State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2005

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of title I of the bill through page 34, line 11, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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.

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.

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), who has been a leader on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that title II of the bill through page 52, line 17, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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).

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.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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\1/2\ 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.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in order to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano); but before I do, if I could just say one thing. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) spent a lot of time on this issue, and when a gentleman has worked to the degree that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has, he ought to have a clear shot at the opportunity to pick it up.

Secondly, the Gingrich-Mitchell Task Force report has not been watered down. It is tough. And the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) mentioned democracy. In the Gingrich-Mitchell report, there is a whole chapter urging the United States to push for the abolition of the Human Rights Commission, which Sudan was the chairman of and on, and Libya was on, and instead set up a democracy caucus, and also have someone in New York who would be working with the democracy.

Also, the gentleman from Arizona mentioned that we were told to wait. We did wait. He voted for the bill last year that set up the Gingrich- Mitchell Task Force, and that is what we have done. So nobody told the gentleman to wait. We acted based on something, and I would have acted whether we told the gentleman to act or not because I had concerns. I saw the suffering in Darfur, I know all about that; I have been to the Congo and saw it, but do

not cut the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) out. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill, and therefore it violates clause 2 of rule

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time also.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and thank him for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 106, line 22, be considered as read and printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 108, line 7, be considered as read and printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

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.

But the gentleman has been there several times.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman has been there a couple 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.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's amendment is an excellent amendment, and I accept it and I am glad he offered it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), who has been a leader on this issue.

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ 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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly).

(Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment proposes to state a legislative provision.

Mr. Chairman, we still reserve a point of order.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

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.

Mr. Chairman, yes, I would be happy to provide the Committee on Government Reform with information received from the administration regarding e-government initiatives.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Chocola

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment and I accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that this appropriations bill increases funding for the United States Marshals Service to enhance judicial protection. We have all heard of the deadly shootings that have claimed the lives of a judge, a judge's family members, a court reporter, a sheriff's deputy, and others inside and outside courthouses and even at private residences. This increase in funding is a good step, but I hope this Congress will continue to address this important issue so that we can ensure the safety in our courtrooms and the safety of our distinguished jurists.

Mr. Chairman, in addition to the physical attacks we have witnessed, the judiciary has also been the subject of many verbal assaults as well. The independence of the judiciary, a matter so fundamental to our separation of powers, has recently come under attack and has even become a matter of contention for some, even those at the highest levels of leadership in Congress who have made no effort to disguise a growing hostility towards the courts.

In bill after bill, many of our colleagues have been calling to strip the courts of jurisdiction over issues where they believe the courts have erred, or

might err, and arguing we have no need of them. The proposed sanction for judges who tread on this prohibited ground, and a word spoken in the Halls of Congress with less and less restraint: impeachment.

Perhaps the single greatest example of the magnitude of the challenge to the independence of the courts, though, came with the Congress's extraordinary intervention in the case of Terry Schiavo. This heartrending private tragedy became the focus of efforts to overturn the Florida courts' interpretation of Florida law. When the Federal courts rejected this private bill and its effort to provide jurisdiction to courts that could not properly exercise it, the reaction among many in Congress was one of wrath. The same congressional leaders who had spent the last several months trying to strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction were now trying to extend it where it did not belong. Some have decided that the independence of the judiciary is an inconvenient impediment to a results-at-all-costs philosophy.

As a Member of Congress with a strong interest in improving the relationship between the legislative and judicial branches, I have formed, with the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), a bipartisan congressional caucus dedicated to improving comity between the branches of government. Our Congressional Caucus on the Judicial Branch currently consists of some 35 Members from both sides of the aisle, and I encourage my colleagues who share our goal to join our efforts to restore the historical comity between our two branches.

For the last 2 years, Chief Justice Rehnquist has cited the deterioration in relations between the Congress and the Federal judiciary, using his year-end reports to urge a restoration of comity between the branches. He has quoted Chief Justice Hughes' admonition to the Congress of his day that ``in the great enterprise of making American democracy workable for all partners, one member of our body politic cannot say to another 'I have no need of thee.'''

So today I offer on the House floor a simple sense of Congress amendment to demonstrate to our colleagues in the judicial branch and to the American people that we are committed to working together with the other branches and to upholding the fundamental separation of powers that the Founders envisioned, even if we do not always agree with each other.

It reads: ``It is the sense of Congress that all necessary steps should be taken to provide adequate security for the judiciary and to protect and uphold the independence of the judicial branch.''

Mr. Chairman, efforts by Congress to force the courts to look at our transient wishes, rather than the Constitution, will damage the courts and undermine our own integrity. In the end, we cannot expect to belittle the courts without belittling ourselves. I urge support for this amendment.

I know the chairman has a point of order on this. I would like to, on a separate topic, just thank the chairman; and I would also like to thank not only the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) but the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), ranking member, for their work on the NASA budget in particular as it impacted JPL. I really appreciate the chairman's diligence. He was very kind to meet and discuss this with me several times, to reach out to me after our discussions. I want to thank the chairman again for all his diligence on that issue.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I thank the chairman, and I do appreciate the increases in courthouse security. I would ask my colleagues to join in supporting not only the physical security measures, but also the independence of the institution of the judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, as a former Federal prosecutor, I understand how the use of DNA profiles has become a powerful tool in solving crimes. States have taken the lead by expanding the use of DNA in crime-solving efforts.

The distinguished chairman's home in Virginia was the first to pass a DNA data bank law in 1989, requiring all convicted sex offenders to provide a DNA sample. Since then, Virginia has continued to be a leader in this area, expanding their law in 1990 to include all convicted felons, and further expanding it since. As a result of these laws, Virginia has obtained a staggering 2,747 hits by searching their database, solving countless crimes.

Because of the amazing crime-solving successes in Virginia, I introduced legislation in 2002 seeking to mandate an expansion of State collection regimes and an expansion of the Federal database by permitting States like Virginia to upload the increasing number and types of profiles they were obtaining.

At the time only 23 States had enacted legislation requiring DNA from convicted felons. Twenty-seven States, including my own State of California, were 12 years behind what Virginia had accomplished. Since then, I am pleased to report that 42 States have passed laws to require DNA from all convicted felons. It is now time for those last remaining eight States to come on board.

The U.S. Congress is putting a significant amount of money into DNA programs, over $177 million this year alone, with the goal of not just reducing backlogs, but also solving and preventing crimes. The eight States that do not currently collect from all convicted felons are not obtaining the hits that they should and are therefore making the entire system inefficient since cross-State matches are not being made.

These States must modernize their collection. Since these violent offenders know no State boundaries, the failure to upload these samples puts all citizens at risk, and the Federal Government has a compelling interest in making it so.

Statistics show that as many as half of the criminals that commit violent

crimes have nonviolent criminal histories. Therefore, offenders who are required to submit DNA when convicted of nonviolent felonies will be identified as they leave DNA behind later at rape and murder scenes.

States originally thought there would be no law enforcement value to collecting samples from convicted felons when the crime was not sexual in nature or not particularly violent. They were wrong. Virginia's offender hits, primarily from previous nonviolent and nonsexual convictions, have aided over 2,700 investigations, including 15 rapes, 255 murders and 521 sex crimes.

Mr. Chairman, I will cite only one of the countless examples we have seen of the tragic consequences of inadequate DNA collection schemes. Some years ago, four Springfield, Massachusetts, women fell victim to a serial rapist and murderer.

The man who later turned out to be the rapist and murderer had prior nonviolent felony convictions for breaking and entering and for larceny. He was sentenced to community supervision. If Massachusetts at the time had required him to give a DNA sample after either of his 1996 convictions, a DNA match could have been obtained after the first rape and murder, thereby preventing the subsequent three tragedies. Massachusetts has since modernized their law to obtain samples from all convicted felons.

Mr. Chairman, the results speak for themselves. DNA databanks are most effective with the inclusion of at least all convicted felons and applied to all forms of cases. While I will withdraw this amendment, as I know the chairman has a point of order, I intend to introduce legislation to make these important changes and would very much like to work with the chairman on it.

Mr. Chairman, I do have a second amendment which I will not speak on now because the chairman was kind enough to let me speak on it earlier, but I would like to take the opportunity immediately after consideration of this amendment to make the formal offer of that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak again on the substance of this amendment.

This is merely a sense of Congress respecting the integrity and the independence of the judiciary. I know the honorable chairman offered a sense of Congress amendment on Darfur last year to the appropriation bill. This is similarly merely a sense of Congress amendment asking that we not only observe the independence of the judiciary, but make sure we provide for the safety of the bench. We just saw another shooting today outside of a courthouse, and I would ask the chairman to consider this sense of Congress much as the one that was offered last session.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this promarijuana amendment. It has little, little to do with compassion. It is hiding behind a few sick people to try to, in effect, legalize, back door, marijuana in this country.

This amendment would prohibit the Department of Justice from enforcing Federal drug laws against anyone hiding behind a State medical marijuana statute. If passed, this amendment would put people in danger of shysters and quacks willing to recommend a dangerous drug, marijuana, in place of federally approved safe and proven medicines. You can get Marinol. We have got other ways by taking a pill to treat this. There are multiple chemicals in marijuana. It is not medicine. Marijuana is just as much medicine as the carbolic smoke ball from the late 19th century was medicine.

The carbolic smoke ball promised in this ad we can see promised to cure everything from asthma to sore eyes to diphtheria. Consumers were told to smoke the carbolic smoke ball three times a day for what ailed them. Similarly, snake-oil salesmen promised through their quackery that their product could cure all aches and pains.

This is why we passed the Food and Drug Act. That is why we have an FDA, to protect consumers from the nostrums of the day. Congress acted responsibly in protecting this country from fraudulent claims of nostrum sellers and from using unsafe drugs from being taken by sick or afflicted consumers. Do the Members think these people were not sick and these people did not want to be cured? But they were sold products that, in fact, could not deliver. They made them drunk just like marijuana makes one high. What they do is isolate the chemicals inside to treat the disease.

One does not smoke pot. I have told this body several times before about Irma Perez, but many seem to have a short memory about this. The rhetoric about marijuana as a ``treatment'' for medical purposes, which probably was dreamed up at some college dorm, was a factor in the death of Irma Perez. She was 14 years old. She heard all this talk about medical marijuana even on the floors of Congress, and she was suffering from an Ecstasy overdose. And her friends gave her marijuana, thinking it was medical instead of getting her a doctor. A medical examiner said that had she received real medical attention rather than so-called medical marijuana, Irma Perez would still be alive.

There is a reason that marijuana is illegal, a Schedule I controlled substance. It has not met the rigorous approval process of the FDA. In fact, nearly 60 percent of people in drug treatment in America are in treatment for marijuana. Marijuana has never been proven safe and effective for any disease. To the contrary, it has been linked to a greater risk of heart disease, lung cancer, bronchitis, and emphysema. The Office of National Drug Control Policy notes evidence that marijuana can increase the risk of serious mental health problems, and in teens marijuana can lead to depression, thoughts of suicide, and schizophrenia.

There is a cost to Members of Congress standing up here and pretending that this is medical. This is not safe medicine. It is not safe and effective. It is dangerous. It contains more than 400 chemicals. Moreover, we know from survey data that so-called medical marijuana is not used for medicinal purposes except in very few cases, but for recreational and emotional reasons. One single doctor in Oregon wrote more than 4,000 prescriptions for people to use marijuana. His medical license was finally suspended last year for his failure to provide proper examinations or oversight of this so-called ``treatment.''

We have marijuana coffee houses proliferating in these States that are supposedly for cancer patients. There are people growing tens of hundreds of acres and putting medical marijuana in front of it and hiding and saying ``we are helping cancer patients,'' which is not true.

Finally, pro-marijuana advocates exploit the stories of people who are suffering from real pain or illness as a wedge for their pro-drug agenda, claiming that marijuana is necessary to alleviate their pain. It is simply not proven, not true, and becoming less true every single year for even the exceptional case.

The good news is that Marinol, a synthetic version of marijuana's derivative THC, has been approved by FDA as medication for appropriate treatment by prescription. Marinol has met the rigorous standard for ``safe and effective'' that is required for all drugs. It will be great for cancer patients and is working now in all of them. Originally, Members got on this floor and said it could not stop vomiting. It does.

The bad news is that proponents of medical marijuana are perpetrating a fraud on the public by claiming that home-grown weed, pot, reefer, marijuana, or whatever one wants to call it, should be used as medicine. Medical marijuana is a ruse. Marijuana is a dangerous and illicit drug, period.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, let me state that my mother and father-in- law both recently died of cancer as well.

Compassion is not limited to either side, but there is science and there is not science. In fact, the Carbolic Smoke Balls and the snake oil is very similar; getting high is the same as getting splashed.

There are, in fact, medical solutions to what has been talked about today. Serostim deals with wasting in AIDS, as does Megestrol, and they have been found by FDA to treat the very things they claim that you want treated today. You do not get high in the process, but your pain is relieved. Marinol treats the vomiting questions and other questions. It isolates the substances in it. There are 200 chemicals in marijuana. One gets you high, but other parts actually can be isolated just like in other things.

Furthermore, we have heard kind of a silly argument here on the House floor today that physicians should be making up FDA law. Physicians do not do trials of different drugs when they come to market. Physicians do not have big testing agencies. That is why we have a Food and Drug Administration. This is in effect asking to repeal the Food and Drug Administration.

Then we have kind of a very interesting legal argument going on here, not whether States have rights, but when the Federal Government has ruled, can States nullify a Federal law? The Supreme Court has always ruled unanimously that they do not, ever since the Civil War. We fought a war over nullification.

We do not believe in States rights on civil rights questions and others. When the Federal Government rules, the Court is unanimous. The split decision the other week was best explained by Justice Scalia for the majority, who said that you cannot have intrastate and interstate definitions when you are dealing with marijuana.

These huge marijuana plantations that are growing in the State of California, which, by the way, there is no limitation on doctors to cancer patients. We had one testify in our committee who gave so-called medical marijuana to teenagers for ADD, that doctors prescribe it for fingernail pain.

There is not this restriction on cancer. It is a bogus debate. California does not have that restriction. These huge marijuana plantations, nobody is going after individual doctors except in a test case where somebody wants to do it. We are going after the people prescribing to thousands of people, to the coffee shops that are proliferating in these States where the people were sold a bill of goods that they were working with cancer patients, and instead now they see the proliferation of coffee houses, they see the proliferation of marijuana plantations, with signs up in front of them saying, ``This is all for medical purposes.''

We in Congress have a responsibility to lead in this country, not to buy into college dormitory-type thoughts of ``wouldn't it be great if we called marijuana medical, and then we could smoke pot?''

That is why the vote has actually declined the last few years here in Congress, and after the Supreme Court ruling last week, I believe it will decline even further, because there is not an intrastate. Not only was it previously upheld on interstate, it has now been upheld on intrastate, with Scalia being one of the great conservatives who historically has stood up for States rights explaining the difference very clearly.

I hope Members will join with the chairman in voting down this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment, Mr. Chairman, simply seeks to prohibit the use of funds from enforcing a particularly onerous rule with regard to Cuba. There is a section of the code in the U.S. Federal regulation that governs the sending of gift parcels to countries for which there are otherwise strict limits of what can be sent.

Under the heading of ``Eligible Commodities,'' it reads: ``For Cuba, the only eligible commodities are food, medicines, medical supplies, radio equipment and battery for such equipment.''

Any reasonable person would agree that we should be permitted to send such items to ordinary Cubans.

In reading the next paragraph, however, we are told what cannot be sent in gift parcels to Cubans, and these restrictions apply only to Cuba: clothing, personal hygiene items, seeds, veterinary medicines and supplies, fishing equipment and supplies, and soap-making equipment, as well as any other items normally sent as gifts.

In other words, the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations does not permit the sending of gift parcels to Cuba containing clothes, personal hygiene items, seeds and other very basic goods, goods that would modestly improve the lot of ordinary Cubans.

It just seems silly to me, Mr. Chairman, that ordinary Americans cannot send to ordinary Cubans items like toothpaste and toilet paper. That is what this amendment is all about.

When the opponents rise and take their time, they will talk about obviously the awful dictator that Fidel Castro is, and he is. That is precisely why we need to reverse this. The Cuban people have enough burdens placed upon them living under Fidel Castro.

Why impose additional burdens on them by denying their relatives the ability to send personal hygiene items to them? What will denying toothpaste and toilet paper do to the regime in Cuba? I would submit that we are not going to prop up the regime in Cuba by sending toilet paper and toothpaste.

President Reagan once said, We must be careful in reacting to actions of the Soviet government not to take out our indignations on those not responsible. That is exactly what this amendment is seeking to reverse. We are taking out our indignations on Fidel Castro by imposing restrictions on what family members and relatives can send to ordinary Cubans. It is simply wrong.

America is a better country than that. We ought to stand taller than that. That is what we are trying to do here.

Keep in mind, if a Boy Scout from Mesa, Arizona, or somewhere in Virginia or Indiana or any State of the Union does a good turn for the day and sends soap or soup or tomato seeds to someone in Cuba, that would be a violation of the U.S. Code. If a Girl Scout in Michigan or Kansas happens to have a cousin in Cuba with a broken leg, the regulations would not allow her to send crutches to her Cuban cousin. Again, that is forbidden by our regulation.

What has our policy come to? Whatever happened to the proverb that says if you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime? Yet we prohibit sending a fishing line and hooks so ordinary Cubans can have a better meal. The Government of Cuba is making it difficult for Cubans to feed themselves. So why can Americans not send fishing poles and hooks to them?

Who really believes a small service project by a Boy or Girl Scout would actually be propping up the brutal Castro regime, which has unfortunately served 45 years on its own?

I am not trying to trivialize the serious nature of the issues we are dealing with in Cuba. It simply is wrong to deny ordinary Americans the ability to send gift items like this to ordinary Cubans.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the majority leader's comments, that I would think standing with the Cuban people would be to allow them to receive personal hygiene items, like toothpaste and toilet paper. Keep in mind these restrictions are imposed against Americans, not Cubans. These are imposed against American families from sending to relatives in Cuba these items. These are not restrictions on Castro. These are restrictions on Americans.

We that believe in freedom ought to give Cuban Americans and others the freedom to make the choice, do we send gift parcels or do we not?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Chairman, may I ask what the time is remaining and who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting, the gentleman mentioned that our constituents send these packages. If that is true, why would they if they are all opened and money is taken off the top? That may well be the case, but they make that choice. They ought to make that choice. My constituents ought to have that choice. That is what America is about, allowing people to have the freedom to make that choice.

This amendment will allow them that freedom. The current policy restricts their freedom to make that choice. They are told they cannot send these items. Again, it is back to toothpaste and toilet paper. That is what we are talking about here.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me once again remind Members what this is all about. We all know the brutality of the Castro regime and how they deprive people of basic goods. Because of that, why in the world do we add to their burdens? Why do we deny Americans, Cuban families, Cuban- American families the ability to send items to their families? That is what this amendment is about.

We will hear all kinds of things about the brutality of the regime. Let us stipulate that. I have been there several times. It is worse than anybody knows. It is awful. People there live with such burdens. Let us not burden them further.

Let me say, last year when this amendment was offered, the opponents were saying the administration is going to change it. This amendment will be moot. Those regulations will change. There has been a public outcry; it is going to change. Guess what, a year later it is still there. The restrictions are still there, yet we heard they are going to change. Well, they have not changed. We need to send a signal this policy cannot stand.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I have no beef with the Cuban government.

I have never met with Castro, and I have no desire to.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding me this time and for his leadership, his continued leadership, and his exhaustive leadership on this issue.

I really had not intended to speak on this issue. I came down to speak to an amendment that I am prepared to offer against this legislation. But I just heard my good friend and our leader on the majority side make some statements relative to the uncertainty and the government's ability to look through any matter of package that may go from the United States to Cuba.

I would just remind the leader, although I see he has already left the floor, and other people in this audience that under the PATRIOT Act, what is the difference between our policy toward Cuba today and our policy toward our own people? That package could be in the hands of our postal service, which is supposed to be sacrosanct, and our government can go through it, by the way, by administrative rule rather than by the balance of the court providing for that request. It can be in our bank, it can be in our library, it can be, quite frankly, over the safety of the threshold of our own homes, and our government can still go and look through those packages.

So I would say it is an argument that has no teeth, because if we are going to criticize a government 90 miles off our shore for that kind of action, we ought to be taking a look in our own back yard before we move in that direction.

I would also like to say, Mr. Chairman, we are hearing an awful lot about CAFTA these days, and I would just tell you that if CAFTA truly offers all of the great promise that we are told by everybody, and that by treating these fledgling democracies, these people that really want to be a democracy in these five other nations, why didn't we go sell that to Cuba?

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate the chairman allowing me the opportunity to speak on this amendment that I believe renews an important balance between protecting our Nation and confirming the freedom on which our Nation was founded.

While I realize the language is subject to a point of order, I believe it is imperative that we have this debate today. This issue drives to the core of who we hope to be as Americans, and it is important to address it on the floor of this House.

The fourth amendment, which protects us from unreasonable search and seizures by the government, is fundamental to the Bill of Rights because it protects our rights to be individual and to be private. Its creators, under direction, I believe, of their Creator, endorsed the principle that it is the government's role to protect that right and not to encroach upon it. The idea of individuality, that each person is created uniquely and with certain inborn rights that government cannot take away, is the most basic expression of who we are as a Nation and a people.

That is why I am so concerned about the way we have expanded the government's power to delay notification of search and seizure of our privacy. The issue at hand is not when or where or

how often these warrants are used, but that the government holds these broad and sweeping powers at all.

It is important to know that we are safe and secure within the borders of this country. But Americans can only be secure with their liberties, and Americans are only safe, if they are free.

I understand that ``sneak and peek'' warrants were used before the passage of the PATRIOT Act, and I recognize that the courts have upheld their use in limited and extraordinary circumstances, but this does not justify the serious steps taken by the USA PATRIOT Act to erode away the protections offered by the fourth amendment. By broadening the use of ``sneak and peek'' warrants and making them the standard rather than the exception, the PATRIOT Act threatens our liberties that are given us by our Creator and protected under our Constitution.

That is why I am offering this amendment today. My amendment narrows the scope of ``sneak and peek'' and brings back the judicial oversight that was built into our Constitution and is the balance of power in our government. It more carefully defines the very specific circumstances in which a ``sneak and peek'' warrant can be used.

It also employs the notification procedure upheld by most courts before the USA PATRIOT Act. If we are going to codify this already questionable tactic, should we not at least limit it to the practice established by the courts before the USA PATRIOT Act?

This debate is even more critical this year, as we will soon be deliberating reauthorization of parts of the USA PATRIOT Act. While this amendment may not be in order today, I implore my colleagues to give this issue the consideration it deserves when the reauthorization bill does come to the floor.

As Americans, it is our fundamental belief that each of us is ultimately responsible for safeguarding our freedom and our safety. It is our obligation, nay, our duty, Mr. Chairman, as citizens of this great Nation, to see that no one, not even our own government, is allowed to take these freedoms and responsibilities away.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to the time left.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

I would like to close by saying that those people that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) talked about are the same people that believe that sidewalks cause rain. They believe that this PATRIOT Act has truly cut down on crime.

Americans have a right to security not only in their persons and their property, but their civil liberties as well. Though I must withdraw my amendment, I am hopeful that we can work together during the upcoming days and weeks in reauthorization debate to offer security to the American people without changing the essence of what it means to be an American.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.