentleman that the language in this is 
designed to make it clear that it applies to donations and not to 
anybody who is a victim of a lawsuit where redress is sought for them 
because the compensation for them is not a donation. That is actual 
recompense for the harm that they suffered.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I know the chairman is quite aware of how 
these words, ``donation,'' ``mandatory,'' ``settlement,'' so forth and 
so on, might be applied and abused in various ways.
  Again, obviously, if this is something the majority wants to do, they 
will do it. I just think that it may have unintended consequences; and 
this administration, the next administration, and various 
administrations going forward, there should be a congressional 
framework for settlements. I have offered legislation that is 
bipartisan in that regard. I am not opposed to creating a congressional 
framework. I just think that we don't want to have unintended 
consequences here if we can avoid it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I want to express my strong support for 
Chairman Goodlatte's amendment. The words he has chosen have been 
chosen very carefully. A donation or contribution is just that. It is a 
gift. It is a donation. If the money is paid in compensation for an 
injury as a result of a claim, it is not covered. So the chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary has written this very carefully and very 
narrowly to address a very real problem. I strongly support the 
gentleman's amendment and have worked with him and his staff on it.
  I really, genuinely appreciate the good work that your staff has 
done, Mr. Chairman, in working with you to find common ground.
  This is one of those areas that I believe we are doing good public 
policy. I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time 
just to say this is an important principle, not only to address the 
abuse that has taken place in the executive branch, but to protect the 
prerogatives of the Congress on both sides of the aisle.
  These are funds that, if they are not expended for the specific 
purpose of providing compensation to victims, relief to victims in 
these lawsuits, those funds should go back to the General Treasury of 
the United States, and they should be appropriated by the Congress--in 
fact, by this very subcommittee of the House Committee on 
Appropriations--to make sure that the people's will is exercised with 
regard to the expenditure of these funds.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for any inspection under section 510 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 880) with respect to 
     narcotic drugs in schedule III, IV, or V of section 202 of 
     such Act (21 U.S.C. 812), or combinations of such drugs, 
     being dispensed

[[Page 8352]]

     pursuant to section 303(g)(2) of such Act (21 U.S.C. 
     823(g)(2)) for maintenance or detoxification treatment.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Oregon and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chair, that is a rather imposing title to deal 
with a relatively simple concept.
  We have a national epidemic dealing with opioid painkillers. 
Prescription drug overdoses are a serious problem. We find people who 
become addicted. We are finding that, in a routine matter of course, 
this drug dependence often leads to heroin, and we are watching a chain 
of events.
  In Oregon, we found that 15 percent of young Oregonians between 18 
and 25 abused prescription pain relievers last year. I mentioned that 
chain of causality. We are finding that people in this sequence often 
use heroin as a substitute when the pills get too expensive or the high 
is no longer high enough. It is easy to switch to heroin.
  It is not just a problem in Oregon. We have seen the CDC chart heroin 
deaths doubling between 2010 and 2012 in 28 States.
  Opioid addiction can be devastating, but there is a drug that can be 
used to safely and effectively treat this addiction. For more than 12 
years, buprenorphine has been a critical weapon in our fight against 
opioid addiction. It can be taken on an outpatient basis. It is easy to 
administer.
  But we have seen artificial barriers to treatment. In fact, we have 
made it harder for doctors to prescribe these schedule III addiction 
treatment drugs even though it is comparatively easy to prescribe the 
schedule II drugs that cause addiction in the first place, such as 
Vicodin and OxyContin. And the schedule III drugs, we are finding that 
there are audits that are taking place by DEA.

                              {time}  2300

  Doctors who complete the 8-hour certification process have been 
approached by DEA agents in my community before they even write a 
single prescription. They report hostile and intimidating behavior from 
agents who demand inspections of their prescription records at random, 
unscheduled intervals. As I say, these are doctors who can simply write 
a prescription for powerful narcotics without having to worry about 
random DEA inspections.
  We need to allow doctors to treat their patients with compassion and 
with the care they deem appropriate. They shouldn't have to worry about 
DEA agents having a super overlay of attention.
  We need to encourage opportunities to make sure that doctors can 
treat patients and be able to withdraw them from the symptoms. And I 
would respectfully suggest that the DEA should focus their efforts on 
chasing criminals, the pill mills, and the drug dealers, not doctors 
who have worked hard to be part of the solution.
  This amendment solves the problem by ensuring no funds are available 
to DEA to enforce inspections of the physicians who prescribe 
buprenorphine and allow them to proceed with the treatment of patients 
without fear of getting into trouble with the Federal Government while 
helping hundreds of at-risk patients who want to beat their addiction 
in a healthy, effective way.
  The irony is the powerful addictive drugs don't have as much 
interference and oversight. The opportunity to have drugs at schedule 
III--not schedule II--that can be used to treat it is much more 
difficult and intrusive for medical professionals. That is not right.
  I would respectfully suggest that we adopt this amendment to correct 
the situation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding, 
and I rise to join him in opposition to this amendment.
  Madam Chair, this amendment would undermine diversion control and 
thereby potentially increase drug abuse by creating a significant 
loophole in the system of controls established by the Controlled 
Substances Act.
  The amendment would cause this highly problematic result by 
effectively exempting DEA registrants who dispense drugs for addiction 
treatment from being subject to administrative oversight under the CSA. 
At present, buprenorphine is the only schedule III-V controlled 
substance contained in a drug that has been approved by the FDA for 
drug addiction treatment.
  While it is also true that the amendment would not preclude DOJ/DEA 
from obtaining a criminal search warrant to obtain the foregoing types 
of records, this does not come close to being an adequate substitute 
for the administrative inspection authority. Obtaining a criminal 
search warrant must be predicated on evidence sufficient to establish 
probable cause that the registrant has committed a criminal violation 
of the Controlled Substances Act.
  The very point of the administrative inspection authority that 
Congress provided under the CSA 45 years ago was to have a robust 
system of administrative oversight that would help to prevent 
regulatory violations before they occurred, and even more so, before 
criminal violations occurred. This is because Congress recognized that 
controlled substances, when abused, can have dangerous and sometimes 
deadly consequences, and thus that the widespread problem of drug abuse 
in the United States cannot be solved exclusively through criminal 
provisions of the Controlled Substances Act.
  It also bears mentioning that this drug is highly subject to 
diversion, as it is a narcotic drug that is much sought after by many 
persons who are addicted to opiates and/or who seek to abuse opiates 
for nonmedical purposes.
  Indeed, the heightened risk of diversion associated with dispensing 
of this drug to a drug-addicted patient population actually warrants 
greater scrutiny, not less scrutiny, than with many other categories of 
prescribed controlled substances.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I join the chairman in urging my colleagues to oppose 
this amendment on many grounds. It is a technical issue that should be 
dealt with by the authorizing committees. This is not an appropriate 
place to handle it.
  I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming), who has 
personal experience and knowledge in this area as a physician, and who 
can speak to this in opposition as well.
  Mr. FLEMING. I thank my good friend for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, years ago, one of the positions I served was as a 
director for drug addiction and alcoholism, and one of my duties was as 
a methadone doctor.
  This drug is really a new form of methadone. It can be applied and 
can be employed in the treatment of heroin addiction. But at the end of 
the day, it too is highly addictive. It is a scheduled drug, and it is 
abused. So it deserves the same kind of safeguards and protections and 
oversight as any other addictive drug.
  And so if my friends really want to see this used as an effective 
tool and not itself become a dangerous drug out on the open market 
being diverted and perhaps even sold on the black market, I suggest 
that we oppose this amendment and let's continue the good, strong 
oversight that we have under the CSA.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would strongly urge my colleagues to talk to 
treatment professionals in their communities. My concern is that we 
don't have as much vigorous oversight for things that are much more 
highly addictive--we see them more abused--and that this extra overlay 
for something that is less dangerous and can in fact be useful for 
treatment, I think, is an area that deserves oversight.
  I respect my friends in terms of their opinions, but I would urge 
them to have the conversations I have had with

[[Page 8353]]

the people who are getting wrapped around the axle with the DEA.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, with that, I would urge all Members to 
oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The amendment was rejected.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Carter of Texas

  Mr. CARTER of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to 
     propose or to issue a rule that would change the Chief Law 
     Enforcement Officer certificate requirement in a manner that 
     has the same substance as the proposed rule published on 
     September 9, 2013 (786 Fed. Reg. 55014).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. I rise with an amendment to limit unnecessary 
burdens on firearm owners and law enforcement officers.
  The Second Amendment's intent is clear: firearm ownership ``shall not 
be infringed.'' However, the ATF has proposed a rule requiring an 
additional layer of approval from local law enforcement officers to 
purchase suppressors and other firearms regulated by the National 
Firearms Act. This rule broadly expands existing requirements and 
further burdens local law enforcement officers who are already 
overworked and understaffed.
  The ATF knows full well that there are cities and jurisdictions that 
refuse to give approval for political reasons.

                              {time}  2310

  Action films are fun to watch, but they are wrong about suppressors. 
Suppressors dampen the sound of a firearm, but do not make guns silent. 
They simply are a form of hearing protection for the shooter, for other 
human beings, and for any hunting dogs that are around.
  Suppressors increase safety while shooting, allow people to easily 
hear and react to range safety instructions and to other sportsmen.
  My amendment ensures Americans' rights are protected and does not 
eliminate background checks. It will protect suppressor suppliers; 
manufacturers; tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue; thousands 
of jobs nationwide; and, more importantly, the Second Amendment rights 
of a law-abiding gunowner.
  I urge support for this commonsense provision, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman from Texas would join me in a quick 
colloquy.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. I would be happy to.
  Mr. FATTAH. This is the amendment relative to trust and gun trust and 
whether there needs to be a background check or not?
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. This is the amendment that requires an 
additional approval by a law enforcement officers for purchases of 
certain either weapons or suppressors.
  Mr. FATTAH. Right. Now, in this instance, in 2006, our information is 
that there were 4,600 of these applications, and then that grew to 
40,000 in 2012 and then 72,000 in 2013 and 90,000 in 2014.
  Are those numbers relatively accurate, as best as you know?
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. If the gentleman will yield, those numbers could 
be accurate. I cannot contest those numbers.
  However, it has been made absolutely clear, both by target shooters 
and by hunters, that suppressors make for a more accurate weapon, less 
damage on the shooter, less damage on the people and animals around the 
shooter, a better ability to be safe with your fellow hunters.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, I rise in opposition to this. It is 
clear, given the majority that we have, that we won't be on a 
successful vote count on this.
  I do want to make the point, right, that the Second Amendment, as it 
was ruled on by the Supreme Court, says that there can be reasonable 
regulation, and so that is our job. That is where we come into this 
picture at. We are supposed to be the reasonable regulators. We are 
supposed to decide where and when and under what circumstances there 
should be some speed bump.
  The question here is, for these types of circumstances, where someone 
is going to have a weapon in which discerning that it has been fired, 
you are going to be less able to do it, whether that is something where 
someone should have to have a small speed bump on the way to getting 
it.
  Now, it doesn't seem like there is a major hurdle here because we 
have jumped from 4,600 of these in 2006 to 90,000 in 2014.
  I don't know, unless we are going to just have a universal access to 
them, there doesn't seem to be a major impediment.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Because an application was made doesn't 
necessarily mean that the law enforcement people dealt with it and 
approved that application. Now, if you are telling me these are 90,000 
approved applications, I understand your argument.
  One of the issues seems to be finding a law enforcement agency in the 
modern society we live in that actually has some knowledge of the 
individual that is making the request and is willing to process it.
  Mr. FATTAH. I will just say this then, reclaiming my time, that 
everybody, even those who are not involved in law enforcement, 
understands the challenge of having a firearm in which the sound is 
suppressed.
  We just had an incident in one of our Capitol buildings where someone 
tried to bring a weapon in. We know that weapons are dangerous. That is 
why you can't bring them into the U.S. Capitol.
  Making them more accessible in the communities and among the people 
that we represent, if we think that is a great thing to do, the 
majority will have its way on this. I stand in opposition to it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chair, I only claim time to say that I 
serve on this subcommittee with both these honorable gentlemen. I want 
to commend them for a great bill.
  The chairman has asked for time. I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from Texas. (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. I do want to express my strong support for the 
gentleman's amendment. It is an appropriate and necessary additional 
protection for Americans' Second Amendment rights.
  Judge Carter is exactly right. This is the right place for the bill. 
This is the right place for this amendment. He has drafted it very 
narrowly and very carefully, and I urge Members to join us in 
supporting this very important Second Amendment amendment before the 
House.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. To finish, I am honored to serve on this 
subcommittee with these two fine gentlemen. They have made a great work 
product here, and I am very glad that we were able to all work 
together.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Bonamici

  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

[[Page 8354]]

       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Justice may be used to prevent a State from 
     implementing its own State laws that authorize the use, 
     distribution, possession, or cultivation of industrial hemp, 
     as defined in section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 
     (Public Law 113-79).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman 
from Oregon and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, I rise to offer a bipartisan amendment 
with Mr. Massie to restore power to the States to regulate the 
cultivation of industrial hemp within their own borders. The House 
adopted this amendment last year with strong support from both sides of 
the aisle.
  This amendment is very simple. It would move our country in line with 
industrialized countries around the world that long ago recognized the 
importance of industrial hemp as a natural resource, an agricultural 
commodity, and a versatile component that is now found in more than 
25,000 commercial products.
  In fact, not only does this amendment bring America in line with much 
of the rest of the industrialized world, it brings America back in line 
with our country's history. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew 
it. The first drafts of our Constitution and first laws were written on 
paper made from it.
  During World War II, the USDA encouraged patriotic American farmers 
to raise it for the war effort. They even produced a slick promotional 
film titled ``Hemp for Victory.'' Now, at least 23 States have passed 
laws to allow farmers to grow it, too.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Government stands in the way of family 
farmers who want to grow hemp. The senseless classification of hemp as 
a schedule I drug contributes nothing to public safety; instead, it 
robs our farm economies of a potentially multibillion-dollar crop that 
is used to make everything from rope to soap.
  The amendment would simply allow farmers to grow hemp in accordance 
with their own State's laws. The amendment does not eliminate 
regulation in hemp cultivation; it simply divests the Department of 
Justice and the DEA of their ability to treat hemp like marijuana 
because hemp is not marijuana.
  So far, 23 States have passed laws to allow farmers to grow hemp. 
Right now, farmers in California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, 
Indiana, Kentucky Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, 
Nebraska, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, 
Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia are waiting for 
the Federal Government to get out of the way.
  Because the Department of Justice refuses to acknowledge what 
Washington and Jefferson knew, that hemp is an agricultural commodity 
and not marijuana, these State laws take a back seat to Federal 
overreach.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment, and I 
yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), my 
cosponsor.
  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I am very excited to report that, thanks to 
the farm bill amendment that allowed for pilot programs, we grew many 
pilot programs in Kentucky last summer; and this summer, there will be 
about 1,800 acres of hemp grown in Kentucky in pilot programs.

                              {time}  2320

  We have venture capital coming to Kentucky. I met with two companies 
in Kentucky that are investing in hemp, but the problem is right now 
they can only do the pilot programs. Yet they are still going to grow 
1,800 acres of it in Kentucky alone. They grow 100,000 acres in Canada.
  It is time to let our farmers have this opportunity. We need to take 
away the restraint that it is just a pilot program. We have addressed a 
lot of the concerns that people had last year before these pilot 
programs. Law enforcement are okay with hemp now. They have seen that 
it is not its cousin.
  With that, Madam Chair, I urge passage and urge my colleagues to vote 
for this amendment.
  Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chair, the cultivation of cannabis for industrial 
purposes is governed by the Controlled Substances Act and permitted 
pursuant to the registration requirements found in title 21, United 
States Code.
  Let's face it, hemp is very closely related to cannabis. And DEA 
agents tell us that it is very difficult to detect, determine, and 
distinguish between hemp and marijuana, so it only makes their job more 
difficult. However, the Agricultural Act of 2014--and Mr. Massie just 
referred to this, I believe--permits institutions of higher learning 
and State departments of agriculture to grow or cultivate industrial 
hemp as defined in the statute for purposes of research conducted under 
an agricultural pilot program or other agricultural or academic 
research.
  In short, we are studying it, we are analyzing it, and we are 
evaluating it, but we don't have the results yet of those studies. I 
think it would be premature, especially considering the problem with 
the rapid expansion of the marijuana industry and the problems which I 
will speak about later this evening with marijuana and abuse of 
marijuana and the damage to brains of our children and so forth. The 
last thing I think that we want to do now is to create more problems 
for enforcement for the DEA.
  Madam Chairman, if we are going to study it, let's study it, but I do 
not believe it is time that we remove these restraints on industrial 
hemp.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, may I inquire into the amount of time 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Oregon has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), my colleague.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's 
courtesy and her leadership on this issue.
  Madam Chairman, as a practical matter, industrial hemp is not 
marijuana. With less than 0.3 percent THC, it is not a drug. As a 
practical matter, it is not hard to distinguish it, and, in fact, it is 
sort of a myth that somehow people will use industrial hemp to disguise 
the cultivation of marijuana. They don't want that. It cross-
contaminates. It makes it a less effective product.
  We have a situation where the rest of the world deals with industrial 
hemp, where there are countless products available to purchase today, 
it is just that Kentucky farmers or Oregon farmers can't produce it. 
Last year the House overwhelmingly passed this amendment. We are 
starting down a path towards rationalization.
  Twenty-three States have removed the barriers to production of 
industrial hemp. The Federal Government should get out of the way. 
Congress should adopt this amendment and allow it to proceed.
  Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Oregon has the right to close 
since the gentleman from Louisiana is not on the committee.
  Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chairman, I would just say in conclusion that DEA 
tells us otherwise, that it is difficult to distinguish. It is a 
problem for them. They are the ones who have to enforce this. Also, 
there isn't any product that you can get from hemp. Hemp production, 
industrial hemp is not abundant in many other ways, whether it is 
paper, rope, or what have you. So with that, it is not necessary. It is 
not some vital resource that we can't do without. It does create and 
complicate problems when it comes to the enforcement of schedule I 
drugs such as marijuana.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Madam Chair, as we have heard this evening, it makes no

[[Page 8355]]

sense that industrial hemp is legal to have and legal to use in 
manufacturing but can't be grown by our own farmers. Right now the 
companies that are manufacturing with hemp have to import it from 
places like Canada and China. They should be able to grow it in our own 
country.
  Please support this bipartisan amendment. Industrial hemp is grown 
differently from marijuana. It looks different. The enforcers can tell 
it apart. Let's let our farmers grow industrial hemp. Please support 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the DNA analysis and capacity enhancement program 
     and for other local, State, and Federal forensic activities 
     for which funds are made available under this Act as part of 
     the $125,000,000 for DNA-related and forensic programs and 
     activities, unless such funds are used in accordance with 
     paragraphs (3) and (4) of section (2)(c)) of the DNA Analysis 
     Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-546; 42 
     U.S.C. 14135).

  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from Texas and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, Congress in the last several sessions has done, I 
think, an admirable job of dealing with this crime of sexual assault in 
the United States. Several pieces of legislation have passed the House, 
under several administrations, going all the way back to the Violence 
Against Women Act. More recently, under the Debbie Smith Act, SAFER 
legislation, here is what is taking place.
  We now know because of DNA that old rape kits can be analyzed to 
determine who the suspect was that committed that sexual assault, 
generally against females, and that is a good development.
  Because of that legislation, the Debbie Smith Act was passed; and the 
SAFER Act says that Debbie Smith, which grants funds to do rape kit 
backlogs, that 75 percent of that money, of those grants, will go to 
actually analyze backlog rape kits. Get those backlogs analyzed, go 
after the bad guys, find out who committed these crimes, and bring 
those 400,000 rape kits up to date by getting them analyzed.
  This all sounds good. The problem is the Justice Department doesn't 
follow the law. They are not analyzing these cases. There is still a 
backlog. They are spending the money, but they are spending it on other 
things like research rather than what the law says: analyze those 
cases.
  Madam Chair, 75 percent of that money is to go to analyze that 
backlog of rape cases.

                              {time}  2330

  My amendment just tells the Justice Department to follow previous 
law, analyze those cases, use 75 percent of the money that is available 
to analyze those cases. That is what the amendment does.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I strongly agree with the gentleman's 
amendment and intend to work with him as we move through conference to 
address this problem in the way he suggests and make sure the law is 
complied with.
  I understand the amendment may be withdrawn. Before the amendment is 
withdrawn, if I could address the merits of your amendment, I think you 
are exactly right. We plussed up funding for rape kits. We want to make 
sure that this backlog is taken care of as rapidly as possible. I know 
my friend from Philadelphia and the members of this committee share 
your concern. We want to make sure the backlog rape kits are cleared 
out as rapidly as possible and these criminals are taken off the street 
as rapidly as they can be. We want to make sure the Federal law is 
complied with, so I will work with you to make sure that through the 
oversight authority we have got on this subcommittee that the 
Department is enforcing the law as written by Congress and doing so 
aggressively.
  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. I concur with your point of view, and I hope that the 
amendment is withdrawn. But I think that the maker of the proponent 
amendment is correct that we need to move in this direction. We not 
only want to make sure that the backlog is ended and that we get bad 
people off the street; we also don't want innocent people incarcerated 
for crimes they didn't commit. So this is where the science can help.
  But you are right that we need to make sure that there is specific 
direction. I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. CULBERSON. And we can do that through oversight, and we will work 
very closely with you, Judge Poe, on this. And I thank you for your 
work on this effort. There is no penalty severe enough that can be 
imposed swiftly enough on anyone who would injure a woman or a child.
  I understand the amendment is going to be withdrawn.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the chairman, and I also thank the ranking 
member.
  What the amendment does--and I will work with the committee on this--
is exactly what the ranking member said. In one word, it finds out 
``justice.'' We free the innocent and we convict the guilty, but we 
can't do it unless these rape kits are analyzed. So I hope the 
committee figures out a way to have the Justice Department do what they 
are supposed to do that Congress has already told them to do. Good luck 
with that.
  Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Justice in violation of--
       (1) the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United 
     States Constitution; or
       (2) the memorandum issued by the Attorney General on March 
     31, 2015, and entitled ``Guidance Regarding the Use of Asset 
     Forfeiture Authorities in Connection with Structuring 
     Offenses''.

  Mr. ELLISON (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Minnesota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.

[[Page 8356]]


  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I offer this amendment with the support of 
the chairpersons of the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional 
Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, and 
the Progressive Caucus.
  This amendment would prevent funding from law enforcement agencies 
that engage in discriminatory profiling based on gender, race, 
ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or national origin.
  It would also prevent the use of funds to repeal the December 14 
revised profiling guidance issued by the Department of Justice. 
Discriminatory profiling is wrong. It doesn't help prevent crime. It 
creates a culture of fear and resentment within our community. It is 
contrary to the core constitutional principles, and the Federal dollars 
shouldn't be spent perpetuating this activity.
  I commend the work of Attorney General Holder to revise profiling 
guidance, and I believe that we must do more to close the remaining 
loopholes in profiling guidance.
  You shouldn't be able to profile at the border. You shouldn't be able 
to map people without cause. You shouldn't be able to use national 
security as an excuse to engage in prejudicial policing.
  And we need comprehensive antiprofiling legislation like the End 
Racial Profiling Act introduced by the dean of this Congress, John 
Conyers. In the absence of such comprehensive reform, we should at 
least prevent Federal funds from being used to discriminate against 
citizens.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though 
I am not actually in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I think that what we should be for is 
effective law enforcement techniques. We know by every empirical 
evidence that profiling does not work, and our experts in every aspect 
of law enforcement--local, State, and nationally--tell us that it 
doesn't work. So I agree with the gentleman and I support his 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I will close and just say that racial 
profiling has no place, and we urge a ``yes'' vote for the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract with any person whose 
     disclosures of a proceeding with a disposition listed in 
     section 2313(c)(1) of title 41, United States Code, in the 
     Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System 
     include the term ``Fair Labor Standards Act''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Minnesota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, this is a very simple amendment which says 
that the moneys appropriated by the U.S. Congress should go to 
contractors who deal fairly with workers and who do not violate the 
Fair Labor Standards Act.
  This particular amendment is not an allegation; it only applies to 
contractors who have been found in violation, who have been forced to 
disclose those violations based on the requirements of law and their 
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
  This amendment would prohibit the Federal Government from using funds 
in this bill to hire contractors with wage theft violations.
  Madam Chair, we live in a time when it is so hard for workers all 
across this Nation to make a living. People go to bed at night 
calculating whether they are going to be able to meet their monthly 
expenses. If the work that they do can't even be fully paid because 
they are victims of wage theft by an unscrupulous employer, I think 
that the Federal Government should not be doing business with that 
employer.
  The fact of the matter is that in this appropriation, we should 
reserve Federal money for the millions of contractors who do an honest 
contract, who provide the Federal Government with good work. Evidence 
suggests that wage theft is widespread and costs workers billions of 
dollars every year--greater than the cost of burglaries, robberies, 
larcenies, and other sorts of problems.
  Wage theft among Federal contractors is also a problem. Federal 
contractors are among America's companies that we rely on to discharge 
good service. But that service should be within the law; that service 
should be honoring the work that workers do. And Federal contractors, 
some of them, certainly not all, but some have had a problem in this 
area.
  A national employment law project found that nearly one in three low-
wage contractors in the D.C. area reported stolen wages.

                              {time}  2340

  A report by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee revealed that 35 percent of the largest Department of Labor 
penalties for wage theft were levied against Federal contractors.
  Now, there are many excellent Federal contractors. These people 
should not have to compete with companies that circumvent the 
requirements of the law. In total, those Federal contractors who did 
had to repay employees $82.1 million in back wages for violations 
between 2007 and 2012. Despite these violations, many of these same 
companies received Federal contracts again in 2012.
  The fact of the matter is that wage theft is wrong, and the people 
who engage in it shouldn't receive Federal funds. I hope that all 
Members will agree that a dollar earned is a dollar that must be paid 
and that the United States of America only wants to do business with 
contractors that obey the law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I share the gentleman's concerns, but 
I think his amendment is written so broadly that it is going to have an 
impact far beyond anything he actually intended.
  For example, if a very large company like Boeing ever failed to pay 
somebody overtime on one occasion, the way his amendment is drafted, 
this would bar Boeing from ever doing any business with the Federal 
Government. It would bar Lockheed, which is responsible for building 
the Orion spacecraft for NASA, and they are doing an extraordinarily 
good job in doing so.
  It is almost inevitable. None of us are perfect. Everybody, somewhere 
or somehow, is going to make a mistake. It is just inevitable. In the 
way the gentleman's amendment is drafted, the Federal Government could 
not hire any company that was ever dealt with in a proceeding that 
included the term ``Fair Labor Standards Act.'' It essentially 
blackballs any contractor who has ever had any violation of any kind, 
anywhere, anytime.
  It is too broad. This is not the right place for it. You are going to 
do great damage to a lot of very good companies that have had very 
minor, one-time violations a number of years ago. I know that is not 
the gentleman's intent, but the language before the House that he has 
drafted is very broad and has implications far beyond what I know he 
has laid out here tonight.
  The bill, as written, would actually, I think, wind up with a lot of 
very good companies being unable to do business with the Federal 
Government, so I would ask Members to oppose the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

[[Page 8357]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I just want to point out that the companies 
that the gentleman has identified ought to obey the Fair Labor 
Standards Act. Every company that does business with the United States 
Government ought to pay its workers fairly.
  Federal contracts are lucrative, and Federal contracts make people 
rich. At the very least, those companies and those individuals who 
benefit from those contracts ought to make sure that their workers get 
paid properly.
  The fact of the matter is that this is an appropriation from this 
year. It doesn't bar them in the future from applying for Federal 
contracts again, and if they should prove to have really cleaned up 
their acts, we can have a conversation about that.
  I am afraid, Madam Chair, that if we do not pass this amendment, we 
will be telling all of the honest, hard-working contractors that you 
don't need to obey the law, that you can just do whatever.
  Companies that don't obey the Fair Labor Standards Act and steal 
workers' wages actually gain a competitive advantage on the companies 
that do obey the law. I don't think that is anything that any one of us 
would like to see happen, so I would urge a ``yes'' vote on this; say 
``no'' to wage theft.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I want to reiterate, the way the 
gentleman's amendment is drafted, any violation anywhere, anytime in 
the history of the company would bar them from ever doing business with 
the Federal Government. It is if they ever made a mistake anywhere in 
the past.
  The amendment is far too broad and far too sweeping, and I urge 
Members to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Black

  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to require, pursuant to section 478.124 of title 27, 
     or section 25.7 of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, or 
     the Office of Management and Budget Statistical Policy 
     Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards for Federal 
     Statistics and Administrative Reporting, that any person 
     disclose the race or ethnicity of the person in connection 
     with the transfer of a firearm to the person.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACK. Madam Chairman, our Founding Fathers did not mince words 
when they authored the Second Amendment to our Constitution.
  They spoke plainly and with conviction in writing, ``the right of the 
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'' Unfortunately, 
this administration hasn't always seen it that way.
  Recently, President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives enacted a quiet change to its form 4473--a mandatory 
document for most gun transactions--that requires Americans to disclose 
their race and ethnicity in order to complete the sale. What is more, 
the failure to collect this information is considered an ATF violation 
that could result in government penalties for the gun dealer.
  By placing an extra barrier of complexity between the law-abiding 
citizens and their right to own a firearm, I believe this intrusive 
reporting requirement sets up a direct challenge to the Second 
Amendment rights enshrined in our Constitution, not to mention the 
right to privacy.
  Madam Chairman, we all want to see weapons kept out of the hands of 
criminals, but an individual's race and ethnicity has nothing to do 
with his ability to safely own and operate a firearm. Perhaps that is 
why even traditionally left-leaning groups like the ACLU have spoken in 
opposition to this requirement.
  The fact is the government should be colorblind on all of our rights, 
whether it is the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, or the 
freedom to keep and bear arms. That is why my amendment states that the 
government cannot require gun buyers to disclose their race and 
ethnicity at the point of sale. It is really that simple.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this commonsense amendment so 
that we can reverse this latest regulatory overreach and ensure that 
fairness and privacy are upheld in our Nation's gun laws.
  Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Poe), my lead cosponsor and an ardent defender of the Second 
Amendment.
  Mr. POE of Texas. I thank Congresswoman Black for this amendment and 
for bringing it to the attention of the House tonight.
  Madam Chair, this issue came to my attention a couple of years ago 
when I was with constituents in my district. They were gun dealers, and 
they were complaining and telling me how the administration quietly 
began requiring the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives--we call it the ATF--to record a firearms purchaser's race 
and ethnicity.
  This, Madam Chair, is not law. It is not congressional action. We did 
not do this. The ATF, through administration rules, requires the race 
of the gun purchaser, and the seller who is selling the gun has got to 
check the box and write the race of the gun purchaser.

                              {time}  2350

  If they do not do that or they do it wrong, the ATF can come back 
later, look at the records, say ``You left it blank on the race of the 
individual,'' and shut the business down.
  Now, there are several problems with this new rule by the ATF. In 
order to avoid breaking this Federal regulation, the dealers then have 
to ask the customers their race, and when people are offended--and they 
get offended--they take it out on the dealers themselves. Sometimes 
refuse to give their race, and then what is the gun seller to do? Why 
is our government racial profiling people who exercise the Second 
Amendment? Why are they doing that?
  Second, it is none of the government's business the race of a 
gunowner. The Second Amendment does not just apply to certain races. It 
applies to everybody. It doesn't exclude races and only include certain 
races. As the gentlewoman from Tennessee has said, the Federal 
Government ought to be colorblind across the board on every issue, 
especially when it comes to rights. The Second Amendment applies to 
everybody regardless of their race, just like the First Amendment 
applies to everybody regardless of their race.
  So this amendment would simply tell the Federal Government, it is 
none of your business the race of a gun purchaser in the United States. 
Stay out of that issue. Just as equally important, you can't shut some 
business down if they don't put the right race or they leave the race 
block blank. That is none of the Federal Government's business.
  I would hope that Members of Congress would support this amendment 
and keep the Federal Government from requiring racial profiling in the 
purchase of guns under the Second Amendment.
  Mrs. BLACK. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Before we finish with this, you will be able to have a 
weapon, you will be able to suppress the sound

[[Page 8358]]

on it, and you won't have to identify yourself by these characteristics 
that are attacked in this amendment, but I want to just kind of set the 
facts straight.
  First of all, this information has been required since 1968. I know 
people are excited about it tonight, I know there is a lot of 
enthusiasm about ridding the Nation of having this information, but 
since the Gun Control Act of 1968, prospective firearm purchasers have 
been required to record their race.
  Now, sometimes, you know, we hear in law enforcement people trying to 
be politically correct and say, well, we don't want you to be too 
descriptive of a suspect in a crime, identifying them by race or 
something, but, you know, the reason why we have this information has 
nothing to do with prohibiting people's Second Amendment rights. This 
is about how to track down someone who has done something wrong, who 
was the original purchaser of the gun that was used in a crime.
  The information is not held by the Federal Government, 
notwithstanding the excitement on the House floor tonight. It is held 
by the dealer. It is not centralized in any way, but it is a law 
enforcement data point. Sometimes we actually need data, we need 
information so that if something has been done with a gun that is 
unlawful, somebody can figure out who purchased it; and you can also 
clarify who these people are, if they have similar names, similar 
backgrounds, or whatever may be the case.
  So it is just basic information that any law enforcement person would 
want to have, the race and ethnic background of the owner of the weapon 
that was used in a neighborhood near you to harm one of the people whom 
you have been elected to represent, and to decide tonight, well, what 
we want to do is strip this information away under some pretense. What 
we just heard was an argument that somehow someone was trying to say 
that the Second Amendment discriminated against somebody on a racial 
basis, and of course anyone can win that straw argument because it is 
nonsensical. No one is arguing that.
  We are talking about basic information that is needed for law 
enforcement purposes that the majority tonight wants to deny from the 
ATF. That is something that I would hope the majority wouldn't do, but 
they obviously have the votes to do as they please. I will be against 
it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Richmond

  Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the aggregate amount made available for 
     ``Federal Prison System--Salaries and Expenses'', and by 
     increasing the amount made available for ``Office of Justice 
     Programs--Juvenile Justice Programs'' for youth mentoring 
     grants, by $155,900,000.

  Mr. RICHMOND (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Louisiana?
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, which amendment is the gentleman 
offering?
  Mr. RICHMOND. I only have one amendment, and it is the amendment to 
move $155 million from the Bureau of Prisons over to the Juvenile 
Justice program.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will continue to read the amendment.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from Louisiana and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Madam Chair, I rise today to talk about something that 
I would hope is important to both sides of the aisle, and that is our 
youth. Here in Congress we talk about how important a lot of things 
are: education, public safety, strong communities, freedom, and 
prosperity. If we have a goal of keeping our children in school and on 
the path to success, cutting Juvenile Justice programs is the wrong way 
to go in order to reach it.
  We know that supporting programs that keep our children out of jail 
is one of the best investments we can make, and it gives us one of our 
highest returns on our investment.
  On any given day in this country, there are over 70,000 juveniles in 
jail around the country. This incarceration is not cheap. We spend 
about $6 billion a year on juveniles in prison. Interactions with the 
criminal justice system at a young age have a ripple effect that makes 
it harder for children to achieve success later.
  Students who are arrested early in high school are six to eight times 
more likely to drop out of high school. What is more, children who are 
incarcerated are almost 40 percent less likely to graduate from high 
school and 40 percent more likely to be in prison at the age of 25. 
Finally, if someone with an arrest record as a juvenile does graduate 
high school, they are still only half as likely to enroll in a 4-year 
college.
  In short, keeping our children out of jail has benefits to the 
children, their families, our communities, and to the Nation as a 
whole. This President realized all of this when he made his budget 
request. That is why he requested more than $300 million for a variety 
of authorized programs aimed at improving public safety and keeping 
children on the path to college and careers instead of the path to 
prison.
  Unfortunately, the bill in front of us calls for devastating cuts to 
these vital programs. The funding level in the bill is more than $155 
million below the President's request, and even $68 million below last 
year's funding level.
  My amendment today would simply bring the funding for Juvenile 
Justice back in line with the President's request by funding one of the 
only programs left available in the bill, and that is mentoring. By 
increasing the role and capacity for mentoring programs across the 
Nation, we can have a true impact on children in every community.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0000

  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I will assert my point of order against 
the amendment, depending on what the gentleman intends to do.
  Does the gentleman intend to withdraw the amendment?
  Mr. RICHMOND. I would like to know what the point of order is. I am 
just shifting money from one thing that is already in the budget to 
something that is already in the budget.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. CULBERSON. The amendment is subject to a point of order on the 
basis that it proposes to increase an appropriation not authorized by 
law, Mr. Chairman, and, therefore, is in violation of clause 2(a) of 
rule XXI.
  Although the original account funding for the Office of Juvenile 
Justice contains a number of programs that are unauthorized, it was 
permitted to remain in the bill pursuant to the provisions of the rule 
that provided for the consideration of this bill.
  When an unauthorized appropriation is permitted to remain in a 
general appropriations bill, an amendment merely changing the amount is 
in order, but the rules of the House apply a ``merely perfecting 
standard'' to the items permitted to remain, and do not allow the 
insertion of a new paragraph that was not part of the original text 
permitted to remain to increase a figure that was permitted to remain.
  This amendment proposes to add funding as a reach-back to an 
unauthorized program, and the amendment, therefore, cannot be construed 
as merely perfecting.
  And therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Chair rule the amendment 
out of order.

[[Page 8359]]

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Stivers). Does any other Member wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. FATTAH. I understand the spirit of the chairman's statement. I 
just want to comment that one of the things that we have done is we 
have worked over a number of years and doubled the amount of money 
going into youth mentoring.
  I think that the chairman and I agree with the spirit of your 
amendment and that it is a much more worthy investment for the country 
to keep our young people on the straight and narrow than to try to 
repair, as has been said, a broken adult.
  We continue to have an interest in building this part of the 
appropriations bill. Notwithstanding the complicated set of rules 
relative to the authorized and the non-authorized portion, we continue 
to want to work with you as we go forward on this matter.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I want to, if I could, express my support for the 
ranking member's comments, but I do need to assert the point of order.
  Mr. RICHMOND. If the gentleman does not assert the point of order 
now, then what I will do is just wrap up and ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. CULBERSON. If the gentleman withdraws the amendment, I withdraw 
my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman seek to withdraw the amendment?
  Mr. RICHMOND. I was going to close and use the remaining time and 
then withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is currently pending.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I reserve my point of order. Once the gentleman 
withdraws, I will withdraw the point of order, but we do need to 
conclude this. We will work together with Mr. Fattah on juvenile 
justice to keep young people out of prison.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman withdraw the point of order?
  Mr. CULBERSON. I reserve the point of order. I will withdraw its 
assertion at this time, but I reserve it pending the gentleman's 
conclusion and withdrawal of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's earlier point of order is 
withdrawn. A point of order is now reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I would just say I started coaching 
Little League at 16, and I continue to do that today, and I continue 
also to mentor.
  I would just say that as we look at the budget and we try to do 
things to bring the budget back into balance, we keep leaving out the 
point of return on investment. And if we continue to invest in things 
that are going to give us more than a one-to-one return, then we are 
actually gaining a benefit that will allow us to cut down the deficit.
  And then I would just quickly add in the spirit of bipartisanship and 
working together that it is almost like the field of dreams for the 
Bureau of Prisons. If you appropriate it, they will spend it. And if 
they build it, they will fill it. We don't want to do that when we have 
a greater avenue, I think, to put our youth on a better path and not 
only save money, but create less victims of crime.
  So with that, I would just remind all of our Members that I hope we 
continue to work together. And we should really be careful here because 
the life you save may be your own.
  I thank the chairman for his cooperation, and I ask unanimous consent 
to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Meadows

  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to negotiate or enter into a trade agreement that 
     establishes a limit on greenhouse gas emissions for the 
     United States. The limitation described in this section shall 
     not apply in the case of the administration of a tax or 
     tariff.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. MEADOWS. My amendment would prohibit the administration from 
using any funds from this bill to advocate or support a position in 
trade negotiations or enter into a trade agreement that would limit 
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Basically, the amendment 
would prohibit the Obama administration from trying to address 
``climate change'' through trade agreements.
  The last few years, we have seen the administration intentionally 
work around Congress to implement its own agenda.
  Mr. Chairman, the hour is late. There are many worthwhile amendments 
that need to be debated and heard, and with that, I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I am not sure this is the right place to be imposing on 
trade agreements. We would be opposed to this. We won't be seeking a 
recorded vote, but we would be opposed to this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the chairman of the 
Appropriations subcommittee, who has done great work.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I strongly support this amendment. It is important 
that these trade agreements not be negotiated in ways that would 
supersede the authority of this Congress. Any limitation on greenhouse 
gases should be debated in this Congress and enacted by Congress and 
should not be any part of any trade agreement.
  So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment in the same spirit 
that we have got language in this bill that prohibits use of funds to 
negotiate or to implement the U.N. arms control treaty, which would 
interfere with our Second Amendment rights. We have prohibited that. We 
have shut down the U.N. arms control treaty in this bill. Similarly, 
let's shut down any attempt to impose greenhouse gas limits on the 
United States through a trade agreement.
  I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and urge Members to vote 
``yes.''
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I urge support, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract with any offeror or any of 
     its principals if the offeror certifies, as required by 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of 
     its principals:
       (A) within a three-year period preceding this offer has 
     been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it 
     for: commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection 
     with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public 
     (Federal, State, or local) contract or subcontract; violation 
     of Federal or State antitrust statutes relating to the 
     submission of offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, 
     forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, 
     making false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal 
     criminal tax laws, or receiving stolen property; or
       (B) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or 
     civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of 
     any of the offenses enumerated above in subsection (A); or

[[Page 8360]]

       (C) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has 
     been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount 
     that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied.

  Mr. GRAYSON (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
that the reading be waived.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is identical to other 
amendments that have been inserted by voice vote into every 
appropriations bill considered under an open rule this year and in the 
last Congress as well.
  My amendment expands the list of parties with whom the Federal 
Government is prohibited from contracting due to serious misconduct on 
the part of the contractors. Specifically, the list would include 
contractors who within a 3-year period preceding an offer have been 
convicted or have had a civil judgment rendered against them for fraud, 
violation of Federal or state antitrust laws, embezzlement, theft, 
forgery, bribery, violation of Federal tax laws, and other items 
outlined in section 52.209-5 of title 48 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations.

                              {time}  0010

  These are all offenses which any contractor doing business with the 
Federal Government must disclose to a contracting officer, but oddly 
enough, the contracting officer would then be free to ignore these 
transgressions and award contracts to offending entities, absent my 
amendment.
  I commend the authors of this bill for their inclusion of section 
523. I still believe, however, that we can improve on this bill by 
prohibiting agencies from contracting with those entities who have 
engaged in the activities described above.
  It is my hope that this amendment will be noncontroversial, as it has 
been on every previous occasion and again be passed unanimously by the 
House.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am 
not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FATTAH. I am not opposed to the amendment. I am prepared to 
accept the amendment and support it, and I thank the gentleman for 
offering it.
  I speak even for the chairman in this matter. We are ready to rock 
and roll, so we accept the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAYSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hudson

  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to treat any M855 (5.56 mm x 45 mm) or SS109 type 
     ammunition as armor piercing ammunition for purposes of 
     chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I want to voice my 
strong opposition to the Obama administration's continued assaults on 
our Second Amendment rights.
  I ran for Congress to stand up against this overreach and to keep 
Washington bureaucrats' influence out of our lives and their hands off 
our freedoms and their hand off our guns. That is why I am offering an 
amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill that 
would stop President Obama's green tip ammo ban.
  As you recall, the ATF recently tried to ban common rifle ammunition 
that has been legally used by law-abiding American sportsmen for 
decades. It was only after receiving intense pressure from Congress and 
more than 80,000 public comments and, frankly, the direct intervention 
of Chairman Culberson that the administration stalled their proposed 
ban.
  As the clock ticks down on this President's second term, the 
administration is cooking up more than a dozen gun control regulations 
and has left the door open to reconsider future ammo bans.
  This determination to unconstitutionally restrict one of our most 
fundamental rights and--I would argue--our first freedom has nothing to 
do with safety or security and everything to do with government 
control.
  My amendment, previously introduced as a stand-alone bill by my good 
friend and colleague, Chief Deputy Whip Patrick McHenry, from North 
Carolina, would put an end to this attack on our Second Amendment 
rights by ensuring this popular ammunition remains available and not 
subject to any future ATF bans.
  Mr. Chairman, like many of my constituents from North Carolina, I 
like to spend time outdoors in a deer stand, in a field, or at the 
range. I will not stand idly by and allow a unilateral executive fiat 
to threaten our right to enjoy this cherished American tradition.
  The Second Amendment is not about hunting or shooting sports. Our 
right to keep and bear arms is a right that ensures our ability to 
protect all of rights. That is why I refer to it as our first freedom. 
This fundamental freedom must be defended and protected.
  For that reason, I encourage my colleagues in the House to support 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague 
from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).
  Mr. ROUZER. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand with my colleague from 
North Carolina in support of this amendment. In the eyes of our 
Founding Fathers, the right to bear arms was just as fundamental as the 
freedom of speech. The Second Amendment ensures our right, as law-
abiding American citizens, to bear arms to protect ourselves from 
enemies, both foreign and domestic.
  It is no secret that our Second Amendment rights have been threatened 
by the government bureaucrats in the Obama administration. Earlier this 
year, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives doubled 
down on attempting to ban lead projectiles, as they claim the 
ammunition is armor piercing.
  They proposed a ban on the manufacturing and sale of certain AR-15 
ammunition that could have drastically reduced the availability of 
ammunition commonly used for sporting and other legitimate purposes.
  Because of the strong objections from gunowners and constitutional 
conservatives across the country, ATF decided to table their proposal, 
at least for now.
  Mr. Chairman, our constitutional rights should not be left up to the 
whims of Federal bureaucrats in Washington. This amendment simply 
ensures that Federal funds cannot be used to ban certain types of 
commonly used ammunition, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. They must have some special kind of deer in North 
Carolina. They are running around in the woods with bulletproof vests 
on.
  The idea that a sportsman needs an armor-piercing bullet to go after 
a deer, I mean, I don't really buy it; but if the majority is willing 
to buy it at this hour of the night, it is fine with me.
  On a serious note, for those who are in law enforcement, who are out 
in dark alleys, and who have to confront circumstances that they don't 
know the exact dangers that they are going

[[Page 8361]]

to face, the fact that we want to have weapons that suppress the 
sound--now, we want to have bullets that can pierce armor and that we 
want to make sure that are under the guise of the Second Amendment, 
that you can have all manner of armament, without any type of 
reasonable speed bumps that might protect the American public is 
something that I am not sure that the majority would want to take such 
an enthusiastic effort around.
  Obviously, they do, and they have decided that this bill is the bill 
for it, that this bill is the place where they want to do this 
activity, right?
  I think it is unfortunate. As for me and for my side, we will be in 
opposition, and we will let the majority work its will.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's rhetorical 
question. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that the point is a 5.56 green 
tip bullet is not an armor-piercing bullet. The only reason it has been 
called an armor-piercing bullet is because of a loophole, and that is 
my point.
  We have an administration that has just put out a whole list of 
regulations that say they want to restrict the rights of people because 
they may or may not have a mental illness. They want a whole list, a 
whole range of regulations that they would like to roll out in the 
final days of this administration to limit, to infringe upon our Second 
Amendment rights. What I am saying is we are not going to stand for 
that.
  The bullet, the round that I am talking about is not an armor-
piercing round; it has never been defined as an armor-piercing round, 
but because of a loophole, this administration tried to ban it as such.
  Having said that, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the chairman.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I want to express my very strong support for the 
gentleman's amendment. The gentleman's amendment is necessary because 
the ATF did come out with a very broad legal framework within which 
they were attempting to ban not only 223 ammunition, but potentially 
whole other categories of ammunition, and that is just not what the 
statute was intended to prevent.
  The statute was intended to prevent specific types of armor-piercing 
bullets from being used in pistols. The ATF was taking that far beyond 
the statute. It was necessary for--as new committee subcommittee 
chairman, I was able to step in and persuade the ATF to drop their ammo 
ban.
  Mr. Hudson's amendment is necessary to make sure it doesn't happen 
again in the future, and I urge Members to support his amendment in the 
strongest possible terms to defend our Second Amendment rights.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0020

  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just hope that none of my good friends on the 
other side decide to test this theory about whether or not it can 
pierce armor, that you don't take the rhetoric to an extreme here. It 
is a fact that there is some concern about what this means for law 
enforcement. I know that the majority would want to be seen, and I 
think truly is, in support of law enforcement.
  Why would we want to put this type of ammunition in guns that we want 
to suppress the sound on, in which we want less information about the 
purchaser, at a time like this in our Nation I don't actually 
understand. But there is obviously some thread that runs through the 
other team over here that suggests that this is the time for them to 
proceed along this line. I think that the American public will have to 
make whatever judgment they want to make about that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Collins of Georgia

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide assistance to a State, or political 
     subdivision of a State, that has in effect any law, policy, 
     or procedure in contravention of immigration laws (as defined 
     in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))).

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment, and 
I withdraw the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman from Georgia and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with basically a 
commonsense amendment on H.R. 2578. I appreciate the hard work that 
Chairman Culberson, Ranking Member Fattah, and other members of the 
Appropriations Committee have put into this bill.
  This bill contains many important provisions to protect law-abiding 
Americans and public safety while spending responsibly; however, I want 
to make it absolutely clear that no funds appropriated under this bill 
are used to assist States and localities whose laws and policies are in 
direct contradiction to Federal immigration law and enforcement 
efforts. My amendment does just that. It ensures that we do not reward 
State and local governments with Federal funds when they ignore the 
rule of law.
  State and local jurisdictions are implementing policies that directly 
contradict U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's statutorily 
mandated mission to identify and remove illegal aliens who are 
currently incarcerated. At this point, we even have seen some local 
sheriffs who choose to follow Federal law and honor ICE detainers 
slapped with lawsuits for cooperating, for following the law.
  I know we are late. I know there is some discussion about this, but 
really this is simple.
  Hard-working taxpayers should not have to sit idly by and watch their 
tax dollars go to localities that choose to encourage illegal 
immigration through their nonenforcement policies. My amendment sends a 
clear message that, if localities implement policies in contradiction 
to Federal immigration law, they will not be eligible to receive funds 
under this act, specifically Federal reimbursement grants under the 
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that was offered and accepted last 
year. We are offering it again and would ask favorable consideration.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania continue to 
reserve his point of order?
  Mr. FATTAH. I would like, at this point, unless there are more 
comments, to assert the point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania may state his point 
of order.

[[Page 8362]]




                             Point of Order

  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 
2, rule XXI.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I will at least respond to the 
point of order.
  This amendment is not in contradiction of current law. In fact, it 
simply states that the amendment would not allow funds to be used in 
support of holding up law as it is currently written. This is not a law 
that is written to circumvent current law. In fact, all it says is that 
States and localities who receive the money will actually support 
current law. So I am not sure what the point of order is actually 
trying to say.
  This was put in last year. It was approved. I understand. I 
appreciate the gentleman's concern. But, basically, we are saying if 
you enforce the law as it is written, which is all we are asking, then 
the grant is there. If you choose not to enforce Federal law, then that 
is money that will be withheld.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Georgia wish to withdraw 
his amendment?
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Not at this point.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, we will respect the ruling of the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that I agree 
with the gentleman from Georgia. This does not change existing law. It 
simply states that if you expect to receive Federal money, you need to 
be in compliance with Federal law. It is pretty straight up.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
determination as to the status of local law.
  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 Offered by Mr. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to negotiate or enter into a trade agreement whose 
     negotiating texts are confidential. The limitation described 
     in this section shall not apply in the case of the 
     administration of a tax or tariff.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is akin to an amendment 
that was considered just a few moments ago offered by Mr. Meadows. This 
amendment is meant to address a problem that has arisen with trade 
agreements that has become visible to all of us as Members of this 
august body.
  What has happened is that the Trade Representative, for no apparent 
legal reason, with no apparent legal authority, has taken it upon 
himself to negotiate trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific 
Partnership in secret--not entirely in secret, just in secret from us 
and from members of the American public.
  The corresponding provision, the TTIP provision, has been posted by 
the European Union, which is our negotiating partner in this on the 
Internet.
  The Trans-Pacific Partnership itself has been negotiated in secret, 
but that has been posted by WikiLeaks, to the embarrassment of our 
government in an unnecessary manner.
  What we have seen over the past several years is that the Trade 
Representative has turned a deaf ear to our concerns as Members of 
Congress who must perform our oversight functions whenever we ask for 
information about what the Trade Representative is doing on behalf of 
the American people.
  Three years ago, we had the strange circumstance come up that over 
100 Members of Congress, 100 Members of this body, wrote a letter to 
the Trade Representative saying: We hear you are negotiating something 
called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Would you please give us a copy?
  And the answer came back: No. We are not going to give you a copy.
  For the past 5 years, the Trans-Pacific Partnership has been 
negotiated in secret. Only in the last few months, Members of Congress 
have been able to see it under the most extreme conditions imaginable. 
I was actually the first person to be able to see it, and the Trade 
Representative came to my office with his staff and offered to show it 
to me, but I couldn't take any notes.

                              {time}  0030

  I couldn't discuss it with my own staff. I couldn't even discuss it 
with other Members of this body. And of course I couldn't make copies 
or otherwise help myself to record what I had seen, much less speak to 
my constituents about it, much less speak to the media about it, much 
less speak to the public about it.
  Respectfully, secret laws are un-American laws; secret agreements are 
un-American agreements. There is no such thing recognized under our 
Constitution as a ``secret statute'' or a ``secret treaty.'' But that 
is, in effect, what we have been experiencing without any legal 
authority whatsoever on behalf of the Trade Representative.
  Now, I am not saying the Trade Representative needs to stop 
negotiating these agreements; not at all. What I am suggesting is that 
we lift the veil of secrecy that has been dropped over these 
negotiations so that we can't see them, the American people can't see 
them, but foreign governments can see them.
  Why is it that we have confidentiality? Why is it that we have a 
classified information system? Generally speaking, it is not to keep 
Americans from seeing this information; it is to keep foreigners from 
seeing this information. And here the world has been turned upside 
down, and we have a situation where foreigners get to see it, but even 
the highest members of our own government--our Senators, our 
Congressmen--we don't get to see it. That is absolutely unacceptable; 
it is un-American.
  The only way to come up with agreements that satisfy the needs of 
this country is through an open, fair, transparent process. That is 
what this simple amendment will accomplish. It says: None of the funds 
made available in this act, which includes funds made to the Trade 
Representative, may be used to negotiate or enter into a trade 
agreement whose negotiating texts are confidential.
  It is time for a little sunlight. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. 
It is time for the Members of this body to take control of our 
constitutional responsibilities, not to let the Trade Representative or 
any member of the executive branch tell us to stuff it when we need to 
find out things in order to be able to do our jobs properly.
  Wouldn't it be a better system if we were able to tell a trade 
representative what we think, what our constituents think, what the 
members of the American public think about these documents before they 
are simply dropped on us?
  This is a simple commonsense amendment. There is no existing legal 
authority that allows the Trade Representative to do what he has been 
doing. I say the time is up and we should insist that these agreements, 
which will determine the course of economic history in America for the 
next 20 or 30 years, are agreements that are negotiated in public with 
our approval and with our input.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page 8363]]


  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida I know has 
worked in the past as an attorney and represented clients and 
undoubtedly has settled cases before. And those settlement agreements, 
those negotiations, when you were designing those agreements, Mr. 
Grayson, I know were not something that you wanted to disclose. You 
wanted to negotiate those settlements in private with your client 
confidentially, because had the world seen what you were working out, 
that would have damaged your client's ability to negotiate a fair 
settlement with the other party in the case.
  As here, with trade promotion authority, the countries with which the 
Trade Representative is negotiating, Japan, for example, I doubt the 
Japanese want the Australians to see what the Japanese are agreeing to. 
That is just common sense. I doubt that the Koreans want the Japanese 
to see what the Koreans are attempting to agree to.
  So it is perfectly understandable that the agreement itself would be 
confidential until it is finalized. Members of Congress can go see the 
agreement, but the Korean-American Trade Agreement is going to be 
confidential until it is finally settled because Korea doesn't want 
Japan or Australia or Vietnam to see what they are negotiating, in the 
same way you did not want your clients, the agreement you were 
attempting to negotiate on behalf of your client, you didn't want to do 
that in the open sunshine. Sunshine is a good thing, but there are 
times when a negotiation like this on a trade agreement is just common 
sense. You are not going to want the other countries that you are 
competing against to see what kind of a deal you are fixing to work out 
with the United States.
  The Members of Congress can see it, of course, as we should, and the 
agreement itself must be available to the public to view 90 days before 
the President can even sign the agreement, and the Congress is going to 
have this debate. In fact, I understand that this trade promotion 
authority agreement that is under discussion, the new law that Congress 
is proposing, would for the first time give either House of Congress a 
veto over the agreement with a majority vote. So the House could decide 
on our own to veto a particular trade agreement by majority vote; the 
Senate could veto a trade agreement by majority vote.
  The only part of the deal so far that is confidential is the ongoing 
negotiation, which is exactly the way you handled and protected your 
client's best interest as an attorney. I am quite confident as an 
attorney you handled your client's litigation in a way that was 
professional and confidential, and I imagine you never disclosed a 
pending settlement agreement that was being negotiated, you never 
released that publicly, did you ever, Mr. Grayson?
  Mr. GRAYSON. Is the gentleman yielding to me?
  Mr. CULBERSON. Did you ever release a negotiated settlement agreement 
to the public before it was finalized?
  Mr. GRAYSON. Is the gentleman yielding to me?
  Mr. CULBERSON. No. Answer my question, yes or no.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Well, I can't answer your question unless you are going 
to yield to me.
  Mr. CULBERSON. That is why I am asking a question. I am asking you, 
did you ever release the terms of a settlement agreement you were 
negotiating before it was final?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas controls the time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Yes. And I am asking a question.
  I was an attorney myself. I defended businesses in civil litigation, 
and any settlement agreement that we worked on was done confidentially. 
And I would ask Mr. Grayson, did you ever disclose a confidential 
settlement negotiation publicly when you were negotiating on behalf of 
your client?
  Mr. GRAYSON. Is the gentleman yielding the balance of his time to me?
  Mr. CULBERSON. No, I am not yielding the balance of my time. I am 
just asking a question.
  I am quite confident Mr. Grayson always kept those negotiations 
secret. That is all that is being kept secret here. And it is actually 
not secret because Members of Congress can go read the text of the 
trade agreement that is being negotiated. And if any of us have any 
sort of an objection, that is a good time to raise it, to tell the 
Trade Representative that we think this or that provision is going to 
either be in violation of Federal law or cause a problem for American 
industry and we think you ought to drop it.
  So you have actually got an opportunity to have your 2 cents' worth 
heard during the course of the negotiation. So I would urge Members to 
oppose Mr. Grayson's amendment for the same reason that Mr. Grayson 
always kept his settlement negotiations confidential on behalf of his 
clients.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 15 seconds 
remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for another minute 
beyond my 15 seconds.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I object. We are limited to 5 minutes and it is 12:30 
at night.
  The Acting CHAIR. There is an objection. The gentleman has 15 
seconds.
  Mr. GRAYSON. First of all, I represent the American public here, not 
the American private. When I was an attorney, I represented private 
interest, just as you did. Now I represent the public. The reason we 
refer to the American public as the public is because the public's 
business needs to be public. That means no secret negotiations, no 
secret acts, no secret agreements, nothing but the public interest in 
public.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Grayson's answer confirms 
that he did not ever disclose a negotiated settlement before it was 
final, and that is just common sense. And here, under trade promotion 
authority, the trade agreement, as it is being negotiated, needs to be 
kept confidential. But any Member of Congress can go in and see it and 
have our voices heard, object, suggest changes to it, as it is being 
negotiated. And then once it is finalized the text must be made 
available to the public 90 days before the President signs the 
agreement, and then either House of Congress can void the agreement by 
a majority vote. We are going to have this debate, and I urge Members 
to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of 
     the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, 
     Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, 
     Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
     Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, 
     New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North 
     Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, 
     Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and 
     Wisconsin, or with respect to either the District of Columbia 
     or Guam, to prevent any of them from implementing their own 
     laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or 
     cultivation of medical marijuana.

  Mr. ROHRABACHER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.

[[Page 8364]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  0040

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Today, I ask my colleagues to make a practical as well as a 
principled vote. My amendment would prohibit any Federal funds from 
being used to supersede State law in those States that have legalized 
the use of medical marijuana.
  Let's be clear. The intent of this amendment is to make it illegal 
for Federal employees to engage in efforts to enforce Federal law that 
makes the medical use or distribution of medical marijuana illegal in 
States where the use of marijuana for medical purposes has been made 
legal.
  The practical aspect of this vote is based on the realization that, 
at a time of severely limited resources, it makes sense to target 
terrorists, criminals, and other threats to the American people rather 
than use Federal law enforcement resources to prevent suffering and 
sick people from using a weed that may or may not alleviate their 
suffering.
  There are many examples--yes, anecdotal--in which the use of 
marijuana has helped end severe suffering.
  Trying to prevent this use of marijuana once it has been legalized by 
a State government is a travesty, an inexcusable waste of our limited 
resources. That is the practical reason to vote for my amendment.
  As for the principle, we Republicans claim to base our decisions on 
individual freedom, on states' rights as mandated by the 10th Amendment 
to the Constitution, and especially on the doctor-patient relationship.
  Don't bother to use rhetoric about those principles on other issues 
if you vote for the Federal Government to supersede individual rights, 
states' rights, and the doctor-patient relationship when it comes to 
marijuana.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Stop this waste of limited Federal law enforcement resources. Stop 
the roughshod use of the Federal bureaucracy from busting down doors to 
prevent sick people from using a substance that his or her doctor 
believes might alleviate his or her pain.
  Vote for the Rohrabacher amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  First of all, I hear constantly of this idea about individual rights, 
about the 10th Amendment, et cetera. This was all settled back in 2005 
in the Supreme Court with Gonzales v. Raich, which was a 6-3 victory in 
favor of the government's having preemptive rights when it comes to the 
drug laws, the CSA. That has been settled. We can claim this over and 
over again, but bring it back to the Court and see if you can change 
that.
  Now, how is this affecting us in real life? It is now legal in 
Colorado, but Nebraska and Oklahoma are now suing Colorado. Why? It is 
because of all of the problems that are developing across the State 
borders--again, interstate commerce, a big problem.
  Let's talk about the huge problem that marijuana represents. First of 
all, it has no accepted medical use.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FLEMING. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.
  There are synthetic marijuana equivalents that are useful--yes, 
indeed--but the drug itself, which is the smokeable part of it, is not 
safe and has not been accepted.
  Here is the thing. It is known to have brain development alterations; 
schizophrenia and other forms of mental illness, psychosis; heart 
complications; and an increased risk of stroke.
  A study recently found that even casual users experience severe brain 
abnormalities found on MRIs and that pot smoking leads to the loss of 
ambition; to lower IQs; and that it impairs attention, judgment, 
memory, and many other things.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, Congress needs to represent the States that 
they were elected in. It is time that we represent them here in the 
United States Congress to allow medical marijuana laws in those States 
that have been approved by the voters and approved by their 
legislatures--39 States, the District of Columbia, and Guam. That is 41 
total, the majority of the American population. It is a states' rights 
issue.
  Support this amendment.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the supporters of this amendment claim 
that this is a states' rights issue. However, it is not that simple, 
not hardly. Drug manufacture and use is inherently an interstate 
problem.
  For example, we need look no further than at one of the two States 
where marijuana has been legalized. The Colorado Department of Revenue 
has reported that 45 percent of marijuana sales in the State were to 
out-of-State ID holders.
  Indeed, earlier this year, Colorado Governor Hickenlooper said, ``If 
I could've waved a wand the day after the election, I would have 
reversed the election and said, `This was a bad idea.'''
  In fact, Colorado is now being sued by Nebraska and Oklahoma, which 
claim Colorado has created a ``dangerous gap'' in the control of 
marijuana and that marijuana is flowing from Colorado to neighboring 
States.
  However, Mr. Chairman, of far greater concern to me is the increased 
availability of marijuana to children, which will inevitably result 
from a loosening of restrictions on this dangerous drug.
  Though my colleagues may not like it, marijuana remains a schedule I 
narcotic because it has a high potential for abuse and no legitimate 
medical use. In fact, Mr. Chairman, statistics show that 78 percent of 
the 2.4 million people who began using marijuana last year were aged 12 
to 20.
  There is little doubt that this drug poses a significant danger to 
our children, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and for his 
leadership on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, of course, I rise in support of this bipartisan 
amendment.
  In States with medical marijuana laws, patients now face uncertainty 
regarding their treatment, and small-business owners, who have invested 
millions in creating jobs and revenue, have no assurances for the 
future.
  It is way past the time for the Justice Department to stop its 
unwarranted persecution of medical marijuana and to put its resources 
where they are truly needed. There is no way that Members of Congress 
should tell people who live in States where these laws have been passed 
that what their doctors prescribe, which could prevent pain, should not 
be allowed.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the time, and I appreciate all of the work 
that Mr. Rohrabacher and Mr. Farr have done, and I am happy to join 
with them.
  Mr. Chairman, Justice Brandeis said the States are the laboratories 
of democracy. That is what they are doing here. Some of the arguments 
we have heard are ``Reefer Madness'' 2015. It is over. One of the 
gentlemen said children are doing marijuana at age 12.

[[Page 8365]]

That will show you how good the laws are doing right now.
  If we had more money going into heroin and not marijuana, we could 
stop people from dying, and that is what we should be doing. Tell 
Montel Williams, who has MS, that marijuana doesn't work. Tell cancer 
patients that it doesn't help them with nausea. Tell people that it 
doesn't work.
  It works. It helps. It is the States.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, by the way it has been talked about by some 
on the other side, to be clear, this amendment does not legalize 
marijuana. It simply ensures that the Federal Government doesn't waste 
its limited resources in prosecuting men and women who are acting in 
compliance with State and medical marijuana laws. That is all it does.
  It is very reasonable that States have enforcement priorities in this 
area, and we want our Federal resources geared towards crime that we 
view as more important. Have them go after the meth lab. Have them go 
after the heroin ring.

                              {time}  0050

  Colorado has had legal medical marijuana for nearly a decade. Some in 
our State are for it; some are against it. It is our right as a State 
to determine that. That is why I support this amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Nevada 
(Ms. Titus).
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about standing up for 
states' rights and protecting businesses, doctors, and patients who are 
acting legally under the medical marijuana laws of some 41 States and 
territories, including Nevada. Congress needs to catch up with State 
legislatures, and the Federal Government needs to stop wasting money 
busting good citizens who are trying to do the right thing.
  Mr. FLEMING. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chair, who has the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has the right to 
close.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is correct. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLEMING. May I inquire how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 2 minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 15 seconds remaining.
  Mr. FLEMING. Let me say, first of all, this whole idea of medical 
marijuana is a big joke. It is an end run around the laws. There are 
more pot shops in California than there are Starbucks or McDonald's; 
okay?
  Now, is it really a medical treatment? Well, the AMA says no. The 
American Society of Addiction Medicine says no. Even the American 
Glaucoma Society, which is of course in charge of glaucoma treatment, 
says that this is not a medical treatment for glaucoma. So there is no 
single approved use of marijuana for medical diseases.
  The whole idea about medical marijuana is to get around the laws on 
legalization or illegalization of marijuana. But make no mistake about 
it, the most common addiction diagnosis for young people admitted to 
drug treatment centers is addiction to marijuana. The rate is 9 percent 
addiction rate in adults; it is 17 percent in young people.
  We all know the studies show very clearly that the States that are 
more permissive have higher addiction and abuse rates than any others. 
We also know that NIDA tells us that it is a developmental disease. 
What does that mean? It means the younger a child is exposed to it, the 
more likely that child will later become an addict to something else, 
like methamphetamine, prescription drugs, heroin. So if you support 
this, which is really the legalization of marijuana, then you are 
really supporting allowing our children to be harmed and addicted to 
this terrible drug.
  Now, I am all in favor of research, and we are in discussions with 
DEA about allowing it in some way, whether we go to a 1a category to 
allow such research. Some suggest that it may have some benefit for 
seizures. That is yet to be seen. Some suggest that it may be 
beneficial to those who have spastic muscle disease, but there is 
absolutely no proof of that.
  So with that, I urge everyone to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the doctor's remarks, the 
truth is that almost no research has been put into marijuana in terms 
of its medical efficacy. You have epilepsy and a whole host.
  Mr. FLEMING. Will the gentleman yield on that?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FLEMING. Okay. I am not going to dominate the gentleman's time.
  This has been under study for over 40 years. My university, the 
University of Mississippi, has been legally growing pot for over 40 
years and studying it, so it has been studied.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, I know a little bit about this 
subject. The bottom line is that in terms of its medical viability, in 
terms of epilepsy and a lot of other issues, there is some need for a 
real study of this, not just about the way that we have proceeded so 
far. I think that this amendment and what is happening in the States 
should be allowed to go forward.
  I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) for an opportunity to close on this subject. At that point 
then I would yield back the remainder of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman may not yield blocks of time and must 
remain on his feet.
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Rohrabacher.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman may not yield blocks of time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield such time as he may consume, as long as he 
doesn't go over 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I appreciate that from my colleague.
  Look, our Founding Fathers didn't want criminal justice to be handled 
by the Federal Government. I don't know what government you want to 
have in our country, but most of us here don't believe that the Federal 
Government--neither did our Founding Fathers--is an all-wise system, 
that the Federal Government is the only government that has wisdom to 
make the decisions for the families.
  This is absolutely absurd to think that the Federal Government is 
going to mandate all of these things even though the people of the 
States and other doctors, many other doctors, would like to have the 
right to prescribe to their patients what they think is going to 
alleviate their suffering. No, we should not get in the way. As I said 
in the first debate, it is sinful for us to try to get in the way 
between a doctor and his patient, saying, Oh, no, the Federal 
Government knows better.
  This is a states' rights issue. This is the issue of what our 
Founding Fathers had in mind for this country, where the decisions 
would be made like this. They didn't want the Federal Government to 
have a police force that can bust in people's doors. No. They wanted to 
have individual freedom, personal choice. They want parents to take 
care of their kids. They didn't want an all-controlling nanny State to 
control our lives. That is what this country was supposed to be all 
about. I thought that is what Republicans were supposed to be all 
about, and I hope my Republican colleagues will start reexamining 
whether or not they believe in the fundamental principles of limited 
government and individual freedom that we have always talked about.
  So I would ask my colleagues to join me, reaffirm what our Founding 
Fathers had in mind, which is freedom, states' rights, limited 
government, and people making choices about their own lives and being 
responsible for their families and not shoving that off on the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming the balance of my time, I think I hear that

[[Page 8366]]

echo again about the right to be left alone.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just say this. I just wish you would have 
talked to the very doctors and people I know that have been suffering, 
and they have gone to their doctor and asked for help, and the doctors 
have said, ``Yes, medical marijuana will help you''--to believe that 
the Federal Government can stop that.
  I have met people whose suffering has been alleviated. Some veterans 
I know have gone through seizure after seizure, and they were only 
helped by medical marijuana. If we have a heart, if we have our 
beliefs, let's make sure that we stand for freedom in this vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to compel a person to testify about information or 
     sources that the person states in a motion to quash the 
     subpoena that he has obtained as a journalist or reporter and 
     that he regards as confidential.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has nothing to do with 
medical marijuana. It was passed last year by a vote of this body of 
225-183; in other words, it passed by a majority of 42 votes.

                              {time}  0100

  The purpose of this amendment is to raise the possibility of a 
Federal shield law that corresponds to protections already in place in 
49 States but not at the level of the Federal Government.
  Again, to be clear about this, 49 States have a Federal shield law. 
The Federal Government does not--at least up to this point.
  A shield law is designed to protect a reporter's privilege: the right 
of news reporters to refuse to testify on information and sources of 
information obtained during the news gathering and dissemination 
process. In short, a reporter should not be forced to reveal his or her 
sources under penalty of imprisonment.
  This issue has come up in court cases at the Federal level and the 
Supreme Court level, beginning with the 1972 case of Branzburg v. 
Hayes. In that case, a reporter wished to inform his readers about the 
nature of the drug hashish, and he realized that the only way to go 
about that was to actually find and interview people who had actually 
used the drug hashish, so he did that.
  After he published his article, relying upon two confidential 
sources, he was subpoenaed by the police to provide his sources so that 
they could be arrested, compromising their identity and compromising 
his journalistic integrity. So he was forced to choose whether he would 
conceal his sources and go to prison or he would reveal his sources and 
have them go to prison, simply because he wanted to inform the public 
about this matter of concern.
  Some of us may remember the case of Valerie Plame, who was publicly 
identified as a covert operative. Reporters were continually asked to 
name the sources used in their reporting, and one reporter was jailed 
for 85 days for refusing to disclose sources in that government probe.
  At this point, under current law, journalists are in a quandary--an 
unnecessary and unhealthy quandary. They realize that they need to 
protect their sources, but that right is codified only at the State 
level and not yet at the Federal level.
  So what I am seeking to do, as I did last year with the assistance of 
this House, is to offer the journalists the protection they should have 
in order to do their jobs properly.
  Freedom of the press is not just an important principle, but it is 
part of the foundation of American law. The Constitution and the First 
Amendment provide for freedom of speech and of the press. It is 
completely incongruous to say that we have freedom of the press, but 
the Federal Government could nevertheless subpoena sources and put 
reporters in prison if they don't comply.
  I think that we should have settled this issue years if not decades 
ago. We did settle it last year successfully in this body, but we are 
here today to try to address it once more.
  Respectfully, I submit this amendment as a much-needed and long 
delayed clarification that the Federal Government treats the issue of 
freedom of the press just as respectfully and just as importantly as 
the great majority of our States do--49 out of 50.
  I ask for support of this amendment from my esteemed colleague, the 
gentleman from the Seventh District of Texas, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is 
drafted far too broadly. And I would point out that in a grand jury 
proceeding--those that occur in the District of Columbia, for example, 
are done under the auspices of the Department of Justice, and that is a 
Federal grand jury proceeding. A journalist would not have the 
privilege of protecting the confidentiality of his sources because in a 
grand jury everything that is discussed is absolutely confidential.
  I also, frankly, think it is astonishing that under Mr. Grayson's 
amendment a journalist has the ability to self-certify what is 
confidential and what is not. I certainly agree with the principle of a 
strong and free press, but Mr. Grayson's amendment is written far too 
broadly and, frankly, would not provide protection to a journalist in a 
grand jury setting. I think he has neglected that problem.
  I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chair of 
the Judiciary Committee, to also speak in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee for 
joining me in opposition to this amendment.
  Shield laws for reporters are not a bad concept at all, but this is 
hardly the way to go about doing it. No State has a law like this 
language here, where it is so vague that virtually anyone in the United 
States claiming to be a journalist or reporter--and, by the way, 
nowadays, when lots of people maintain blogs or posts on the Internet, 
they could easily claim to be a journalist or reporter--would be 
covered by this.
  So no one intends to have that broad an exception that would allow 
anyone to evade the requirements that they respond to a legitimate 
subpoena for investigation by law enforcement, a violation of the law.
  This is far too broad. It is something that clearly should be handled 
by the authorizing committee, the Judiciary Committee, which worked on 
this for a long period of time and has struggled with that very 
definition of journalist or reporter that the gentleman from Florida 
simply glosses over in this.
  And then, to give further exception to simply say that that 
individual who first claims they are a journalist or reporter and then 
says, Oh, yeah, that is confidential, that would breed criminal 
misconduct because criminals would be before the court claiming that 
they were reporters and that they regarded their information as 
confidential and, therefore, do not have to respond to a subpoena.
  This is a very harmful, very bad way to go about providing protection 
to legitimate journalists and reporters and

[[Page 8367]]

should be defeated. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against 
it.
  Mr. GRAYSON. This is the same parade of horribles that we heard last 
year before this body voted in favor of the Grayson amendment. It is 
almost the same, word for word.
  Last year, we heard that this somehow would allow people to self-
certify. Well, in fact, anybody who self-certifies falsely in front of 
a grand jury is looking at a lot more than 83 days in jail. They are 
looking at 5 years in Federal prison. They would be prosecuted for 
perjury if they claimed to be a journalist and weren't actually a 
journalist--a fact that I pointed out last year before this amendment 
was actually passed.
  I also want to point out that there is no distinction between a grand 
jury and an actual jury for this purpose. Forty-nine States all agree 
that there is no distinction whatsoever. So it is simply false to say 
that this doesn't apply to grand jury proceedings. It certainly would 
apply and does apply to all grand jury proceedings at the State level.
  And there is nothing vague about this provision at all. In fact, the 
wording that has been referred to here, that the information has been 
attained as a journalist or reporter, is exactly the same wording that 
was in the Grayson amendment last year that passed with a margin of 42 
votes.
  So none of these old attacks, these unsuccessful attacks, are 
anything new and deserve any more credence than they received from a 
majority of this body last year.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, with that, I would urge Members to 
oppose the amendment and urge Members to vote ``no'', and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that I 
offer with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of 
     the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, 
     Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, 
     Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
     Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, 
     New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North 
     Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, 
     Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and 
     Wisconsin, to prevent any of them from implementing their own 
     laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or 
     cultivation of marijuana on non-Federal lands within their 
     respective jurisdictions.

  Mr. McCLINTOCK (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not an endorsement of marijuana. I 
have never used it. My wife and I raised our children never to use it. 
And I believe that local schools ought to assure that every American is 
aware of the risks and dangers that it may pose.
  This amendment addresses a much larger question: whether the Federal 
Government has the constitutional authority to dictate a policy to 
States on matters that occur strictly within their own borders. I 
believe that it does not. But even if it does, I believe that it should 
not.
  In 1932, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis described the beauty of 
the 10th Amendment this way. He said: ``A State may, if its citizens 
choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic 
experiments without risk to the rest of the country.''

                              {time}  0110

  That is exactly what States like Colorado and Oregon have done with 
legalization and what many more have done with aspects of it. They 
believe that the harm that might be done by easier access to this drug 
is outweighed by removing the violent underground economy that is 
caused by prohibition.
  I don't know if they are right or wrong, but I would like to find 
out, and their experiment will inform the rest of the country.
  Now, the Federal Government has a legitimate authority to protect 
neighboring States by forbidding transport across State lines, which 
this amendment protects; but, at the same time, it protects the right 
of a State's citizens to make this decision within their own 
boundaries.
  It is not necessary to become embroiled in the debate over marijuana. 
These States are having that debate and establishing their laws.
  The question is over the right of their people to have these debates, 
to make these decisions, and for the rest of the Nation to observe and 
benefit from the outcome for good or ill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  My friend Mr. McClintock makes the point that this should be an 
experiment within the States, and certainly, that is something that has 
been a long-held goal and value, but we already have that ongoing.
  Today, Colorado, as everyone knows, has legalization of marijuana, 
notwithstanding what is going on with the Federal Government and its 
laws, and the information is rolling in, and the information is bad. 
The black market is worse than ever when it comes to drugs. Interstate 
commerce has increased, not decreased.
  Again, as I stated before, two States, Oklahoma and Nebraska, are now 
suing Colorado over the bleedover of problems that are occurring. The 
strength of marijuana is much stronger today in Colorado than it has 
ever been. The problems are much worse. We are actually seeing related 
deaths, accidents; and we have even had an overdose death now with the 
stronger forms of marijuana.
  Look, if this is about allowing doctors to work with their patients, 
let's admit it. We don't allow, as a society, doctors to just do 
anything with any patient. We do have some guidelines and restrictions.
  Furthermore, children are the end result of bad decisions in all 
this. We know that the more it is in the homes, the more it is going to 
get into the brains and bloodstream of children.
  Again, I will mention the number of problems that are developing from 
it are growing, mostly from what we are seeing in Colorado. Studies 
show that MRI scans show, even in casual users, profound brain changes. 
We see that the area that deals with ambition is being greatly 
affected, thus, the ambition killer sort of knowledge that we have and 
understand about this drug.
  IQ, studies show a lowering of IQ.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FLEMING. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), the cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from California for bringing forward 
this amendment.
  I say to my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, I am actually from 
Colorado, and I don't recognize the Colorado that you are talking 
about.

[[Page 8368]]

  I come from the Colorado where underage marijuana use is down since 
legalization. I am from the Colorado where we have driven criminal 
cartels that seek to prey on our children every day out of business.
  I am from the Colorado where our violent crime rates are down and 
where we continue to regulate dispensaries to make sure they are not 
schools; rather than have a corner street dealer who doesn't care if 
they are selling to a 14-year-old, we moved that away and regulated it 
in a way to make sure that minors don't have access to marijuana. That 
is the Colorado that I am from. I welcome you to come visit. I welcome 
you to visit.
  You know what, I don't have to convince you. I don't have to convince 
the State of Louisiana that they should do anything. I just wish that 
you would leave my sovereign State of Colorado alone.
  Let our people and our State government decide what we want to do 
with regard to marijuana, rather than the Federal agents going around 
trying to arrest people for doing activities that are fully legal under 
State law. That is all I ask.
  I am not going to send Federal troops into Louisiana to arrest people 
from whatever you do down there, smoking crayfish. You want me to ban 
that and send Federal troops down there? I bet maybe smoking crayfish 
ain't good for you. I don't know. What if it is fried? It might clog 
your arteries, huh? I bet that is not good for you.
  You want me to send Federal troops down there? Is that what you want? 
Do you want me to send Federal troops to Louisiana to stop you from 
eating fried crayfish?
  Mr. FLEMING. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS. Yeah, I would like your answer. Yes or no?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
  All Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the gentleman 
from Louisiana if he wants us to send Federal troops to Louisiana to 
stop them from eating fried crayfish. I am happy to yield for an 
answer.
  Mr. FLEMING. If the gentleman is yielding to me, I would point out 
that the Colorado he describes does not exist.
  Mr. POLIS. Reclaiming my time, I am from Colorado. I know Colorado 
inside and out, and we have been tremendously successful in reducing 
the abuse of marijuana among minors.
  Again, it shouldn't be up to us to convince him, just as I don't have 
to eat their darn fried crayfish--I don't want it. I don't want it. Get 
the Federal law enforcement apparatus to leave our State alone.
  That is all this amendment does, is respect the sovereign will of the 
people of my great State of Colorado to have innovative policies to 
reduce the abuse of marijuana.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLEMING. I yield myself another minute.
  What we are finding out from Colorado, we are learning a lot of 
lessons. One is the way that marijuana is now getting into baked goods, 
gummy bears. There is a huge spike in emergency room visits, children 
who are overdosing on marijuana.
  Know that if you look, if you actually read what the media says and 
what the studies show is there are increasing problems in Colorado, not 
decreasing problems.
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLEMING. I'm sorry, but I can't yield.
  Mr. POLIS. The gentleman is inaccurate with regard to his 
characterization of my State.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend. It is the gentleman 
from Louisiana's time.
  Mr. POLIS. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman from Louisiana yield for a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  Mr. FLEMING. I do not yield.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman does not yield. The time is 
controlled by the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FLEMING. Back to the constitutionality, we may all have different 
opinions about this, but it has been settled.
  The Supreme Court in 2005, Gonzales v. Raich, 6-3, said that the 
Federal Government does have a right to enforce drug policies and for 
good reason because we know that drugs cross State lines. It is an 
interstate commerce issue. What happens in one State affects the other 
States.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. FLEMING. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the arguments we are hearing from Mr. 
Fleming are the arguments that ought to be heard in the States. I would 
remind him this measure does not affect marijuana laws involving any 
conceivable Federal jurisdiction.
  It does not affect Federal districts or territories. It does not 
affect Federal jurisdiction over interstate commerce, including the 
Federal Government's responsibility to interdict transport among 
States.
  It does not affect the Federal jurisdiction over Federal land. It 
does not affect Federal jurisdiction over the importation of marijuana 
from abroad. It only affects jurisdiction that is strictly and solely 
the rightful province of the States as pertains to their affairs 
strictly and solely within their own borders.
  At some point, Mr. Chairman, we must ask ourselves: Do we believe in 
the 10th Amendment or do we not? Do we believe in federalism or do we 
not? Do we believe in the architecture of our Constitution or do we 
not? Do we believe in freedom or do we not?
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FLEMING. And who has the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has the only time 
remaining. The gentleman from California yielded back the balance of 
his time.
  Mr. FLEMING. Again, my good friend from California would suggest 
that, really, Federal laws have no application, that we should just 
turn all laws and law enforcement over to the States. That simply isn't 
the case.
  Again, yes, the Federal Government does have jurisdiction. It is 
called the CSA, the Controlled Substances Act, and it has been around 
for a long time, and it is enforced by the DEA and many other agencies. 
I would just say that the gentleman is just flat wrong on that and that 
the Supreme Court came down on my side.
  Again, we can have different opinions, but that is where we are 
today. I would suggest that perhaps we get the Supreme Court to rule 
differently if we believe differently.

                              {time}  0120

  But again, what is important to me is not the law. What is important 
to me is what is happening to the children of our Nation, especially 
Colorado: overdosages, brain changes, loss of IQ, memory loss, and 
cognitive impairment.
  Marijuana smoke has four times the tar of cigarette smoke. Who really 
believes that we are not going to see an epidemic down the road of lung 
cancer related to marijuana?
  As far as use for medical purposes, again, we don't have a single 
approved specific use of marijuana for medical purposes. And for 
heaven's sakes, we know that up to 17 percent of people who use it 
become addicted to it. So the first rule for us as physicians--and I 
have been a doctor for 40 years--is first do no harm. Well, we are 
doing a lot of harm with marijuana by legalizing it and liberalizing 
its use.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 8369]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Perry

  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to take any action to prevent a State from 
     implementing any law that makes it lawful to possess, 
     distribute, or use cannabidiol or cannabidiol oil.

  Mr. PERRY (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to 
dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important to talk about what this amendment is 
not, as much as to talk about what it is. This amendment in no way 
federally legalizes marijuana. It does not allow for the recreational 
use of marijuana, and I maintain that I am still opposed to the 
recreational use of marijuana. What it does is it simply prevents the 
Federal Government from interfering in States that have legalized CBD 
and CBD oil.
  CBD--cannabidiol is how you pronounce it--is an extract from hemp. 
CBD oil has been known to reduce the amount or duration of seizures in 
those suffering from epilepsy or other seizure disorders. CBD oil 
contains no THC, the active psychotropic ingredient that makes people 
high. It contains none.
  Numerous families in my district have children with epilepsy, and 
they are out of options. They have tried all the FDA-approved drugs, 
and they sit and they watch their children fade away. And that is their 
option. They can either do that, they can break the law, or they can 
move somewhere where they can get CBD. Some have had to move to States 
where it is legal. They have had to split their families apart to care 
for their children.
  Mr. Chairman, 17 States--most recently, Texas, where the good 
chairman resides--have legalized CBD. These States have made the choice 
to help children with epilepsy and seizure disorders. Parents who want 
to treat their children should not be hindered by Federal prohibition.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold), my good friend.
  Mr. DOLD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my good friend from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chairman, last week I had an opportunity to sit down with Sophie 
Weiss, an inspiring young girl from Illinois. In many ways she is a 
very normal girl who enjoys spending her days playing with her sisters, 
but she also suffers from a severe form of epilepsy that does not allow 
her to respond to the traditional medication. Because of this, she 
suffers through upwards of 200 seizures each and every day. Mr. 
Chairman, she can't read. She is 9 years old. Her 6-year-old sister 
reads to her. She can't do this because she blacks out and she seizes 
hundreds of times each and every day.
  Unfortunately, Sophie's story is not unique, and there are girls just 
like Sophie in every State and every district across our country.
  Mr. Chairman, we have already found lifesaving seizure relief for 
some families. In Illinois, CBD oil is legal and has shown to 
drastically reduce the frequency of seizures. But because of antiquated 
laws and Federal bureaucracy, this relief is unavailable to many.
  Over and over again, the Federal Government has stood in the way of 
access to lifesaving care for these children. Why would we allow even 
one child, Mr. Chairman, to suffer while waiting for other options to 
be approved? If this natural therapy can help even one family, ensuring 
access to it is a must.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to Washington to fight for commonsense, 
bipartisan reform that will improve the day-to-day lives of the people 
that I represent, and that is exactly what this amendment does. Quite 
simply, it ensures that States that already have legalized CBD oil can 
do so without Federal interference.
  Helping these families is a reform that we should all be able to get 
behind. Regardless of political party, we can agree that the 
government's role is not to prevent families from getting access to 
lifesaving treatment.
  Mr. Chairman, as a father looking at these children who suffer from 
thousands of seizures, who literally can't live their lives normally, 
is something that we can and must change. This amendment offers hope to 
thousands of individuals and their families, and I urge my colleagues 
to help children like Sophie in their districts by adopting this 
commonsense amendment.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, some of the things that have been said about this are 
quite true. First of all, it is pronounced--I can't even say it myself. 
We will say CBD oil for short.
  It is not psychoactive, although it is an extract from the plant of 
marijuana. There have been anecdotal reports that it reduces seizures 
in kids who have severe seizure disorders, so-called Charlotte's Web. 
It is actually on fast-track evaluation by the FDA both for safety and 
for effectiveness. Actually, the early reports are disappointing. 
Despite the anecdotal reports, they are not finding, thus far, the 
benefits that have been promised. Also, they are finding, in some 
cases, pretty severe side effects.
  One of the things that hasn't been discussed on this issue is, just 
as we don't allow people or encourage people, at least, to eat mold in 
order to get penicillin as an antibiotic for disease, it doesn't make 
any sense to give a raw plant as a medication. What we do in health 
care by using the scientific method is to extract the component, make 
sure we have a precise measurement, fully study it for safety and for 
efficaciousness, and then we prescribe it under the direction of a 
physician.
  The CBD oil right now is not being produced. It is not in a pill or 
injectable form or even in a liquid form. It is sort of grown on the 
side, and people are sort of experimenting with it to see whether it 
works.
  What I would say to my colleagues is let's let this thing play out. 
Let the FDA finish its fast-track evaluation. If they find it to be 
efficacious and safe, let them put it in the proper measurement form. 
Let's make sure we know what all the side effects are. As far as I am 
concerned, we would make it a nonscheduled drug.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1 minute 
remaining. The gentleman from Louisiana has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my colleague from Pennsylvania.

[[Page 8370]]

  Again, I think this is a similar thrust to the previous debate, so I 
won't prolong it. But we need to be exploring relief for families in 
which no other relief is available and for individuals in which no 
other relief is available. This provides an opportunity for potential 
relief. We should explore it.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has the right to 
close.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, what my colleagues are suggesting here is 
that we just pull a plant from someplace or something off the shelf and 
we give it to children, something that has not been a practice in 
probably 100 years.

                              {time}  0130

  We just don't do it that way. That is why we spend millions, if not 
billions, of dollars of research to be sure that what we give the 
public is going to be healthy for them and safe for them.
  You may recall a drug that was prescribed for pregnancy, nausea and 
pregnancy, which was approved back in Europe but not approved here, and 
we found out that babies were born without arms and legs as a result. 
Saving children in America--why? Because we waited to be sure that not 
only was it efficacious, but it was safe.
  So I would say to my friends, my heart is in the same place. I want 
to see treatment for children who may have severe seizure disorders. We 
have it on a fast track. We may be months away.
  But I don't think turning this over to parents and others who may 
fiddle with it and experiment with it, in essence, making our children 
guinea pigs, is the right way to go.
  There are centers that are doing these studies, and certainly 
children can go and talk to those doctors, get on their studies, and 
get the trials. But I would again warn people that the preliminary 
results are not good, and in some cases we are seeing adverse side 
effects.
  So I think we need to stay with the scientific method. We need to 
stay with the discipline that has made us the leader in the world when 
it comes to health care. We should not depart from something that has 
been proven right.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott), my friend.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank Mr. 
Perry for his work on this.
  I have a friend in my district who has been seen on TV many times 
because they have to carry their child to Colorado for this treatment. 
And I have had extensive discussions not only with people in Georgia 
who need this treatment for their kids, but with the sheriffs of my 
district as well. I certainly wouldn't support the cannabis oil and the 
use of cannabis oil and those type of things if my local sheriffs were 
not in favor of it.
  You might be interested to know that the Georgia Sheriffs' 
Association actually endorsed a piece of legislation a couple of years 
ago that would allow the use of cannabis oil for these children with 
seizures.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, some things have been said about the side 
effects of this. These are not the same side effects as with people who 
smoke marijuana. This is not smoke. This is an oil extract, usually 
given with the care of a doctor. It is not some weed grown along the 
road; it is actually classified in the therapeutic temp category 
because the plant has very scientific properties.
  I understand and I respect the gentleman from Louisiana very much. 
When he says that he is concerned about the side effects for these 
children, understand children are in hospice, they are looking at their 
final days, their parents are looking at their final days. They take 
the oil extract and they start on the road to recovery. The side effect 
is the choice of death or life.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Perry

  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement the United States Global Climate 
     Research Program's National Climate Assessment, the 
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment 
     Report, the United Nation's Agenda 21 sustainable development 
     plan, or the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of 
     Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 
     12866.

  Mr. PERRY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prevents funds from being 
used for the implementation of the United States Global Climate 
Research Program's National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation's 
Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the May 2013 Technical 
Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis 
under Executive Order 12866.
  Mr. Chairman, this administration and others before it have taken 
unilateral actions that push a climate change agenda that hinders our 
own domestic business and industry.
  Programs such as the United States Global Climate Research Program's 
National Climate Assessment and Agenda 21 drive burdensome regulations 
on unsound science, such as the new ozone rules set to take effect this 
October, the waters of the United States, and regulations on coal-fired 
power plants.
  I wonder why do we want to fund programs, panels, and treaties that 
create propaganda, propaganda that looks to drive industry out of this 
country.
  With that, I urge passage of this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although 
I am not opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to object, but I am in 
opposition to the amendment. So as long as the chairman will yield me 
half of the time, I think we are fine.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Of course.
  Mr. FATTAH. Go right ahead.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I do want to express my support for the 
gentleman's amendment. I think it is very important that we restrict 
this or any other President's ability to enter into agreements that 
would interfere with our rights as Americans, would interfere with the 
laws as enacted by Congress. And that is the intent of your amendment, 
to ensure that the laws enacted by Congress or by the legislatures of 
the several States reign supreme and no President can enter into any 
kind of an agreement. We are not going to subject ourselves to the law 
of the U.N. or any of these other agreements in here. So I strongly 
support the gentleman's agreement.
  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Fattah).

[[Page 8371]]


  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. And just as strongly 
as the chairman supports it, I oppose it. Even though I supported your 
last amendment, this one is headed in the wrong direction.
  We have a need to deal with the challenges around our stewardship of 
the planet Earth and the questions around climate and working with our 
international neighbors.
  I want to commend the administration for getting an agreement with 
China around some of these issues. It is necessary for our children and 
our grandchildren and great-grandchildren that we act as proper 
stewards. It is our obligation, at least in most of our religious 
teachings, that we have a responsibility to be good stewards.
  So we can't ignore even for the point of profits. You mentioned how 
this might interfere with business interests. It is beyond the question 
of business interests. We need clean water, clean air, we need a 
climate that is capable of human habitation, at least until we can have 
Europa as a second exit opportunity. This is the only planet for human 
beings that we know of and we, therefore, have a responsibility.
  And the President under our Constitution is the carrier of our 
international activities in terms of the conduct of foreign policy, not 
this President or some other President, but the President of the United 
States has that burden and that responsibility under our Constitution.
  So I would hope that the House would vote this down. I know we won't. 
But I also know that there will be another day in which this 
legislation will have to be considered in a format in which it won't be 
just the House majority making these decisions.
  And thank God for that, because even the House majority could be 
wrong every once in a while, as proven by this amendment.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect the thoughts of my good 
colleague and good friend from Pennsylvania. I also want to remind him 
that we went through this last session. This very same amendment passed 
by vote. And while we do absolutely have the requirement and 
responsibility for the stewardship of the planet, I just want to remind 
everybody here, in case you don't know, we have these new ozone rules 
coming out, set to come out, or be codified in October. Yet from this 
administration's EPA, ozone levels have plummeted 33 percent since 
1980. That is reported from the current administration's EPA. Let me 
just repeat that: ozone levels have plummeted 33 percent since 1980 
because of the good work we have done. Yet in a downturn economy where 
the economy is actually contracted in the first quarter, we seek to 
force more unnecessary rules that are unvetted by this Congress, this 
people's House, on the businesses of America and also things like 
United Nations Agenda 21.

                              {time}  0140

  I just feel like those rules and those regulations should come at the 
vetting of this body instead of by the United Nations. What is good for 
America should be handled by Americans.
  I thank the chairman for his support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett

  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Justice to enforce the Fair 
     Housing Act in a manner that relies upon an allegation of 
     liability under section 100.500 of title 24, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.

  Mr. GARRETT (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from New Jersey and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  I rise today to offer an amendment that stops the Justice Department 
from using one of the most dangerous and illogical theories of all 
time, the theory of disparate impact.
  In short, disparate impact allows the government to allege 
discrimination on the basis of race or other factors based solely on 
statistical analyses that find disproportionate results among different 
groups of people.
  In recent years, the Justice Department has increasingly used this 
dubious theory in lawsuits against mortgage lenders, insurers, and 
landlords and has forced these companies to pay multimillion-dollar 
settlements.
  What is wrong with that, one might ask? Under disparate impact, one 
could never have intentionally discriminated in any way and even have 
strong antidiscriminatory policies in place and still be found to have 
discriminated.
  For example, if mortgage lenders use a completely objective standard 
to assess credit risk, such as the debt-to-income ratio, they can still 
be found to have discriminated if the data show different loan approval 
rates for different groups of consumers.
  To be clear, I have zero tolerance for discrimination in any form; 
and, if there is intentional discrimination, we must prosecute to the 
fullest extent of the law. The Justice Department's use of disparate 
impact, however, tries to fight one injustice with another.
  On a more practical level, disparate impact will make it difficult, 
if not impossible, for lenders to make rational economic decisions 
about risk. Lenders will feel pressured to weaken their standards to 
keep their lending statistics in line with whatever the Justice 
Department's bureaucrats consider nondiscriminatory.
  We have seen the damage risky lending can do to our economy. It is 
truly reckless for our government now to be encouraging those dangerous 
and shortsighted practices. Ironically, disparate impact forces 
lenders, insurers, and landlords to constantly take race, ethnicity, 
gender, and other factors into account or risk running afoul of the 
Justice Department.
  Mr. Chairman, even an accusation of discrimination could have a 
devastating impact on a small business. Therefore, on balance, 
disparate impact will make it more difficult and expensive for families 
to buy a home, and it will result in more discrimination, not less.
  For these reasons, both philosophical and practical, I ask my 
colleagues to reject this misguided theory by supporting this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, this is obviously an important signal from 
the majority to Americans of color, whether they be Asian Americans, 
African Americans, Hispanic Americans, or Native Americans, that the 
one thing that they don't want is to enforce the fair housing laws and 
that they don't want to have a circumstance in which, even though the 
impact of a set of policies means that you are excluded, that somehow 
there should not be any redress for that.
  We went through this debate last year. I am going to ask for a 
recorded vote on this as I think it is an important indication of the 
nature of inclusiveness that is being offered to America by the House 
majority.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think it is an indication of something. It is an indication of 
whether this House is more concerned about actually filing true 
intentional discrimination or is just creating fear in this

[[Page 8372]]

area by saying that we are going after discrimination based upon 
disparate impact.
  It is about whether this House is more concerned about making things 
easier for all races, for all ethnicities, for all ethnic groups to be 
able to buy homes and to live and prosper and enjoy a new home or make 
it more difficult to be able to buy that first home.
  Allowing the Justice Department to use disparate impact will do just 
that. It will make it more difficult for those individuals who now find 
it difficult to buy a home because lenders will not be able to use the 
proper risk analysis to make those decisions and, therefore, will be 
less likely to make those loans.
  For those reasons and for the other philosophical and practical 
reasons I have already stated, I encourage my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, the gentleman said for practical and other 
philosophical reasons.
  I guess, if you looked at Major League Baseball and if you didn't see 
anybody of color, you could assume that there was a disparate impact 
until Jackie Robinson showed up, but American baseball is a lot better, 
and I think that our country is a lot stronger because of the diversity 
that exists.
  I think the fair housing laws have played an important role in at 
least the idea that we think that you shouldn't have a circumstance in 
which, no matter what the set of policies, if you are a different color 
or ethnic background, you shouldn't apply.
  I think it is something that we have rejected as a nation. I hope we 
reject this amendment, and I will seek a recorded vote on it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Marino

  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the Department of Justice's clemency initiative 
     announced on April 23, 2014, or for Clemency Project 2014, or 
     to transfer or temporarily assign employees to the Office of 
     the Pardon Attorney for the purpose of screening clemency 
     applications.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds from this bill 
from being used to transfer or detail employees to the Office of the 
Pardon Attorney to support the administration's so-called clemency 
project.
  The President possesses the constitutional authority ``to grant 
reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.'' 
However, in the first 5 years of his administration, President Obama 
granted fewer pardons and commutations than any of his recent 
predecessors.
  Last year, the Deputy Attorney General took the unprecedented step of 
asking the defense bar for assistance in recruiting candidates for 
executive clemency, specifically for Federal drug offenders. The 
Justice Department intends to beef up its Office of the Pardon Attorney 
to process applications for commutations of sentence for Federal drug 
offenders.
  The Justice Department is also accepting pro bono legal work from the 
ACLU and other defense attorney organizations for this initiative. This 
amendment would prohibit that.
  The Constitution gives the President the pardon power, but the fact 
that the President has chosen to use that power solely on behalf of 
drug offenders shows that this is little more than a political ploy by 
the administration to bypass Congress.
  This is not, as the Founders intended, an exercise of the power to 
provide for ``exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt,'' but the use 
of the pardon power to benefit an entire class of offenders duly 
convicted in a court of law.

                              {time}  0150

  It is also just the latest example of the executive overreach by this 
administration, and I urge support of my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I seek time in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. The executive branch, the President of the United States, 
has the responsibility to review applications for pardons and clemency, 
and this would interfere with the executive branch's responsibility in 
that regard. I think that it would also hamper our ability to move this 
bill to a position of final passage and signature by the President. I 
am opposed to it.
  I am glad the gentleman from Pennsylvania was able to have an 
opportunity to offer it and air his point of view, but I think when we 
have a President perhaps of a different party, there will be less 
enthusiasm for trying to unnecessarily interfere in the proper role of 
the executive, which clemencies and pardons are in the purview of the 
President; and detailing employees of the executive branch, for the 
Republican Party that is for normally streamlining and making nimble 
and allowing managers to set priorities and to move personnel around, 
to suggest that they somehow now are against this, I assume there is 
some particular reason, and it couldn't be anything other than on the 
merits I am certain.
  I thank the gentleman, and I would stand in opposition to the 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. How much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 3 minutes 
remaining, and the other gentleman from Pennsylvania has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MARINO. Mr. Chairman, I would share with my good friend from 
Pennsylvania, no matter who is in the White House, Republican or 
Democrat, my enthusiasm is always at an all-time high, particularly 
when it comes to following the law.
  The President does have the authority to pardon, but not to, as he 
has done here, zeroed in on a specific class of individuals who broke 
the law, and that is people who use drugs, sell drugs, made profits 
from drugs, and were duly found guilty and sentenced. This is just a 
way for this administration to bypass the drug laws that they don't 
agree with.
  This administration is known for that. If they don't agree with 
something, they just try to bypass it, as they have done numerous times 
with Congress. But, fortunately, the United States Supreme Court has 
slapped this administration down numerous times because of bypassing 
Congress and making decisions that are not in its authority.
  So let's be realistic about this. This isn't an issue of politics, 
from my perspective. I do say it is an issue of politics from the 
administration's perspective.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Culberson), the chairman, if he needs the time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Chairman, I do want to express my support for the gentleman's 
amendment. I am concerned about the efforts of this White House to 
repeatedly ignore the laws enacted by Congress. If we didn't have this 
track record from this President who has made a deliberate effort to 
evade the laws written by Congress and attempted to bypass them at 
every opportunity--the President has lost a record number of cases 
before the Supreme Court.

[[Page 8373]]

  I believe, Mr. Marino, the Supreme Court has ruled against the 
President unanimously on repeated occasions when the White House has 
attempted to avoid a statute and refused to enforce it, and Mr. Marino 
brings to the table tonight experience as a prosecutor, very valid 
concerns about granting clemency to a whole category of people rather 
than as in the case of a pardon, which is on an individual basis.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, we have, and it must be just inherent 
for politicians, selective amnesia. We kind of remember what we want to 
remember, and we forget what we want to forget.
  Now, it has been uttered on the floor of the House that no President 
has done some broad swath of clemencies or pardons. Well, it was 
President Ford who offered and President Carter who implemented a 
clemency or amnesty for hundreds of thousands of people who had evaded 
the draft during the Vietnam war.
  This has nothing to do with the implementation of the laws set by our 
Congress. This right to the Presidency of pardons and clemency is given 
in the Constitution. The point here is that it is just another effort, 
this consistent drumbeat about our President.
  This will not be the law at the end of the day when this bill is 
passed. I oppose it, and there is no President that is going to sign 
away their executive authority. It would diminish the power of the 
Presidency. And perhaps for the majority if they were to gain this 
Presidency again--and I am sure they will on some election--they 
wouldn't want to diminish the power of the Presidency. I think it is 
just ill-fated and it is focused at a particular effort at this moment, 
but it does not represent a historical fact that a President has not 
provided broad exemption or clemency or pardons in our past.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARINO. How much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MARINO. I am sure in my remarks my colleague is not referring to 
any comment that I made that no other President has done something of 
this nature. I came to Congress in 2011. Really, my concern is what is 
happening with this administration, not past administrations. I am 
dwelling on the future and the rule of law.
  It is very clear what this administration is doing when it comes to 
the rule of law or the lack of rule of law. Once again, this 
administration does not like the drug laws. It has a very difficult 
time with the criminal laws that are on the books.
  I was a prosecutor for 18 years at the State level and the Federal 
level. I have seen what takes place concerning drugs. I have put people 
in prison for selling drugs; I have put people in prison for hurting 
people who they sell drugs to; and I have taken the position where some 
people did not deserve to go to prison based on several factors. But 
the individuals that I sent to prison, and I think, overwhelmingly, 
according to the criteria that this administration has set, they are 
talking about individuals that have a sentence of 10 years or less, 
that is quite a sentence to pardon, because those individuals who have 
been sent to prison, in my experience, for 5 and 6 and 10 years are 
major drug dealers.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Marino).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia

  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, insert:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration to enforce:
       1) Amendment 40 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef 
     Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico published in the Federal 
     Register on April 22, 2015 or any other effort of the same 
     substance, or
       2) Red Snapper Management Measures published in the Federal 
     Register on May 1, 2015 or any other effort of the same 
     substance that establishes an annual catch limits or annual 
     catch targets for Red Snapper that would result in the 
     commercial fishing for Red Snapper in the federal waters of 
     the Gulf of Mexico lasting longer than five times the number 
     of days recreational fishers are allowed to catch and retain 
     at least two such fish each day in such federal waters.

  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman 
from Georgia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chair, first I would like to thank 
the Parliamentarians for helping us work with this language. I would 
like to especially thank both the majority and the minority staff for 
giving me the courtesy of presenting this. I know it is late, and we 
certainly hoped to close by 2 a.m.
  It is the third day of what has been designated as the 10-day red 
snapper season for a man or woman who simply wants to take their child 
fishing in the Gulf of Mexico.

                              {time}  0200

  The commercial fishermen get to fish 365 days a year. The charter 
boat anglers get to fish 45 days a year.
  What this amendment does is it says that the National Fisheries 
Service cannot enforce a rule that was adopted that is, quite honestly, 
probably going to court. And then it says that as they go forward and 
they pass the rules in the future, the recreational fishermen should 
receive at least 20 percent of the number of days as the commercial 
fisherman does with regard to the red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico.
  That is effectively what it does. It still allows them to set the 
seasons. It does have some restriction in that they just can't take 
from the recreational fishermen. They have to give the recreational 
not-for-hire and for-hire 20 percent of the number of calendar days 
that they give the commercial fishermen to fish for red snapper in the 
Gulf of Mexico.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia because I need to 
ask a question about this.
  You say that the commercial catch limits for fishing days are 360 
days a year? And I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Yes, sir. They can fish year-round for 
red snapper. It is different for different species. This is tailored 
specifically to this species.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, we are talking red snapper, right? I 
yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Yes, sir.
  Mr. FATTAH. But for the recreational fisherman, taking your sons out 
to fish for the day, there is a limit of 10 days?
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Yes, sir. This is the third day of the 
10-day season for the Federal waters for the recreational fishermen in 
the Gulf of Mexico.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, in spirit, I support this. I don't 
know what the unintended consequences are. So I would be prepared to 
accept it, as long as we can dig into it and make sure there are no 
unintended circumstances.
  I know this is a very parochial matter. I think you should be able to 
take your kid out fishing. I don't think that profit is the only 
motivator in the world. I don't know why it would be so arbitrary a cut 
line.
  At this point I would like to work with the chairman on this. I would 
be

[[Page 8374]]

prepared to accept it at this time. If we find some major problem with 
it, we will jump up and down about it then.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I completely agree, and I join my ranking member in 
accepting this amendment and working with you. If there is something we 
didn't spot or anticipate, we will work it out. But I think the 
gentleman has got a good amendment, and I would agree, I would 
recommend we would accept it.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that 
as a dad, honestly, I would like to say thank you for doing this. And 
certainly, if there are unintended consequences, I would look forward 
to working with you to resolve those unintended consequences.
  Again, as a father of a son named Wells and a daughter named Carmen 
and a lovely wife named Vivien, I just want to say thank you.
  Mr. FATTAH. My wife is a fly fisher. We are not doing red snapper. 
But I understand the spirit of it, and we will take it at that, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CULBERSON. 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. 
Graves of Louisiana) having assumed the chair, Mr. Stivers, Acting 
Chair 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. 2578) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and 
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                            LEAVE OF ABSENCE

  By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
  Mr. Hudson (at the request of Mr. McCarthy) for today until 6:45 p.m. 
on account of attending a funeral.

                          ____________________