Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
SCIENCE, STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - June 15, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WOLF
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
The committee is dedicated to addressing the methamphetamine problem; and now with the additional funds freed by the amendment, we can dedicate more funds to combat the meth problem. So I am offering this amendment which adds $34 million to the COPS program to combat meth production and trafficking and enhance policing initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the amendment. It would inflict a major blow to the Nation's basic scientific research. The Nation has reached a crisis point in terms of science and technology. Any advantage that we have enjoyed is rapidly eroding.
The research budget should be considered part of the national security budget. It is the most strategic investment we make in maintaining America's leadership in the world. We worked hard within our limited allocation to provide an increased funding level in the bill for NSF's basic scientific research, $157 million above last year's level. Every outside group said this is good. It is above what the Bush administration had, and to take it out now would send a message to the scientific community and the university community that would demoralize them. It would make us a second- and third-rate Nation. I urge a strong "no" vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Committee on Science and one who knows so much about this issue.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I was led to believe the gentleman was going to withdraw the amendment. In the interest of time, I would just say that I understand what the gentleman is saying. He makes some very valid points. We can look into that. But if the gentleman is going to withdraw it, I will not take the body's time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. INSLEE
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The amendment cuts the Bureau of Industry and Security by over 6 percent. What does that mean, because it does not sound that it is that significant? A cut of $5 million to the Bureau of Industry and Security would severely diminish efforts to deter weapons of mass destruction proliferation, would prevent sensitive dual-use items from falling into the hands of terrorists, and enforces the anti-boycott laws of the United States.
Some think that the Bureau of Industry and Security is actually too weak, and I may be in that category. American industry is being hampered in the international marketplace by the long processing time of export license applications. This amendment would roll back the progress that we have made in reducing the average processing time from 44 days to 32 days since 2003. With additional money we could probably get that down.
The trade deficit, the trade imbalance, this would really create a greater problem to deal with that. Quite frankly, I do not think this administration has done enough to deal with the trade deficit, the trade imbalance. So to take $5 million from the Bureau of Industry and Security would severely diminish our ability both on looking at weapons of mass destruction and technology and also hamper American business at the very time when we are urging them to sell American products abroad.
I understand the gentleman makes some good points with regard to the Coastal Zone Management, and maybe we can look at that as we go into conference. But I would not want to take that from here. I urge a "no" vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I think all that is needed to be said has been said. I urge a "no" vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, there is no amendment. We were going to reserve a point of order on it. But I just want the RECORD to show, and I appreciate the gentleman's comments, that the bill provides $800 million for the Marshals Service, which is $41 million above the current year and $10 million above the request. This is in addition to the $12 million provided in the war supplemental for judicial security.
So with that I just thank the gentleman for his comments.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 33 OFFERED BY MR. HAYWORTH
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia will control the 5 minutes in opposition.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment strikes $200 million from the International Organization Account under State Department. Quite frankly, this would be devastating for the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), who is bringing his bill up tomorrow.
This bill already, the bill we are now dealing with today, cuts $130 million from the President's request for international organizations. These cuts in the amendment offered by my good friend from Arizona would have a direct impact on critical organizations such as NATO, whose members are now providing training and support in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last night I heard the President talk about the success that is taking place in Afghanistan, and this amendment literally would try to take that success away. Further cutting this funding jeopardizes the effort.
Lastly, this body should know that along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), as ranking member, we had in our bill last year a task force chaired by Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Mitchell that just reported today. I read their entire report over the weekend on dramatic reforms to the U.N.
At a press conference today at 10 o'clock, I made the comments that because of the failure of the U.N. to deal with Darfur, and nobody has been more critical in this institution of the U.N. than I have, I led the first delegation to Darfur where genocide is taking place, we went through all those, but we set up the Gingrich-Mitchell task force of the bipartisan AEI, Heritage and all the groups like that, they have now come up with recommendations that will embolden the administration and this Congress to make sure that the reform is done.
Also, how can we even be dealing with this amendment today when the chairman of the Committee on International Relations is bringing his U.N. reform bill to the House floor this Thursday? The gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), God bless him and his committee, worked hard to ensure that reform takes place in the U.N. To take this amendment before the Hyde bill comes up is not only putting the cart before the horse, it just does not make any sense.
The bill of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), as the committee and Members know, requires that 39 reforms must take place, and the Secretary of State must certify that these reforms have taken place. So with the Hyde bill and the Gingrich-Mitchell task force today, there will be reforms, but to just come in now before Mr. Hyde has an opportunity would be a mistake.
I know what the gentleman is trying to do, because I care desperately about Darfur. I led the first delegation to Darfur. I have been critical of the U.N., with the failure to address the issue of hunger. We had hunger in 1984 in Ethiopia when I was there, hunger 2 ½ years ago, and now hunger again; also there is a problem with the sexual predators who were U.N. peacekeepers in the Congo. But all of those issues, every one of those issues, are dealt with in the Gingrich-Mitchell task force that came out today, and dealt with in the resolution by the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) that will come up either tomorrow or Friday.
So I understand what the gentleman's problems are, but this would not be a good thing to do. So I would ask Members on both sides, as good as the gentleman's intentions are, to just reject this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentleman offering the amendment. The fact that it is offered and, hopefully, defeated on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and others, will put pressure on. I think the U.N. will have an obligation to adopt the Gingrich-Mitchell recommendations and, also, the administration will have an opportunity, but also an obligation to do that, because the U.N. has failed. It failed in Darfur, it failed in Rwanda, it failed in Srebrenic, and it failed in Sarajevo. Hopefully, this amendment will fail, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) will have an opportunity to have his bill and voted on tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, this is a list put out by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It lists the 74 United States citizens convicted of felonious crimes in the United States who are currently living in Cuba under the protection of the Castro regime. This list reads like a litany of the worst of the worst, hijacking an aircraft, piracy; and, of course, the highlight to me and the most regrettable is a woman by the name of Joanne Chesimard, who murdered in cold blood a New Jersey State Trooper and has been on the lam and really in the sanctuary of Cuba.
There are those in this body, I know, who take different sides on how we deal with Cuba, whether it is trade or travel. This has nothing to do with any of those, in my opinion.
We know that Cuba has been a haven and a sanctuary for terrorists. We know that people like Joanne Chesimard are living comfortably, while the family of that New Jersey State Trooper who was murdered two decades ago, three decades ago I should say, are still living with the agony and the pain of losing their loved one.
We know that people like Guillermo Morales, who was part of the FILN who terrorized this country for many years, is living in Cuba. This is a story from the Washington Post a couple of years ago. Guillermo Morales is a fugitive on the run from the FBI, but at this particular moment he is sipping a cappuccino in a chic hotel lobby in Havana.
Nine and a half of his fingers are gone, blown to bits by a bomb he was making in New York in 1978, but he manages to open a packet of sugar and stir it into his coffee. On the lam for 23 years, he has cleverly learned how to live with what remains of his hands and his life.
The convicted felon was facing 89 years in prison for illegal possession of firearms when he escaped from a New York hospital in 1979 while under police custody.
Mr. Morales and so many of his cohorts terrorized this country, led to the demise and permanent maiming of many individuals, including many members of the New York City Police Department and other law enforcement officials.
And what we wanted to do in an amendment, Mr. Chairman, is basically get the truth out to the people of Cuba. Our effort would be to disseminate through the United States Interest Section in Havana, and next week we are meeting with folks from Radio and TV Marti to tell the people of Cuba just the truth, just about transparency, that people like Joanne Chesimard has a $1 million bounty on her head, and that if returned to the United States, she would pay for her crime, and that anybody basically participating in bringing this woman back to justice as she rightly deserves will be the recipient of a million dollars.
So I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, in ways to just get that truth out for the legacy of those who have suffered at the hands of so many of these fugitives or convicted felons, murderers, that the people of Cuba just be told the truth. And we have the opportunity to do so through the Interest Section in Havana as well as Radio and TV Marti.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for bringing this up. We will work with him and see what we can do to help.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. MOORE OF WISCONSIN
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the new markets program was intended to be a pilot project from fiscal year 2001 to 2006. There are still funds available for this program. There is no need to provide additional funds at this time, especially at the expense of terminating over 400 employees at the SBA. This would result in the termination, which would not be good for anyone. These employees work on critical technical assistance and loan programs at the SBA.
The amendment unnecessarily provides funds for a program that has almost $2 million left in its budget for technical assistance and over $3.1 million in loan authority. The program received a one-time funding of $59 million in fiscal year 2001 that has still not been entirely spent.
I urge the Members to reject the amendment. Particularly we would not want to cut employees who work on programs like small business development centers and women's business centers. So I understand what the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore) is doing, but I would urge that we reject the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MCDERMOTT
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I think Members ought to know that the U.S. State Department lists the Cuban dictatorship as one of five remaining state sponsors of terror. The others are Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Syria.
According to the State Department's most recent patterns of global terrorism, Cuba continues to support foreign terrorist organizations and several terrorists and dozens of fugitives from the U.S., as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) just spoke.
Also, if anyone is listening on the other side, I have sincerely asked for the opportunity to visit the country of Cuba through the legal ways. Everyone who always wants to lift the sanctions gets to go, but in a sincere effort at going down to find out what happens, I never can go. Something tells me there is something funny about this. We want to go on good faith. We ask to go through the normal process. We cannot get there.
I think this is a bad amendment, and I urge the rejection of it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FLAKE
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I would also like to say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), I would love to go down to Cuba; and I would ask if the gentleman can intercede for both of us to go together, and that would be an unusual trip.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I have no beef with the Cuban government.
Mr. WOLF. But the gentleman has been there several times.
Mr. FLAKE. I have never met with Castro, and I have no desire to.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman has been there a ouple of times and I have not, maybe the gentleman can try to help me. I would like to go.
Cuba is a source country for children trafficked internally for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced child labor. Trafficking victims from all over Cuba are exploited in major cities. This government does not give its own people the necessary help.
Cuban forced-labor victims, and this is from the State Department reports, include children coerced into working conditions of involuntary servitude in commercial agriculture.
The Government of Cuba does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not making significant efforts to do so. In 2001, Cuban officials outlined an extensive plan to address the prevention and prosecution of trafficking victims on a national scale, but there is no evidence to show that the plan has been implemented. Cuba has no strategy to address its trafficking problem and growing child sex tourism industry.
Let the Cuban Government deal with eliminating the trafficking of children first. Cuba is in of the State Department's Trafficking in persons report tier 3, which is among the worst in the world. Let them deal with this issue and then perhaps we can see about some of these issues. But I urge strongly a "no" vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PAUL. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's amendment is an excellent amendment, and I accept it and I am glad he offered it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 ½ minutes.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. Not only does the amendment hurt law enforcement's efforts to combat drug trafficking, but it really sends the wrong message to our children. Marijuana is the most abused drug in the United States. According to the ONDCP and the DEA, more young people are now in treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or all other illegal drugs.
Mr. Chairman, if I could just read that one more time: according to the ONDCP and the DEA, more young people are now in treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or for all other illegal drugs.
This amendment does not address the problem of marijuana abuse, and I know and I want to stipulate that it is not the intention of the authors, but it possibly makes it worse by sending the message to young people that there are going to be health benefits for smoking marijuana. I think it is confusing to young people for the Congress to do that. I understand what the authors of the amendment are trying to do, but it would be confusing and I think the wrong message.
Last year, this amendment failed by a vote of 148 to 268, and I urge rejection of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me just respond to what the gentleman said about this "narrow ideology." My mom died of cancer, my father died of cancer, there have been many people in my family on my mother's side who died of cancer. I, at one time, supported this and changed my vote in the Congress because I have seen the devastation that drugs can have on young people, the devastation that it is doing to many people.
So people can have differences of opinion. But when the gentleman uses these inflammatory rhetoric of "narrow ideology," it is like all truth is on their side, I think that is really the wrong tone. This is a serious issue. There are good and decent people on both sides. But I think the gentleman's tone and comments were really not exactly accurate.
I care as much about this issue, and I care as much about suffering and pain as the gentleman. I stood with my mom when she died and with my father when he died.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I concur with the gentleman's interpretation of the difficult situation in Venezuela. Sumate has been one Venezuelan institution that has been willing and able to monitor the anti-democratic behavior of the Venezuelan Government. It has been able to bring the attention of the world to the decline in democracy in that country.
Mr. Chairman, this Congress should be supporting democratic institutions in Venezuela and those individuals fighting on the side of democracy. Does the gentleman from Virginia agree?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I do. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) for their statements and leadership.
I think by their speaking today it sends a message to the world with regard to the importance of us promoting democracy and freedom in Venezuela. Democracy and human rights, whether it be in Venezuela or any place else, are basic fundamental freedoms that must always be preserved and supported.
The United States should always stand with those fighting for those freedoms. The United States should continue to send a clear message to everyone that we will stand with people like Ms. Machado and others like her who speak out for democracy.
I think what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger) have done is send a message to the world. They have sent a message to the National Endowment For Democracy that when there is another grant application, that application should be met so she has that opportunity for freedom.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CHOCOLA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment and I accept it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MRS. JONES OF OHIO
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I can assure the gentlewoman that the committee has been closely following EEOC's plan to reorganize over the last 3 years. The committee has even asked the Government Accountability Office to evaluate EEOC's proposals to reposition the agency with a particular focus on the National Contact Center pilot project. I just asked the staff. GAO has not come back yet, and they are not late. We just asked them to do this last year.
Also we have language in the bill on page 78 that says, "Provided further, That the Commission may take no action to implement any workforce repositioning, restructuring, or reorganization until such time as the Committees on Appropriations have been notified of such proposals in accordance with the reprogramming provisions of section 605 of this act."
The gentleman from West Virginia and myself would look at that before they could go ahead. It really does, though, unnecessarily restrict the agency's ability to restructure. We will be glad to work with the gentlewoman and listen to her, but I think just to accept this amendment now would really be wrong, particularly with the language that we currently have in this bill that provides that the Committee on Appropriations can stop any reorganization, or they have to come up to the committee before they move ahead.
I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do. I again want to remind Members, though, that the language in the bill prohibits them from moving ahead until they come to the Committee on Appropriations. So I oppose the language because the language unnecessarily restricts the agency's ability to restructure itself to meet the ever-changing needs of its constituency. We will listen to the gentlewoman, but an outright ban on closing or consolidating offices does not seem responsible in this tight budgetary requirement. We know that the EEOC is currently managing in a tight budget, and I think tying their hands could actually make the matters worse.
I am sure the gentlewoman is going to move ahead with her amendment. I think that is fine. We will work with her if she wins. God bless her. If she loses, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I will work to make sure that before we approve any reprogramming, we talk to her and also let her see what the GAO says when they come up with their report.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the gentlewoman is withdrawing the amendment; is that accurate?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank her for bringing this to our attention.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the chairman. This is a colloquy that is before him.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, I do not have a colloquy before me. We are aware of the amendment. The gentlewoman makes some valid points. What I told the staff to say is we would work to see what could be done with regard to the filing. But I understand the gentlewoman is withdrawing the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am withdrawing it with the idea that it is an important issue, and I hope that the committee can work together with me on this issue, because, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, the importance of fighting for a system of legal immigration that shows due diligence is as important as it is for fighting against illegal immigration.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we will work with the gentlewoman. As we understand more and learn about it, we will keep good faith and work with the gentlewoman, and also the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 15 OFFERED BY MR. SANDERS
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia claims the time in opposition and is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Committee on the Judiciary has held over 10 hearings on the PATRIOT Act, including a hearing devoted just to this issue. The Committee on the Judiciary is planning on marking up the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill in the near future, and the authorizers will certainly give this very close attention.
The authority of the Justice Department to obtain a library or bookstore record is not without appropriate checks and balances. A Federal judge must approve the use of this authority before the Department of Justice can obtain business records, including book records. This authority can only be used to obtain foreign intelligence information, not concerning a U.S. person, or "to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities." It cannot be used to review the reading habits of the general public.
Mr. Chairman, I will include for the record a letter from the Justice Department dated June 14. It says the following:
"Further, libraries and bookstores have never been exempt from similar investigative authorities. Prosecutors have always been able to obtain records for criminal investigations from bookstores and libraries through grand jury subpoenas. For instance, in the recent case of Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph, a grand jury served a subpoena on a bookseller to obtain records showing that Rudolph had purchased a book giving instructions on how to build a particularly unusual detonator that had been used in several bombings. This was important evidence identifying Rudolph as the bomber.
"In the 1997 Gianni Versace murder case, a Florida grand jury subpoenaed records from the public libraries in Miami Beach. Similar in the 1990 Zodiac gunman investigation, a grand jury in New York subpoenaed library records after investigators came to believe that the gunman was inspired by a Scottish occult poet and wanted to learn who had checked out that poet's book.
"Finally, bookstores and libraries should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies, who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators. For example, in March and April of 2004, Federal investigators in New York conducted surveillance on an individual who was associated with al Qaeda. In the course of tracking the individual, investigators noted that, although he had a computer at his home, he repeatedly visited the library to use the computer. Investigators discovered that the individual was using the library computer to e-mail other terrorist associates around the world."
Lastly, it goes on to say, "We know that Brian Regan, a former TRW employee at the National Reconnaissance Office, who recently was convicted of espionage, extensively used computers at five public libraries in northern Virginia and Maryland to access addresses for the embassies of certain foreign governments. This evidence, which also showed that Regan consulted a book present at the library, 'How to Be Invisible,' to further his scheme, was critical during his trial."
Mr. Chairman, I include the entire letter for the RECORD.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I see the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) down there. I listened to her the other day on NPR. I was the author of the National Commission on Terrorism. They all laughed on it, frankly, and had I not been on the Committee on Appropriations, we could not have gotten it passed. The gentlewoman was on, and I remember the gentlewoman's statement the other day where she said had they listened to the recommendations, which this Congress and almost nobody did, of the Commission, maybe, maybe, 9/11 may not have taken place.
I do not know if the gentleman's amendment is the right amendment or not. I do know that 30 people from my congressional district died in the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11. I also know that the first CIA agent, from my congressional district, from Manassas Park, was the first one to die in the attack when we went into Afghanistan with regard to the Taliban.
Now, is the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) right? Maybe. But is the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) wrong? Maybe.
So I say in the interest of what took place in this country, and because of the fact that nobody listened to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and also the Bremer Commission, and the fact is we were ridiculed by it when it came out, and the CIA even opposed it and ridiculed it, and the gentlewoman is right, had it been listened to, and I say listened to the authorizers, let us see what the authorizers say. Then the gentleman, after he listens can come out on that committee and offer an amendment, and it ought to be made in order.
This is not the place, and I do not want to make a mistake that may very well lead to something else happening, because, God forbid, if something else happened in this country, and the FBI comes under our jurisdiction, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) knows more about it than I do, but there are people, Hamas is in this country, Hezbollah is in this country, the person who planned the bombing that killed 241 marines walks the streets of Lebanon, and nothing has been done.
If I thought that perhaps this amendment could maybe have one opportunity whereby we would miss somebody like that, I could not live with myself.
So the gentleman may be right, but the gentleman may be wrong. Let us defeat this amendment and allow the authorizers to deal with it and have a full, fair debate after the hearings.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a "no" vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
AMENDMENT NO. 9 OFFERED BY MR. NADLER
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The Committee on the Judiciary has held over 10 hearings on the PATRIOT Act, including a hearing devoted just to national security letters.
We saw this amendment for the first time Monday night. It is unclear to me why health insurance records are different than any other records. We do not know how this amendment would impact a coun ter ter ror ism investigation. We just do not know. And here we are with 7 ½ minutes on each side. What is this? This is no way to protect the country.
I could never support 7 ½ minutes. And I do not care if it is just the naming of some government building somewhere. So I strongly urge Members to vote "no" on this. Seven-and-a-half minutes? We cannot do it. I urge a "no" vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I think the gentleman makes some decent points. There were the Gingrich-Mitchell recommendations which have been made. The gentleman said that he would withdraw the amendment if we got a GAO study. I think we ought to look at this thing. I think that the committee will ask the GAO to do a study to look at the cost and make sure. It is hard to argue against the gentleman for wanting a study because we now know, and being the author of that task force, that the U.N. failed on the Oil-for-Food program. I think it makes sense.
With that, I will pledge and I will wait to hear what the gentleman from West Virginia says, but we will ask the GAO for a study to look at these things.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we support the amendment. We support safety. I thank the gentlewoman for offering it. We accept the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, let me thank the gentleman and let me thank my colleagues. I thank them for the accepting of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would just say, that chart has been used a lot today for different issues. This is probably the right issue for this time; is that correct? It has been up here before. It is the chart that keeps reappearing.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov