Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, and their staff for prioritizing House consideration of this important reauthorization, as well as House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce and Congressman Chris Smith for shepherding this legislation through the committee process.

I will say publicly what I said many times privately: no person that I have served with in 34 years has done more for human rights and religious freedom than Congressman Chris Smith. He is my hero. When I see the giants that I have served with in my 34 years, and when you go abroad, whether it be in Boko Haram territory in Nigeria or in China, no one has a greater reputation for speaking out for the voiceless than Congressman Smith. So I appreciate Chris' efforts at moving this thing quickly.

I also want to thank Elyse Anderson from my staff, who has done incredible work on this.

From the start, this bill has enjoyed, as Mr. Smith said, strong bipartisan support, including the cosponsorship of Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Eliot Engel. I want to thank Mr. Engel also for his strong support on these issues over the years.

The broad support for this bill is fitting for an issue so central to America's own grand experiment in self-governance--the protection of religious freedom--which is often referred to as America's ``first freedom.''

Sadly, one need only pick up the newspaper today to see how religious freedom is under assault globally.

The terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, is gaining territory in Iraq and before our eyes is threatening the very existence of ancient faith communities in the region, including the centuries-old Christian community.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi Christians have fled Mosul and the surrounding region in what the Christian Science Monitor recently characterized as a ``cataclysmic restructuring of an area that was home to some of the earliest Christians.''

In addition to the crisis in Iraq, religious minorities are marginalized and imperiled in Egypt and Syria. The government of Vietnam severely restricts religious activities of all faiths, as does the government of China; and religious minorities such as the Ahmadiyya Muslims face governmental and social harassment in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. Countries that we give aid and support to, though the Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan cannot even vote.

These persecuted individuals and communities look to the U.S. above all others to champion their cause and to raise their plight with repressive governments.

In May, I introduced H.R. 4653, the bipartisan legislation before us today, which reauthorizes the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom for 5 years.

First created in 1998 through the International Religious Freedom Act, it is an independent, bipartisan Federal Government Commission that monitors the universal right to freedom of religion or belief abroad, reviews the facts and circumstances of religious freedom violation based on international standards, and makes policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress. Without this Commission, there would be nobody around to point out what is taking place to these groups.

Since its inception, the Commission has been an invaluable watchdog for global religious freedom conditions. The Commission has been a voice for the imprisoned Baha'i leader who is languishing unjustly behind bars in Iran. Many Baha'is are behind bars in Iran, and if it weren't for the Commission, no one would know.

The Commission has been a voice of the fearful Iraqi nun who is uncertain if there is a future for her in the land of her birth. More Biblical activity took place in Iraq than in any other country in the world, other than in Israel. Abraham is from Iraq. Ezekiel is buried in Iraq. Daniel is from Iraq, as are Jonah and Nineveh. Without the Commission, there would be nobody speaking out for the Iraqi nun, who is fearful of her life and is fearful of the future for her church.

The Commission has been a voice of the Buddhist monk, who has watched with horror as more than 130 of his fellow Tibetans have set themselves aflame in desperation at the abuses they have suffered at the hands of the Chinese Government. If it were not for this Commission, nobody would know how the Buddhists are being persecuted in Tibet.

In short, the Commission has been and, with passage of this legislation, will continue to be the voice of the marginalized, oppressed, and persecuted people who dare to worship according to the dictates of their consciences.

The Commission can be relied upon to consistently give the unvarnished truth, as Mr. Smith said, about the true state of religious freedom in countries around the globe, whether they are strategic allies or adversaries. The Commission is also unhindered by the bureaucratic morass that so often stymies the State Department during both Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

Given the state of religious freedom abroad today, the sobering reality is that the Commission's voice is needed more now than ever before. A vote for this legislation is a vote for America's first freedom. With that, I urge its unanimous passage.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 4899, the Lowering Gasoline Prices to Fuel an America That Works Act of 2014, to move the process forward and support U.S. energy independence and security, although I remain strongly opposed to one provision included in this bill.

This concerning provision was drawn from an amendment to H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands, Jobs, and Energy Security Act, which I opposed, and would call for the Secretary of the Interior to develop plans to allow for the construction of new power lines ``across Federal lands to ensure that energy produced can be distributed to areas of need.'' Some may consider this to be noncontroversial, but I have fought the impact of similar language for a number of years. I am privileged to represent Virginia's ``hallowed grounds,'' where so many important events and battles in American history took place, and I simply cannot support efforts to construct new power lines through our area--particularly power lines that would ship energy to other parts of the country. That's why I opposed PATH and why I opposed TrAIL. Cedar Creek and Bell Grove National Historic Park and Manassas National Battlefield Park are just a few areas in our region that could be impacted by this provision.

While my vote reflects my support for the other elements in this energy security bill, I will not be able to support any conferenced final bill if it contains this troubling provision.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have introduced legislation to reestablish the public holiday for George Washington's Birthday from the third Monday of February to the actual date of Washington's birth on February 22. I have long admired President Washington and have found inspiration in public service from studying his life. Few know that his first political office was representing Winchester, Virginia, in the Virginia House of Burgesses. I am proud to say Winchester is in the 10th Congressional District of Virginia.

Earlier this month I spoke to the third grade classes at Waterford Elementary School in Loudoun County. When I brought my effort to move the holiday back to President Washington's actual birthday the children cheered. Then their teachers asked what their students could do help get the legislation passed.

I want to enter into the Record a resolution drafted and signed by all the students in the class that says that George Washington's Birthday should be observed on February 22, rather than the third Monday in February each year. The complete resolution reads:

Resolution in Support of Congressman Wolf's Bill To Make February 22

the Official Holiday of George Washington's Birthday

We are gathered today in third grade at Waterford

Elementary School, in historic Waterford within the County of

Loudoun, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, to affirm

Congressman Wolf's proposed bill to honor George Washington,

and

We have learned of Congressman Wolf's initiative to

celebrate the significance of President Washington's birth to

the birth of our nation, honoring his unparalleled role in

American History; instilling in the American people a deeper

desire to learn more about this great man:

Whereas, as General and Commander in Chief of the

Continental Army, Washington led the Patriots to victory in

the Revolutionary War. Absent this, the United States may

have never been born, and

Whereas, following his dreams of a free and democratic

country, Washington refused to become a king and refused to

serve more than two terms as president. He pioneered the

qualities of our government that helped to establish clear

roles of its leaders by establishing a system of checks and

balances, and

Whereas, Washington's efforts and actions led to the design

and construction of our capital city. Washington, himself,

laid the cornerstone of our U.S. Capitol, and

Whereas, our first and one of the greatest presidents, was

president of the Continental Congress, a key author of the

Constitution, and an instrumental force in uniting the

thirteen colonies, and

Whereas, Washington was the ONLY president unanimously

nominated for that office by the electoral college for both

his first and second terms, and

Whereas, Washington, a man of incredible vision, freed his

own slaves in his will, foreshadowing an identical outcome

nation-wide on September 22, 1862, and

Whereas, George Washington, the father of country, is

admired and honored by all who know the significance of his

contributions.

Now, therefore, be it resolved to pass H.R. 681: to amend

title 5, United States Code, to provide that Washington's

Birthday be observed on February 22, rather than the third

Monday of February of each year.

Be it further resolved to tell Congressman Wolf how much

his inspiration, wisdom, determination, and unfailing support

for honoring George Washington means to us; and how grateful

we are or his service.

Respectfully Submitted: Riley E. White, Paige E. Wenham,

Clay Ash, Kierstin G. Culp, Reggie Norton, Matt Chmielewski,

Jackson Allgood, Aiden Akers, Kevin Beach, Ava Fahrner, Luke

Jenkins, Connor Thurston, Joseph T. Ravese, Barrett Ralston,

Haley Oliver, Maxwell Twyford, Ava Mumaw, Charlotte

Fiorentino, Emma Vest, Lily Kelly, Cole Gormont, Claire

Thurston, Ian T. Watson, Susan H. Verdin Teacher, Stephanie

R. Wang, Wynn Drenning, Blake Earles, Luke Malonis, Henry E.

Dinger, Cash Croft, Grace Gavlinski, Madeline Shea, Collin

Price, Anthony Alfaro, Corey Schaeffer, and Evelyn B. Hale

Teacher,

The third graders at Waterford Elementary aren't alone in

their support of H.R. 681. Two-time Pulitzer Prize winning

history author David McCullough, Washington historian Ron

Chernow, historians Peter Henriques and Richard Bookhiser and

scholar and history professor Gordon Wood also support the

bill, as does George Washington's Mount Vernon Estate. On

June 2, 2014, I received the following letter from Curt

Viebranz, the president of Mount Vernon:

Dear Congressman Wolf: Thank you for introducing H.R. 681

to restore the nation's official observance of George

Washington's Birthday on February 22, the actual date of his

birth 282 years ago. We at Mount Vernon enthusiastically

support this important legislative effort!

As you are well aware, the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association

was created to save George Washington's home from potential

ruin and maintain this priceless landmark for the good of the

American people. We have worked tirelessly for more than 150

years to keep Washington's extraordinary legacy alive, and we

accomplish this solely through private donations--we do not

accept any government funds. Just last year, we opened the

Fred W. Smith National Library for the Study of George

Washington which offers a remarkable new platform to expand

our scholarship and educational outreach for visitors both on

the estate and online. We strongly believe that a true

patriotic celebration of Washington's birthday would help

return George Washington to a place of prominence in our

national consciousness--a goal for which we have been

striving for many years.

Today several states, the media, advertisers, and the

general public have abandoned recognition of Washington's

birthday and replaced it with a commercial ``shopping

holiday'' that leaves American history, heroes, and

patriotism by the side of the road. The holiday was far more

meaningful when it revolved around George Washington and

schools and families focused on Washington's sterling example

of character and leadership.

Americans should learn from example and celebrate and

appreciate our heroes. Our Founding Fathers and subsequent

leaders were surely clear on this point. President John F.

Kennedy stated, ``History is the means by which a nation

establishes its sense of identity and purpose.'' President

Harry Truman emphasized this point as well when he said,

``The only thing new in the world is the history you don't

know.''

Restoring the official celebration of Washington's birthday

would be a great place to start. We look forward to the day

when, once again, February 22 is marked by patriotic

festivities and lessons about George Washington which can

teach and inspire American leaders of today and tomorrow.

As our nation's foremost founding father, Washington is

relevant to each new generation because his prominent

character traits--undaunted courage, unabashed patriotism,

reasoned judgment, a profound sense of civic responsibility,

and a deep, selfless commitment to country--never go out of

style. Educating the children of America about the life and

leadership of George Washington is an important investment in

the future of our nation.

Your efforts are particularly important because as noted

author and keynote speaker at our Library's opening

ceremonies David McCullough has said many times, we are

``raising a generation of historically illiterate children.''

Surveys and focus groups validate this problem and show that

most Americans recognize the face of Washington on their

dollar bills, but they don't know much about him. This is a

real cause for concern about the future of our nation It is

our duty and privilege to teach today's young people about

George Washington's leadership with the hope that they will

follow in his footsteps. Enactment of your legislation would

go a long way toward emphasizing the importance of

remembering the Father of Our Country.

We are inspired in countless ways by George Washington's

example as the indispensable man. He served as Commander in

Chief of the Continental Army through the eight long years of

the War of Independence. The people then showed their

overwhelming support for him as he was unanimously elected as

president of the Constitutional Convention and to two terms

as our new nation's first president. As you know, the

unanimous election of a President of the United States has

never occurred since.

A true celebration of Washington's birthday would encourage

Americans to reflect on the distinguishing qualities of his

leadership. For example, Washington was willing to sacrifice

the life he loved at Mount Vernon time and time again when he

was called to serve his country. Perhaps more than anyone in

American history, he understood and valued patriotic duty.

Another admirable trait was his willingness to give up

power. In a time when great leaders were marked by their

ability to gain and keep as much power as possible, George

Washington willingly stepped down as the Commander in Chief

of the Continental Army as well as after his second term as

president. He could have been elected again and again, but

his peaceful transition of power demonstrated that democracy

really worked and established a new definition of power. He

truly believed in the concept of liberty where the power

rested with the people. What an important lesson even for the

leaders of today!

The celebration of George Washington's Birthday on February

22 will help return the Father of Our Country to his position

as ``First in War, First in Peace, and First in the Hearts of

his Countrymen,'' as Light-Horse Harry Lee said so many years

ago. George Washington's sterling example of character and

leadership provides the opportunity to refresh and inspire

our country as we face formidable challenges both at home and

abroad.

Thank you again for your efforts in introducing H.R. 681.

The Mount Vernon Ladies' Association stands behind you in

this patriotic pursuit.

Sincerely,

Curtis G. Viebranz,

President.

My legislation is not without precedent. In 1975, Congress amended the Uniform Monday Holiday Act and President Gerald R. Ford signed legislation into law returning the annual observance of Veterans Day from the fourth Monday in November to its original date of November 11, beginning in 1978. The restoration of the observance of Veterans Day to November 11 not only preserves the historical significance of the date, but helps focus attention on the important purpose of Veterans Day as a celebration to honor America's veterans for their patriotism, love of country, and willingness to serve and sacrifice for the common good.

There is a reason the birthday of President George Washington is the only legal federal holiday observed for a president of the United States. He is called the ``father of our country'' because he is without compare in our nation's history. Washington's Birthday has been celebrated since the final days of the Revolutionary War. French and American troops paraded through Newport, Rhode Island, in 1781 and celebrations were held in Richmond, Virginia, in 1782. Organized by French General Rochambeau and others who knew him personally, these celebrations drew special attention to the bravery, courage, leadership and perseverance of the Revolutionary War hero. From the beginning of our country, the importance of this day has been recognized. As President James Buchanan said in 1860, ``. . . when the birthday of Washington shall be forgotten, liberty will have perished from

the earth.'' In response, President Rutherford B. Hayes signed legislation in 1879 that made Washington's Birthday a holiday for District federal workers. The holiday was extended to all federal workers in 1885.

Sadly, the celebration of President Washington's unparalleled role in American history has been lost and I believe Congress has unwittingly contributed to this lack of historical understanding by relegating Washington's birthday to the third Monday in February to take advantage of a three-day weekend. It is time to change the focus of the holiday from celebrating sales at the mall to celebrating the significance of President Washington's birth and the birth of our nation. I urge the House to take up this bill and pass it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a follower of Jesus and a lifelong member of the Presbyterian Church USA who is deeply grieved by what transpired at last week's gathering of PCUSA's General Assembly. I feel increasingly alienated from this rich faith tradition, which includes John Witherspoon, the only active clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence, and submit for the Record a statement of protest by the Presbyterian Lay Committee Board of Directors, which expresses a similar sentiment.

[June 19, 2014]

Presbyterian Lay Committee Board of Directors Repudiates Action of

PCUSA General Assembly

(By Carmen Fowler LaBerge)

Detroit, MI.--A statement of protest by the Presbyterian

Lay Committee repudiating the action of the General Assembly

of the Presbyterian Church USA to redefine marriage. The

221st General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has

approved both an Authoritative Interpretation of the

Constitution and an amendment to redefine marriage. In the

name of 1.8 million Presbyterians nationwide, the General

Assembly has committed an express repudiation of the Bible,

the mutually agreed upon Confessions of the PCUSA, thousands

of years of faithfulness to God's clear commands and the

denominational ordination vows of each concurring

commissioner. This is an abomination. The Presbyterian Lay

Committee mourns these actions and calls on all Presbyterians

to resist and protest them. You should tell your pastor and

the members of your session that you disapprove of these

actions. You should refuse to fund the General Assembly, your

synod, your presbytery and even your local church if those

bodies have not explicitly and publicly repudiated these

unbiblical actions. God will not be mocked and those who

substitute their own felt desires for God's unchangeable

Truth will not be found guiltless before a holy God. The

Presbyterian Lay Committee will continue to call for

repentance and reform: repentance of those who have clearly

erred at this General Assembly and reform of the PCUSA

according to the Word of God. Presbyterian Lay Committee

Board of Directors, June 19, 2014.

I will begin with marriage. After several years of internal discussion and debate, the assembly voted overwhelmingly to take a position which runs counter to the counsel of Scripture, which defines marriage as the divinely inspired joining of one man and one woman.

It has long been clear that our culture is in the throes of a seismic shift on this issue. While the current marriage debate is centered around the notion of same-sex unions, in reality there has been a decades-long assault on marriage, such that what was once almost universally recognized as a God-ordained and created institution, the fundamental building block of any society and the nexus of procreation and childrearing, has now been called into question both in the larger culture and increasingly in the legal framework which governs this land. But perhaps the most striking and troubling is that increasingly this is happening within the church itself, which has historically served as a bulwark against the cultural whims of the day.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says:

Haven't you read . . . that at the beginning the Creator

``made them male and female,'' and said, ``For this reason, a

man will leave his father and mother and be united to his

wife, and two will become one flesh''? So they are no longer

but two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together let

man not separate.''

This passage and others like it remind me of Reverend Billy Graham's comments and the lead-up to the 2012 North Carolina ballot initiative regarding marriage, when he remarked:

The Bible is clear--God's definition of marriage is between

a man and a woman.

In addition to marriage, I was also troubled by the PCUSA's action on Israel. I submit for the Record a Wall Street Journal piece which ran yesterday regarding the vote to divest the denomination stock from three American companies that do business with Israel in the West Bank citing their ``involvement in the occupation and the violation of human rights in the region.''

[From the Wall Street Journal, June 22, 2014]

Presbyterians Join the Anti-Israel Choir

Divesting From Companies Like Motorola Solutions to show Solidarity

With the Palestinians

(By Jonathan Marks)

The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is bleeding members.

Between 2000 and 2013, almost 765,000 members left the

organization, a loss of nearly 30%. Last week the church's

leadership met in Detroit for crisis talks.

No, not about the emptying-pews crisis. The Israel-

Palestinian crisis.

On Friday, in a close vote (310-303), the General Assembly

of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)--the largest of several

Presbyterian denominations in America--resolved to divest the

organization's stock in Caterpillar, Hewlett-Packard and

Motorola Solutions. The church's Committee on Mission

Responsibility Through Investment said the companies have

continued to ``profit from their involvement in the

occupation and the violation of human rights in the region,''

and have even ``deepened their involvement in roadblocks to a

just peace.'' Israel's counterterrorism and defense measures

have included razing Palestinian houses (with Caterpillar

equipment), operating Gaza and West Bank checkpoints (with

Hewlett-Packard technology), and utilizing military

communications and surveillance (with Motorola Solutions

technology).

The church signaled its antipathy for Israel earlier this

year by hawking a study guide called ``Zionism Unsettled'' in

its online church store. In the 76-page pamphlet, Zionism--

the movement to establish a Jewish homeland and nation-state

in the historic land of Israel--is characterized as a ``a

struggle for colonial and racist supremacist privilege.''

In a postscript to ``Zionism Unsettled,'' Naim Ateek, a

Palestinian priest and member of the Anglican Church,

explains the meaning of the charges in the pamphlet. ``It is

the equivalent of declaring Zionism heretical, a doctrine

that fosters both political

and theological injustice. This is the strongest condemnation

that a Christian confession can make against any doctrine

that promotes death rather than life.''

In one response, Katharine Henderson, president of New

York's Auburn Theological Seminary, said in February that the

``premise of the document appears to be that Zionism is the

cause of the entire conflict in the Middle East,'' in essence

``the original sin, from which flows all the suffering of the

Palestinian people.'' And amid intense criticism of the study

guide from the Anti-Defamation League and other groups, the

church's General Assembly declared on Wednesday that ``

`Zionism Unsettled' does not represent the views of the

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).'' But the assembly didn't bar

the church from continuing to distribute and sell it.

The divestment resolution that ultimately passed included

language affirming Israel's right to exist and denying that

divesting from the three companies is tantamount to alignment

with the broader Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS)

movement against Israel. Still, the vote is a victory for

anti-Israel forces within the church. And the divestment vote

hardly means that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is ready

to shift its focus: The organization's Middle East Issues

Committee sees only one Middle East issue. All 14 of the

matters before it this year concerned Israel and Palestine.

No Syria. No Iraq.

Another vote regarding Palestinian-Israeli matters by the

church's General Assembly, seemingly more innocuous, is

actually more disturbing. The vote instructed the church's

Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy to prepare a

report to help the General Assembly reconsider its commitment

to a two-state solution and to create a study guide ``that

will help inform the whole church of the situation on the

ground in Palestine.''

In its ``advice and counsel'' on an anti-divestment

proposal, the committee voiced its support for the boycott-

Israel movement, compared Israel with apartheid-era South

Africa and declared Israel responsible for its own ``de-

legitimation.'' It complained that the anti-divestment

proposal ``prioritize[d] Israel's security and underline[d]

the flaws of Hamas and other `hostile' neighbors without

noting the constant violence of the occupation.'' Even with

respect to Hamas, whose charter commits it to the destruction

of Israel, the committee felt compelled to put ``hostile'' in

scare quotes. The committee has some history on this score:

In 2004, it drew widespread condemnation for meeting with

leaders of the terrorist organization Hezbollah.

The General Assembly instructed the advisory committee that

the new study guide should ``honestly point out'' that

``simple financial investment in a completely occupied land

where the occupiers are relentless and unwavering regarding

their occupation is not enough to dismantle the matrix of

that occupation or dramatically change the vast majority of

communities or individual lives that are bowed and broken by

systematic and intentional injustice.'' The vote to

commission the guide was 482-88.

With a dwindling membership, the Presbyterian Church

(U.S.A.) clearly needs new friends, but the church does

itself no favors by courting Israel's enemies.

The PCUSA's deeply misguided decision comes against a backdrop of rising anti-Semitism in Europe and even here in the United States.

I submit for the Record a June 20 Washington Post piece highlighting the problem, which noted that ``Jewish leaders here are now warning of a recent and fundamental shift tied to a spurt of homegrown anti- Semitism.''

[From the Washington Post, June 20, 2014]

A ``New Anti-Semitism'' Rising in France

(By Anthony Faiola)

Paris--``I am not an anti-Semite,'' French comedian

Dieudonnee M'bala M'bala says with a devilish grin near the

start of his hit show at this city's Theeaatre de la Main

d'Or.

Then come the Jew jokes.

In front of a packed house, he apes Alain Jakubowicz, a

French Jewish leader who calls the humor of Dieudonnee

tantamount to hate speech. While the comedian skewers

Jakubowicz, Stars of David glow on screen and, as the

audience guffaws, a soundtrack plays evoking the trains to

Nazi death camps. In various other skits, he belittles the

Holocaust, then mocks it as a gross exaggeration.

In a country where Jewish leaders are decrying the worst

climate of anti-Semitism in decades, Dieudonnee, a longtime

comedian and erstwhile politician whose attacks on Jews have

grown progressively worse, is a sign of the times. French

authorities issued an effective ban on his latest show in

January for inciting hate. So he reworked the material to get

back on stage--cutting, for instance, one joke lamenting the

lack of modern-day gas chambers.

But the Afro-French comedian, whose stage name is simply

Dieudonnee, managed to salvage other bits, including his

signature ``quenelle'' salute. Across Europe, the downward-

pointing arm gesture that looks like an inverted Nazi salute

has now gone so viral that it has popped up on army bases, in

parliaments, at weddings and at professional soccer matches.

Neo-Nazis have used it in front of synagogues and Holocaust

memorials. Earlier this year, bands of Dieudonnee supporters

flashed it during a street protest in Paris while shouting,

``Jews, out of France!''

``Dieudonnee is getting millions of views on his videos on

the Internet and is spreading his quenelle,'' said Roger

Cukierman, president of the Council for Jewish Institutions

in France. ``Something very worrying is happening in France.

This is not a good time for Jews.''

Dieudonnee was unavailable for comment, but his attorney,

Sanjay Mirabeau, said the comedian was simply speaking truth

to power.

``If the Portuguese were protected in France and had big

influence, then he would protest the Portuguese,'' Mirabeau

said. ``But as it is, there are others'' who fit that

description.

Jewish leaders say Dieudonnee is a symptom of a larger

problem. Here and across the region, they are talking of the

rise of a ``new anti-Semitism'' based on the convergence of

four main factors. They cite classic scapegoating amid hard

economic times, the growing strength of far-right

nationalists, a deteriorating relationship between black

Europeans and Jews, and, importantly, increasing tensions

with Europe's surging Muslim population.

In Western Europe, no nation has seen the climate for Jews

deteriorate more than France.

Anti-Semitism has ebbed and flowed here and throughout the

region since the end of World War II, with outbreaks of

violence and international terrorism--particularly in the

1980s and early 2000s--often linked to the Israeli-

Palestinian conflict. But Jewish leaders here are now warning

of a recent and fundamental shift tied to a spurt of

homegrown anti-Semitism.

This month, authorities arrested Mehdi Nemmouche, a 29-

year-old French national, and charged him with the May

killings of four people inside a Jewish museum in Brussels.

The attack was the deadliest act of anti-Semitism in Western

Europe since a gunman killed seven people, including three

children at a Jewish day school, in Toulouse in 2012.

Nemmouche allegedly launched his attack after a tour of duty

with rebels in Syria, prompting fears of additional violence

to come as more of the hundreds of French nationals fighting

there make their way home.

In a country that is home to the largest Jewish community

in Europe, the first three months of the year saw reported

acts of anti-Semitic violence in France skyrocket to 140

incidents, a 40 percent increase from the same period last

year. This month, two young Jewish men were severely beaten

on their way to synagogue in an eastern suburb of Paris.

Near the city's Montmartre district, home to the Moulin

Rouge and the Sacree-Coeur basilica, a woman verbally

accosted a Jewish mother before rattling the carriage of her

6-month-old child and shouting, ``dirty Jewess . . . you Jews

have too many children,'' according to a report filed by

France's National Bureau for Vigilance Against Anti-Semitism.

Meanwhile, not far from the rolling vineyards of Bordeaux,

stars of David were recently spray-painted on the homes of

Jews.

A recent global survey by the New York-based Anti-

Defamation League suggested that France now has the highest

percentage in Western Europe--37 percent--of people openly

harboring anti-Semitic views. That compares with 8 percent in

Britain, 20 percent in Italy and 27 percent in Germany.

Jewish leaders chalk that up in part to growing

radicalization of youths in France's Muslim population--the

largest in Europe--as well as outrage in the general public

and French media over Israeli policy toward the Palestinians.

But it is also far more complex.

Anti-Semitism, Jewish activists fear, is becoming more

socially acceptable. In May, for instance, the far-right

National Front--a party long rooted in anti-Semitism but

which sought to portray itself as reformed--came in first in

elections here for the European Parliament, winning a

whopping 25 percent of the national vote. Yet last week, its

patriarch, Jean-Marie Le Pen, suggested just how unreformed a

segment of the party remains. In a video posted on the

party's Web site, he suggested that a Jewish folk singer

should be thrown into an oven.

Le Pen's daughter and current party leader, Marine Le Pen,

offered a rare rebuke of her father's words and ordered

footage of the comments removed from the party's Web site.

The elder Le Pen's musings were nevertheless seen as

unsurprising within a party whose older members have long

harkened back to the days of Vichy France, the Nazi

collaborators who allowed tens of thousands of French Jews to

go to their deaths.

``I walked into my kosher sandwich shop the other day and

the owner asked me, `Is it time to leave? Are we Nazi Germany

yet?' '' said Shimon Samuels, the Paris-based international

director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. ``We've got the

National Front in first place. We've got Dieudonnee,

spreading his hate. So I told him, `Well, do you really want

to be the last to go?' ''

Indeed, French migration to Israel in 2013 jumped to 3,200

people, up 64 percent from 2012. A huge uptick in departures

this year has Jewish leaders here predicting that at least

5,000 French Jews will leave in 2014.

``We've been thinking about moving for a long time, but the

climate was not as dangerous as it is now,'' said Alain, 30,

a medical equipment specialist who is moving to Israel

in July with his wife and three children. He declined to give

his last name out of fear for his family's security.

Sitting at his modest dining-room table in eastern Paris, a

set of moving boxes in the next room, he added: ``It bothers

me because this is not normal; this is not how I remember

France when I was growing up.''

Two weeks ago, Alain said, he woke up to find his 13-year-

old daughter, Michele, crying. After a recent attack on two

Jewish boys not far from her school, she said she was too

afraid to join her regular car pool. Instead, she demanded

that he take her to school and pick her up, standing guard as

she entered and exited each day. He has moved his work

schedule around to accommodate her request.

Asked what she was scared of, Michele, an elegant French

teenager in a fashionable black skirt and white T-shirt,

looked down and said: ``I'm afraid that what happened in

Toulouse will happen at my school, too. . . . I hear what

people say about Jews. And I am scared.''

Enter Dieudonnee.

Born to a father from Cameroon and a white French mother,

Dieudonnee, ironically, rose to stardom in the 1990s as part

of a duo act with EElie Semoun, a Jewish comedian. But the

two grew estranged as Dieudonnee's humor became

indistinguishable from anti-Semitic diatribe.

In the 2000s, he wooed the far right and the far left as

his campaign against Zionism made him an unlikely symbol for

both. Throughout the 2000s, he was repeatedly fined for

making a variety of anti-Semitic statements, including his

description of Holocaust commemorations as ``memorial porn.''

Blacklisted from mainstream TV shows and radio, he

nevertheless thrives, with a cultlike following on stage and

via the Internet, where his satirical videos stand out among

a rash of new anti-Semitic Web sites in France. As he has

become less mainstream, he has traded larger venues for

relatively smaller theater spaces where he is filling seats

with fans across racial, political and socioeconomic

spectrums.

Dieudonnee is an equal-opportunity offender. His act is a

study in provocation, targeting not only Jews but also gays

and mainstream politicians. Yet--as evidenced by the T-shirts

bearing the quenelle salute on sale at his shows--he tends to

reserve his toughest punch lines for Jews.

Over the past year, observers say, his depictions have

sharply worsened. His act became so offensive that the French

government in January took the rare step of encouraging local

jurisdictions to bar his performances. The move forced him to

tone down his material, largely by deploying inference and

shorthand to get his point across.

The denomination's action on Israel stands in stark contrast to its inaction on the persecuted church in the region. The PCUSA expressly declined to sign a recently issued Pledge of Solidarity and Call to Action, which more than 200 religious leaders from across the country signed on to.

Representatives of the American church came together across ecumenical lines to pledge to do more to help beleaguered minority faith communities, foremost among them, the ancient Christian communities in Egypt, Iraq, and Syria. The PCUSA privately expressed concern that this action would be perceived as an ``anti-Muslim'' statement.

The pledge itself was carefully crafted with input from faith leaders here in the United States and throughout the region and conveyed that the time has come for the church in the West to ``pray and speak with greater urgency about this human rights crisis.'' With the PCUSA's decision not to associate itself with the urgent call to action, I find myself once again out of step with my denomination in profound ways.

I believe many of the giants of this tradition, among them: Reverend Peter Marshall of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, where President Lincoln worshipped, and a former Senate Chaplain; Reverend Dick Halverson, senior pastor of Fourth Presbyterian Church and also a Senate Chaplain; Reverend Louis Evans, pastor for 18 years of National Presbyterian Church; and Reverend James Boice, pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia would find it difficult to recognize the PCUSA church today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention an incident that happened last week in Israel, a situation being referred to internationally as ``#BringBackOurBoys.'' On June 12, three teenage Israeli students, Gil-Ad Shaer, Eyal Yifrah and Naftali Fraenkel, disappeared from a hitchhiking point a little south of Jerusalem, Israel. While no group has come forward to take responsibility for this action, the Israeli government has pointed fingers at Hamas. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Hamas, a radical Islamist party, first came to power following the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, defeating the former ruling party, Fatah. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) has arrested over 200 suspects, most of them Hamas members, over the past week. In addition to these arrests, they have expanded their search in hopes to retrieve these abducted boys.

People all over the world have gathered together, to express their concerns for these boys and their families. Many rallies have taken place outside of various World Cup arenas in hopes of bringing media attention to this important issue. A mass rally has been planned for next Tuesday, June 24th, outside of the Israeli Consulate in New York.

This past week, on Wednesday June 18, the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, the Jewish Federation of Greater Washington, and The Israel Forever Foundation co-sponsored a vigil outside the Israeli Embassy in Washington D.C. Over 250 members of the community gathered to chant and listen to speakers of many different faiths reiterating the need for these boys to be returned to their families safely. Rabbi Adam Raskin of Congregation Har Shalom in Potomac, Maryland said ``They are our kids. This is a kidnapping from our family,'' asking ``Can you imagine the anguish and the pain of their parents?'' This is an issue that we must continue to put pressure on, in order to return these boys to their families.

As another Sabbath passes, my thoughts and prayers are with the families of these young men. We remain hopeful for the immediate safe return of these students. Mr. Speaker, everyone in this country, regardless of their individual faith, needs to be mindful of the words Presbyterian Minister Roy Howard of St. Marks Church in North Bethesda, Maryland spoke at this week's rally at the Israeli Embassy here in Washington: ``We are united with Israel, the Jewish people; they are not my boys, but I stand in solidarity with you.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Eli Takesian, former associate pastor of the Vienna Presbyterian Church and decorated military chaplain.

Eli served in Korea and Vietnam, eventually earning the position of Chief Chaplain of the Marine Corps at Marine Corps Headquarters in Washington, DC. He passed away on May 20, 2014, at the Walter Reed National Medical Center.

I submit the following program notes from Eli's funeral. He was a true patriot.

Eli Takesian died on May 20, 2014 at the Walter Reed

National Medical Center.

Born on February 28, 1932 in Methuen, Massachusetts, the

son of Stephan and Koharig Takesian and uncle to many loved

nephews and nieces. Eli is survived by his sister, Helen

Hagopian. His brothers, Raffi, Jack and Vartkes predeceased

him.

Eli served in Korea with the 1st Marine Division from

November 1951 to November 1952. Following his discharge from

the Marine Corp, he graduated from Baylor University in 1957.

He then continued his education at the University of

Edinburgh, Scotland and Princeton Theological Seminary,

receiving a master's degree in theology in 1960. The same

year Eli was ordained a minister by the United Presbyterian

Church. After serving a pastorate in Amsterdam, Ohio, Eli

returned to the military as a Navy Chaplain.

Chaplain Takesian served two tours of duty in Vietnam and

then spent 20 years as a senior chaplain, becoming Chief

Chaplain of the Marine Corps at Marine Corps Headquarters in

Washington, DC. While in Vietnam in 1968, even though he was

not assigned to the unit, Chaplain Takesian joined the 1st

Battalion, 5th Marines Regiment, 1st Marine Division on the

battlefield in Hue City--one of the most famous and bloodiest

Vietnam War battles. Eli brought prayers, support and hope to

the wounded and the dying. In 2007, in his home town of

Methuen, men of the 1st Battalion 5th Marines had a monument

built in remembrance of his bravery.

During his service in the military, Chaplain Takesian was

awarded a number of combat decorations including the Legion

of Merit, two Bronze Stars with Combat Vs and four

Presidential Unit Citations.

He retired from naval service in 1987 and became an

associate pastor of the Vienna Presbyterian Church retiring

in 1995. Until his death, Chaplain Takesian continued to

provide ministerial services to military retirement

communities and churches in Northern Virginia.

While studying in Scotland, Eli discovered his passion for

music and the arts. When serving as Chaplain on Governor's

Island in New York, he met and fell in love with Broadway

actress and vocalist, Margaret Broderson, who studied at

Julliard. They were married in 1978 in the Chapel on

Governor's Island. Eli and Margaret moved to Flacons Landing

in December 2012.

In lieu of flowers, the family request donations be made to

the Navy Marine Corps Relief Society, Marine Corps

Scholarship Foundation and the Marine Corps Heritage

Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and I are sending the following letter, and we urge Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle to sign this letter to President Obama:

Dear Mr. President:

Many Americans have been deeply troubled by the unfolding

crisis in Iraq. The rapid fall of multiple Iraqi cities to

the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, ISIS, brings

the militant group notably closer to its declared aim of

establishing a caliphate that spans the northern sections of

Syria and Iraq.

A June 12 BBC article described ISIS in the following way:

``The group has a reputation for brutality. Parts of Syria

and Iraq that have previously fallen under its rule have

witnessed summary execution, beheadings, and even

crucifixions.''

It is against this backdrop, Mr. President, that we write

to you bearing in mind recent reports from Archbishop Bashar

M. Warda of the Chaldean Diocese of Erbil. While his

particular diocese is relatively calm at the moment, the

picture that he painted, consistent with news report, of the

situation in Mosul and the implications for Iraq's ancient

Christian community and other religious minorities was bleak

and sobering.

For years, we have witnessed a precipitous decline of

Iraq's Christian community. Thousands have fled in the face

of targeted violence. Many of those that remained relocated

to Mosul and the Nineveh Plain. To people of faith, Nineveh

is a familiar name: the site of a dramatic spiritual revival

as told in the Biblical book of Jonah. These areas were one

of the last remaining havens for this beleaguered community.

In fact, Archbishop Warda indicated that this past Sunday,

for the first time in 1,600 years, there was no Mass said in

Mosul.

For the thousands who have already fled Mosul, they are

facing not just displacement and imminent danger, but a

growing humanitarian nightmare marked by lack of access to

clean water, food, fuel, and electricity.

As such, Mr. President, we urge you and your administration

to urgently and actively engage with the Iraqi central

government and the Kurdistan Regional Government, KRG, to

prioritize additional security support for these particularly

vulnerable populations and expanded humanitarian assistance

and emergency aid delivery to those affected communities.

Absent immediate action, we will most certainly witness the

annihilation of an ancient faith community from the lands

they have inhabited for centuries.

Mr. Speaker, we urge Members to sign this letter by the end of the day. More Biblical activity took place in Iraq than any other country of the world, other than Israel.

Abraham is from Iraq, from Ur, which is Nasiriyah. Esther, for such a time like this, is from Iraq. Jonah is from Nineveh--many people believe may very well be buried in Iraq. Ezekiel is buried in Iraq. Daniel, one of the great men of the Bible, is buried in Iraq.

So we urge all Members, this is something we can unite on. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. This is an issue of saving this ancient community and urging the administration to urge the Kurds to protect them as they flee from this area.

I urge all Members, please call my office, call Anna Eshoo's office, to sign this letter by the end of the day, in order to save the Christian community and other religious minorities in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize former Secretary of the Army John O. ``Jack'' Marsh, Jr., of Winchester, for being awarded the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation's Medal for Distinguished Public Service. I am proud to call Jack my good friend and pleased to join the Ford Foundation in honoring him for his long and distinguished service to our country.

After attending Washington and Lee University and practicing law in the Shenandoah Valley, Jack began his career in public service when he was elected as a Democrat to represent Virginia's 7th Congressional District in 1963. He later went on to serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense in 1973.

While serving in Congress, Jack met Congressman Gerald Ford, who was representing Michigan's 5th District as a Republican at the time. When Ford became Vice President to Richard Nixon, Jack was asked to serve as National Security Advisor and when Ford assumed the presidency in 1974, Jack became Counselor to the President--a cabinet-level post.

Later, under President Reagan, Jack was appointed Secretary of the Army, an office he held from 1981 until 1989. He is the longest serving Secretary of the Army in history.

The Medal for Distinguished Public Service is awarded annually to public servants who successfully demonstrate President Ford's leadership qualities over their career, and is reserved for a precious few. In receiving the Medal for Distinguished Public Service, Jack joins a special group of alumni, which includes prominent figures like Tip O'Neill, Henry Kissinger, John Paul Stevens and Brent Scowcroft.

I am pleased to submit the following article from the Winchester Star on Jack's achievements and thank my friend for his years of selfless service to our country.

[From The Winchester Star, June 3, 2014]

Former Army Secretary Honored

(By Cynthia Cather Burton)

Winchester.--Former Secretary of the Army John O. ``Jack''

Marsh Jr. of Winchester was awarded the 2014 Gerald R. Ford

Medal for Distinguished Public Service on Monday.

The presentation took place during the annual dinner of the

Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation at the Willard

InterContinental Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Marsh, 87, joins a group of political, judicial and

military luminaries who have received the award, which was

established in 2003 by the foundation's board of trustees to

recognize individuals ``who reflect the qualities

demonstrated by President Ford during his public service

career,'' according to the foundation's website at

geraldrford

foundation.org. These include strength of character,

integrity, trustworthiness, sound judgment, decisiveness

(particularly during periods of crisis), determination in the

face of adversity, diligence, self-confidence balanced with

respect for the views of others, and self-discipline in

personal life.

Past recipients are Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, 2013; Thomas

P. ``Tip'' O'Neill, 2012; William T. Coleman, 2011; Henry

Kissinger, 2010; Justice John Paul Stevens, 2009; Carla A.

Hill, 2008; James A. Baker and Lee H. Hamilton, 2007; and the

U.S. armed forces branches, 2006.

Marsh, a Winchester native, served as secretary of the Army

under President Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1989. Previously,

in 1973, he was appointed assistant secretary of defense. In

1974, he became national security adviser for then-Vice

President Ford.

During Ford's presidency, Marsh was counselor to the

president and held cabinet rank.

``I handled a lot of issues that he directed me to do,''

Marsh said from his Winchester office on Monday afternoon.

``I did whatever he wanted me to. My duties related in large

measure to the Congress.''

Marsh said he first met Ford when both were serving in the

U.S. House of Representatives--Marsh represented Virginia's

7th District from 1963 to 1971 as a Democrat and Ford

Michigan's 5th District from 1949 to 1973 as a Republican.

They were introduced by Donald Rumsfeld, who would go on to

serve as secretary of defense under Ford from 1975 to 1977

and President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2006.

``We were on different sides of the aisle, but we came to

know one another,'' Marsh said of Ford. ``When he became vice

president, he asked me to be on his staff.''

Following the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon in

the wake of the Watergate scandal, Ford became the nation's

38th president, serving from 1974 to 1977.

Marsh said the presidency did not change Ford. ``He was the

same person.''

With Watergate, the OPEC oil embargo against the United

States, high unemployment and an unpopular war in Vietnam,

Ford

inherited ``a government that was in deep trouble,'' Marsh

recalled. ``These were issues that were very difficult to

handle, and he handled them well. Part of that was because he

was so close to the Congress. They respected him, and he

respected them. . . He knew how the House worked.''

Marsh noted that Ford ``had more time in Congress than any

president, before or since. He was very popular on both sides

of the aisle. He was an example of cooperation.''

Congress, Marsh added wryly, ``was more bipartisan in those

days.''

He added that Ford was an ``unflappable'' leader.

``Criticism didn't bother him. . . He never carried a

grudge.''

Marsh said he was honored to receive the Gerald R. Ford

Medal for Distinguished Public Service ``because it reflects

a time in my life when I was party to and took part in a very

critical time in our government.''

Before his political career, Marsh practiced law in the

Shenandoah Valley. He also was a World War II veteran and

later served in the Army Reserve and Army National Guard. He

was a graduate of Harrisonburg High School and Washington and

Lee University.

Madam Chair, I want to again recognize and thank all of the staff members who worked on this bill, including the Appropriations Committee staff members as well as the associate staff who work in the personal offices of the members of our subcommittee. They have all worked hard to help us hold nine hearings in just over a month and then prepare this bill for markup, the earliest it has been advanced by the House in many years.

I would like to again thank the majority staff for their hard work, including the subcommittee's clerk, Mike Ringler, as well as Leslie Albright, Jeff Ashford, Diana Simpson, Colin Samples and Taylor Kelly. I also want to thank Bob Bonner and Matt Smith on the minority staff. They worked together to produce an excellent bipartisan bill that the committee should be proud of.

I also want to recognize my personal office staff, especially Tom Culligan, Elyse Bauer Anderson and Dan Scandling.

In addition to serving as my office's legislative director, Tom Culligan has served as my associate staff to the Commerce-Justice- Science (CJS) Appropriations subcommittee since 2008, while I served both as ranking member and, more recently, as chairman. Tom has been my senior policy adviser on key issues this subcommittee has prioritized in recent years, including counterterrorism, cybersecurity and space exploration policy, and I have appreciated his strategic focus and knowledge of these issues. He has also managed many of my oversight investigations while I have chaired this subcommittee, aimed at keeping our country safe and competitive, as well as preventing waste and abuse at federal agencies. The bill, report and oversight hearings over the last several years reflect this focus and I appreciate Tom's work on these issues.

Elyse is on her fourth tour of duty in my office. She is my top staffer for my work on the State & Foreign Operations subcommittee as well as the congressional Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, which I co-chair. Many of those issues run parallel to the work in the CJS bill. Elyse's knowledge of Congress and world affairs is a huge asset. She also is a gifted writer whose words always make me sound better.

Dan has served as my chief of staff and press secretary for the last 14 years and has been an invaluable manager of my office and adviser on many issues, including on this bill. Dan has been an outstanding leader of my staff and has helped me ensure that balance my responsibilities to the 10th District as well as this subcommittee. He has planned trips and travelled with me around the world--including to China, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Egypt--to conduct oversight on U.S. national security and human rights policies. This would not have been possible without Dan's hard work, guidance and support over the years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize my colleague, Rep. Patrick Meehan of Pennsylvania, for his work on behalf of victims of domestic violence, sexual trafficking and addiction. The legislation approved by the House today includes significant funding and reflects his advocacy for these issues in Congress.

Congressman Meehan has been a leader throughout this process and I have appreciated his input on how to make this bill as strong as well possible to deal with domestic violence, trafficking and addiction. It is my understanding that just last week, Mr. Meehan hosted a summit on human trafficking, bringing together local and Federal law enforcement and victims' advocacy organizations to address the crisis. He has also long been a voice for the victims of domestic violence and has been among the strongest advocates for funding for programs authorized by the Violence Against Women Act. He has also fought for our veterans, and his leadership helped ensure higher funding for veterans' treatment courts.

I am pleased to say that the FY15 CJS bill contains the highest levels of funding for combating human trafficking, ever. This is a testament to the hard work and experience of Congressman Meehan who, among others, knows just how vital these resources are for trafficking victims. I appreciate his continued efforts to raise awareness in Congress and to advocate for these important resources.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House Republican Conference, I send to the desk a privileged resolution (H. Res. 603) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 4660, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chair, I accept the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chair, I have no objection to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. The gentleman's amendment would cut the DEA by $18 million to pay for a $15 million increase for LSC.

The DEA primarily targets high-level drug trafficking organizations, disrupting and dismantling them, attacking the economic basis of the drug trade and contributing to counterterrorism activities tied to and financed by drugs. It does not focus on low-level criminals nor on users.

It has seen a huge challenge not only internationally but from the cartels. Every drug area in the Nation now is controlled pretty much by the Mexican cartels.

Also, our funding level for LSC is $50 million above last year's House level. It is above the FY12 enacted level. The bill also includes an additional $43 million under the Violence Against Women program specifically for legal assistance for domestic violence victims. This amount is nearly 50 percent above the enacted level.

Lastly, later today, we will likely consider amendments that significantly reduce or eliminate LSC. I plan to oppose those amendments that are going to cut Legal Services. I oppose this amendment, and I ask for a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentlemen from New Jersey and Massachusetts. I recognize the importance of NOAA's restoration programs, especially the community-based restoration program, and we will work to address your concerns as the bill moves forward toward conference with the Senate.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

The reason the numbers are what they are, there was an indiscriminate cut by the administration of $75 million. Secondly--and I know the gentleman from Colorado didn't mean this--but you kind of just blew off the DEA agents. A number of DEA agents have died--a number of DEA agents died in Afghanistan. A number of DEA agents have risked their lives for us here.

The head of the DEA is a career civil servant who was a city of Baltimore police officer who has given her life to law enforcement for the last 30 years. So I don't think you meant it, but if I were a DEA agent somewhere back in some remote area maybe watching C-SPAN in Afghanistan, where there is a number of DEA agents who are risking their lives when we are in a very safe community surrounded by policemen, but maybe they are in Kabul right now where there were just some killings the other day--

So, I oppose the amendment. DEA is striving to cope with significant challenges. There is surging heroin. We have increased heroin. Members of Congress have come up, the committee has tried to address their needs--heroin Midwest, heroin Virginia, heroin all over, heroin, heroin. The DEA is dealing with that. The trafficking of prescription drugs, we just increased money for prescription drug abuse because it has the number one impact on young people.

DEA is the line of defense. DEA is the one that is fighting the Mexican drug cartels. Every community in the United States, the drug operations are impacted by the Mexican cartels, and it is the DEA that is doing this. This bill tries to help.

Also, it helps DEA out of the impact that they will hit with regard to sequester. So, I urge a ``no'' vote for the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Let me say she has not embarrassed herself before the body. If this institution is going to go criticizing people who have served us that way, I think she has done an honorable job. I think she has represented the DEA well.

Also, I think there has been an effort by some in the administration to attack her in a way, it almost reminds me of the Nixon administration. I was in the Nixon administration. They had policies whereby they would go after civil servants and career people--I think some of the things that have been done against her. So I think this is a very bad amendment.

If you want to allow the cartels to come in--you can't just take $35 million and say it has no impact on the agents that are working and giving their life and sacrificing their life in Afghanistan. This is a bad amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to read, just briefly to the House, some of the names that are on the Wall of Honor of DEA agents who have given their life for our country, and I will put the whole list in the Record:

Special Agent James Terry Watson, June 21, 2013; Special Agent Michael E. Weston, October 26, 2009; Special Agent Chad L. Michael, October 26, 2009; Special Agent Forrest N. Leamon, October 26, 2009; FBI Special Agent Samuel S. Hicks, November 19, 2008; Special Agent Thomas J. Byrne, August 30, 2008; Task Force Officer Jay Balchunas, November 5, 2004; Special Agent Donald C. Ware, October 12, 2004; Special Agent Terry Loftus, May 28, 2004; Telecomm Specialist Elton Lee Armstead, March 18, 2003; Diversion Investigator Alice Faye Hall- Walton, March 1, 2001; Special Agent Royce D. Tramel, August 28, 2000; Pilot Instructor Larry Steilen, September 25, 1998; Special Agent Shaun E. Curl, December 12, 1997; Special Agent Kenneth G. McCullough, April 19, 1995; Carrie A. Lenz, April 19, 1995; Office Assistant Carrol J. Fields, April 19, 1995; Rona L. Chafey, April 19, 1995; Shelly Bland, April 19, 1995; Special Agent Frank S. Wallace, Jr., August 27, 1994; Special Agent Juan Vars, August 27, 1994; Special Agent Meredith Thompson, August 27, 1994; Special Agent Jay W. Seale, August 27, 1994; Special Agent Frank Fernandez, Jr., August 27, 1994; Special Agent Richard E. Fass, June 30, 1994; Detective Stephen J. Strehl, November 19, 1993; Special Agent Becky Dwojeski, October 21, 1993; Special Agent George D. Althouse, May 28, 1992; Special Agent Alan H. Winn, August 13, 1991; Special Agent Eugene T. McCarthy, February 2, 1991; Investigator Wallie Howard, Jr., October 30, 1990, and the list goes on.

I will put the whole list in the Record. This is to make up for what happened in sequestration. These people are literally giving their lives. We will also insert into the Record with regard to the helicopter crash that took the lives of those agents. For those reasons, I strongly oppose the amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and we will continue to work on this. I thank the gentleman for his comments. We will work on this in an appropriate way for the people of your region.

I thank the gentleman.

Four agents have died since 2009. Four agents have died since 2009.

Mr. Chair, I would like to submit the full list of DEA agents who gave their lives to keep our communities safe.

Agent Stafford E. Beckett, March 22, 1921; Agent Charles

Archie Wood, March 22, 1921; Agent Joseph W. Floyd, May 17,

1922; Agent Bert S. Gregory, October 25, 1922; Agent James T.

Williams, October 16, 1924; Agent Louis L. Marks, October 24,

1924; Agent James E. Brown, June 7, 1928; Agent James R.

Kerrigan, December 27, 1928; Agent John W. Crozier, November

16, 1934; Agent Spencer Stafford, February 7, 1935; Agent

Andrew P. Sanderson, September 23, 1944; Agent Anker M.

Bangs, September 24, 1950; Agent Wilson M. Shee, December 12,

1957; Agent Mansel R. Burrell, December 19, 1967; Agent

Hector Jordan, October 14, 1970; Officer Gene A. Clifton,

November 19, 1971; Special Agent Frank Tummillo, October 12,

1972; Special Agent George F. White, March 25, 1973; Special

Agent Richard Heath, Jr., April 1, 1973; Special Agent Emir

Benitez, August 9, 1973.

Detective Gerald Sawyer, November 6, 1973; Investigator

Leslie S. Grosso, May 21, 1974; Special Agent Nickolas

Fragos, August 5, 1974; Secretary Mary Keehan, August 5,

1974; Special Agent Charles H. Mann, August 5, 1974;

Secretary Anna Mounger, August 5, 1974; Fiscal Assistant Anna

Pope, August 5, 1974; Spvr Clerk-Typist Martha Skeels, August

5, 1974; Clerk-Typist Mary Sullivan, August 5, 1974; Special

Agent Larry D. Wallace, December 19, 1975; Special Agent

James T. Lunn, May 14, 1976; Special Agent Ralph N. Shaw, May

14, 1976; Special Agent Octavio Gonzalez, December 13, 1976;

Office Assistant Susan Hoefler, August 16, 1986; Special

Agent William Ramos, December 31, 1986; Special Agent Raymond

J. Stastny, January 26, 1987; Special Agent Arthur L. Cash,

August 25, 1987; Detective Terry W. McNett, February 2, 1988;

Special Agent George M. Montoya, February 5, 1988; Special

Agent Paul S. Seema, February 6, 1988.

Special Agent Everett E. Hatcher, February 28, 1989;

Special Agent Rickie C. Finley, May 20, 1989; Investigator

Joseph T. Aversa, March 5, 1990; Investigator Wallie Howard

Jr., October 30, 1990; Special Agent Eugene T. McCarthy,

February 2, 1991; Special Agent Alan H. Winn, August 13,

1991; Special Agent George D. Althouse, May 28, 1992; Special

Agent Becky L. Dwojeski, October 21, 1993; Detective Stephen

J. Strehl, November 19, 1993; Special Agent Richard E. Fass,

June 30, 1994; Special Agent Frank Fernandez, Jr., August 27,

1994; Special Agent Jay W. Seale, August 27, 1994; Special

Agent Meredith Thompson, August 27, 1994; Special Agent Juan

C. Vars, August 27, 1994; Special Agent Frank S. Wallace,

Jr., August 27, 1994; Shelly D. Bland, April 19, 1995; Rona

L. Chafey, April 19, 1995; Office Assistant Carrol J. Fields,

April 19, 1995; Carrie A. Lenz, April 19, 1995; Special Agent

Kenneth G. McCullough, April 19, 1995.

Special Agent Shaun E. Curl, December 12, 1997; Pilot

Instructor Larry Steilen, September 25, 1998; Special Agent

Royce D. Tramel, August 28, 2000; Diversion Investigator

Alice Faye Hall-Walton, March 1, 2001; Telecomm. Specialist

Elton Lee Armstead, March 18, 2003; Special Agent Terry

Loftus, May 28, 2004; Special Agent Francis J. Miller, March

5, 1977; Special Agent Robert C. Lightfoot, November 23,

1977; Special Agent Thomas J. Devine, September 25, 1982;

Special Agent Larry N. Carwell, January 9, 1984; Detective

Marcellus Ward, December 3, 1984; Special Agent Enrique S.

Camarena, March 5, 1985; Deputy Sheriff James A. Avant, July

24, 1986; Investigator Charles M. Bassing, July 24, 1986;

Investigator Kevin L. Brosch, July 24, 1986; Special Agent

Donald C. Ware, October 12, 2004; Task Force Officer Jay

Balchunas, November 5, 2004; Special Agent Thomas J. Byrne,

August 30, 2008; FBI Special Agent Samuel S. Hicks, November

19, 2008; Special Agent Forrest N. Leamon, October 26, 2009;

Special Agent Chad L. Michael, October 26, 2009; Special

Agent Michael E. Weston, October 26, 2009; Special Agent

James Terry Watson, June 21, 2013.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his efforts on this. I want to personally tell you that I appreciate it.

I also appreciate the fact that Greta Van Susteren was down there. I watched one of the interviews. It is painful to watch, to see how a United States citizen--I appreciate the gentleman's service, too, in the Marine Corps. I know you were in Fallujah. Your dad was very proud of what you had done. I know you have to have a feeling for this, but why we cannot get someone out.

We will do everything we can to work with you, to help you. We will call the Attorney General's Office tomorrow. I will try to talk to Mr. Holder, who I know will be very sympathetic and help to see what we can possibly do to get the gentleman out. I thank the gentleman. We will do anything you ask us to do.

Thank you.

I want to thank Mr. Crowley for raising this issue. Mr. Serrano, I think, also raised it at one of the hearings, and also Mr. Diaz-Balart. I will do everything I can to work with you and see if we can deal with this.

Thank you for raising the issue.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises a good point. I am going to oppose the amendment--and I will get into it--but we will be glad to work with them to see what we could. Because I think when you have--and Mr. Fattah knows--when we have had different areas, we will be glad to meet with you and ATF to get them to do this.

The budget really hasn't been cut. It is flat. I think they are $1 million off. This is the only agency that didn't get a big hit in sequestration.

But the reason I oppose the amendment--and I will get to your issue at the end--is it would take a reduction from NASA's commercial crew. You have seen the stories where Putin said, and the head of their space program, their general, said: If we want to get their space station, we are going to have to use a trampoline.

Funds for this program are critical to allow NASA to name the development schedule and to end our reliance on the Russians so we can get up there. Right now we pay them roughly $60 million a ticket almost to get up there.

Less funding would mean fewer development testing activities being carried out, which in turn will put pressure on the overall program.

So for that reason, I oppose the amendment and ask for a ``no'' vote. But I would say, let's talk after this and we can have a meeting with you and Mr. Fattah and myself with the ATF and see if we can get them, as we have in some communities, to kind of focus like a laser beam on your community because, rightly so, your people ought to know they can live in safe areas. We will be glad to do that no matter what the outcome of the amendment is.

But I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment because of where he takes it from and what the impact would have on the commercial crew.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady makes a very powerful case, and I think she is absolutely right. I support the amendment. I will accept it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I have no objection to the amendment, and I support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment.

As he stated better than I could, as more veterans return from combat, we are seeing their increased involvement in the justice system. The committee established the Veterans court program in fiscal year 2013, and it has increased its funding.

I thank the gentleman for offering an amendment. I urge an ``aye'' vote for it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I thank the gentleman for the amendment. I think it helps those who need help, particularly in the rural areas. I accept the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I have no objection to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my fame

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in opposition to the amendment, but I do appreciate what the gentleman said. As we move on and we get to conference, there may be something we can do. I know Mr. Fattah feels the same way with regard to gang violence in the inner city.

The underlining bill has already reduced NASA's construction budget by $69 million. Further reductions--which this would do--would negatively impact NASA's ability to meet mission critical construction needs for the human spaceflight program, address urgent safety-related repairs at centers around the country--which certainly need them--and discharge legal requirements to remediate environmental damage.

Construction projects are, by definition, long lead items that must be started early in order to be ready. By cutting these funds now, we will create a programmatic ripple effect that will be felt in our high- priority space program for the years to come.

So for these reasons--and where the money is taken from--I urge a ``no'' vote.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. We are just looking at the amendment, so, in order to protect the time, Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I think we have--we never saw the amendment, and it is really pretty tough to really--but just looking at it quickly, I think we are at a record level for cyber, ever, in the history of this great body.

The gentleman has a good point. He takes away from aeronautics, and aeronautics is our number one export, if we were not exporting even aircraft from the gentleman's home State, our balance of payment, so to take away from aeronautics, when we have plussed up aeronautics, so America can continue to be number one, and put it in an area that is ill-defined.

Secondly, we have given more for cyber than any other time--cyber money in NIST, cyber money in the FBI, national security business, cyber money in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Criminal Division; so, because of that, I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Cyber is important. Every major company in this country has been hit by the Chinese Government. Law firms in this town are being hit by the Chinese Government. Seventeen Members of Congress had their computers stripped by the Chinese Government. A committee had their computers stripped by the Chinese Government.

So I think we should focus the cyber where we have it and not go after aeronautics. Because of that, I think the gentleman is well- intentioned. Obviously, Boeing has been hit, but Boeing is better served by what we are doing with regard to aiding the FBI to deal with this and the U.S. attorney.

I commend and did a letter to the Attorney General last week, thanking him and thanking the FBI for their cyber cases that they are bringing against the People's Liberation Army.

In light of where we are, I would oppose the amendment. I think it is bad to take it from aeronautics, and I think we should focus on the cyber the way that we have done in the bill with the FBI, the National Security Division, the U.S. attorneys.

Again, I want to thank the Justice Department and the FBI for the great work they have done with regard to the People's Liberation Army and that we expect them to do in the future.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.

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

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I have no objection to the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part:

``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''

Madam Chair, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that has not been reauthorized. It was last authorized in 2009. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Out of courtesy to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I will reserve my point of order.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, before I make a point of order, I do want to say that I do share what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) said.

I would like to tell the gentleman from New York, it isn't only the law enforcement. We had a similar problem. We had MS-13 and violent gangs. It is law enforcement. It is also the mentoring that Mr. Fattah mentioned. It is after-school programs.

So, if we were to just go after the gang issue as a law enforcement issue, you will never solve the problem. It has to be law enforcement. The schools have to be involved. There have to be after-school programs. It is almost like a three-legged stool.

But as we move ahead, we can look to see because I think everyone who lives in these areas that have been impacted by gangs, that is as much of terrorism for them as it is for somebody that is faced with terrorism from al Qaeda.

Having said that, I do agree with what Mr. Fattah said.

Point of Order

Madam Chair, I now make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

Clause 2 of rule XXI states, in pertinent part:

``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''

Madam Chair, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that has not been reauthorized. And I agree with the gentleman; it probably should have been reauthorized. It was last authorized in 2009. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in opposition to the amendment, but I would hope that we can work it out. If you wanted to offer a different amendment with regard to the health care issue, I will support it, if we can find a way, but the concern I have is OSTP is a small office.

This is roughly cutting 20 percent of their entire budget. In the last 2 years alone--and I agree with what the gentleman said on the health care aspect--our subcommittee has tasked OSTP with coordinating a major interagency effort on neuroscience, overseeing the implementation of policy across the government on public access to Federally funded research results, cochairing an effort to streamline and prioritize Federal STEM education and spending, and assessing the American supply chain vulnerability stemming from the lack of domestic access to rare earth elements, which is another problem that we are beginning to have with China.

If we reduce the OSTP by 20 percent and if the gentleman would offer another amendment to reduce it by, you know, $50,000, I would accept the amendment or take the amendment, I can't speak for the other side, but to cut it by 20 percent, that is just too much.

So until there is a different amendment that would meet the gentleman's need, as I agree with him on health care, we would accept it, but to take 20 percent out, particularly since--and I know Mr. Fattah has been working with the whole issue of neuroscience and the brain, I would oppose the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I completely agree. What I will do is we will call the OSTP and ask Mr. Holdren to come up with the gentleman and get him, and you can come to the meeting, too.

Quite frankly, if he doesn't come, I will offer, when we go to conference, to take a chunk out of this to make sure that you get answers. We would like to bring Mr. Holdren up so that Chairman Broun will have an opportunity to talk to the individual. I will help him get the individual up.

It will be in your office, not in mine. We will ask Holdren to come up the week we come back in.

I yield to the gentleman.

Yes. If he doesn't come up, I would. If he does not come up, I would. I will.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 4660 in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 585:

(1) each amendment (other than pro forma amendments addressed in this order) shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent;

(2) each amendment shall not be subject to amendment except that the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations (or a respective designee) each may offer one pro forma amendment to an amendment for the purpose of debate; and

(3) the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies thereof may offer pro forma amendments to the bill at any point in the reading for the purposes of debate but that no other pro forma amendments to the bill will be in order.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in very, very, very strong support of the amendment and will increase the funding and work with you to do what we possibly can. I appreciate the gentlewoman's interest and advocacy for space technology, as well as her cooperation in working with us to find a way to dedicate more resources to it.

I have no objection, and I ask for a strong ``aye'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

I thank the gentleman for bringing this matter to the attention of the committee and your leadership in making us aware of the pressing need to review Federal forfeiture policies.

As you were speaking, I thought: Why don't we ask the inspector general to look into this? So we will work with you to do a letter asking the IG to see if he has the authority to look in to see, because based on what you said, we don't want this to happen.

Although an appropriation bill is not the best place to address civil asset forfeiture reform, we look forward to a constructive partnership to make sure we are protecting Americans. We will work with you on crafting a letter to the inspector general to see what we can find out and how we can make this not happen again.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas

Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Madam Chair, I have no objection to the amendment.

I share the opinion that NSF must exercise caution. I should tell Members, the NSF funding here is at an all-time high. This is a Republican committee, if you will. The House and we support the sciences. I want our country to stay ahead of China and the other countries. I want America to be number one.

But I appreciate what Mr. Smith, the chairman, said: NSF must exercise caution and grant awards and ensure--and I hope NSF is listening today--that every grant is both scientifically, meritorious, and responsive to the national interest. The subcommittee has already taken steps to help improve accountability and transparency in its NSF operations by including language in the FY15 CGS report and is working with NSF to understand improvements that the agency is making in its review and communication process.

In addition, last week, I sent a letter to the NSF director, Ms. Cordova. She is a very impressive person, very knowledgeable, she is brand new, I think she is committed to making sure that they only fund scientific things. But this letter emphasizes the need for the agency to be judicious in a grant it awards and to ensure that taxpayer funds are used wisely.

The subcommittee will continue to provide oversight on this topic as needed.

I thank the gentleman. I think it is important for NSF to know that since the funding is at a record high in order that America can be and will always be number one in math and science and physics and chemistry and biology and lead the world, with that excess funding, extra funding, goes the responsibility to make sure there are not grants that then weaken the program and give there an opportunity for people to say this program is out of kilter. I appreciate Mr. Smith raising these.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to address this important issue, and it is an important one. I can assure him that we will work with him on this as we move forward in the appropriations process.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank the gentleman. We visited Guantanamo Bay together. I think any Member who has not been down there, you should go down and see what is there. These are important provisions that have been put in appropriation bills for the last several years. They represent a strong and enduring consensus in Congress.

Striking these provisions would have unknown consequences for U.S. communities. Imagine bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who beheaded Daniel Pearl, and who was the mastermind of the 9/11 attack. About 170 people from my district died in the attack on the Pentagon. Can you imagine, they were initially going to bring him to New York City, and Mayor Bloomberg and Senator Schumer all opposed it because they knew what the impact was going to be and the security requirements. So this would have an unbelievable impact on communities.

Putting detainees in U.S. prisons, as the administration originally proposed, would be disruptive and, I think, disastrous. Former FBI Director Mueller stated: ``To transfer detainees to local jails could affect or infect other prisoners or have the capability of affecting events outside the prison system.''

One of the things I think Members have to understand is this. There was a pirate, if you saw the movie ``Captain Phillips.'' He was arrested. He was arrested and tried. And they said that he would be convicted, and there would be no way that he would ever be released.

You ought to go see ``Captain Phillips.'' It is a fascinating movie.

He was tried and he was acquitted, and now he is seeking asylum. He is in Virginia. He is seeking asylum maybe in Virginia.

There was another case, if you recall, Attorney General Holder said there is no way that this guy will ever get off, and he was only convicted on one count; and had that count not been a conviction, he would have been released.

Lastly, there were Uighurs that were arrested in Tora Bora in a training camp run by Osama bin Laden. They were there to learn how to kill Americans, but also to kill Chinese, if you follow the concerns of the Uighur issue in China. The administration had reserved apartments. They were in Guantanamo Bay. They reserved apartments in northern Virginia at Seven Corners for them to live here.

I know the gentleman is well meaning, but I think to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees here, people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, people like that, and then what if they ever were tried here and were acquitted, and then can you imagine they then apply for asylum, because we are now going to see a case where one pirate acquitted is applying for asylum and now is living in Virginia and may very well want to stay in Virginia.

I urge defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, Politico talks about this case and said:

The failed prosecution of an alleged Somali pirate--and the

fact that that failure could leave him living freely, and

permanently, inside U.S. borders--is highlighting anew the

risks of trying terror suspects in American courts.

Just a few weeks ago, Ali Mohamed Ali was facing the

possibility of a mandatory life sentence in a 2008

shipjacking off the coast of Yemen--an incident much like the

one dramatized in the film `Captain Phillips.' Now, the

Somali native is in immigration detention in Virginia and

seeking permanent asylum in the United States.

One current Federal terrorism prosecutor said the Ali case

and the potential for his eventual release is another reason

why foreign al Qaeda suspects picked up overseas should not

be brought to the United States but should instead be

detained at Guantanamo or some other facility.

I personally would think the very thought of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, or some of the people when you go down to Guantanamo Bay and see them, walking the streets here in the United States should they be acquitted--they ought not to be brought to the United States.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

This is one of the better amendments offered today. Frankly, I will do everything I can to make sure this is in the bill when it comes to the conference report.

If the Members would take the time to go out and look at the place whereby you can see all the companies that are being hit, the Chinese are stealing jobs.

And so I thank Mr. Doyle and Mr. Murphy for offering this. I will do everything I can. I think the staff knows how strongly I feel. Mr. Fattah has been a great help on these issues.

So if the amendment is ruled out of order, we will make sure that we try to put it in the bill, and I thank both of you for offering it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment. I understand what the gentlelady is saying, and I think she makes a powerful case, but I think, to bring it back to this bill, the allocation for the bill already represents a cut of $398 million below the FY14 level. Thirty-three individual programs have been terminated in the bill.

Moreover, and I will end with this, since the beginning of the 112th Congress, the allocation for Commerce-Justice-Science appropriation has been cut by $13.1 billion, or over 20 percent, so you have had a 20 percent cut since the 112th.

As a result of that, I would ask for a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment.

There are other priorities within the Bureau of Prisons, including bringing online two other recently constructed facilities and maintaining sufficient staffing levels at existing facilities to ensure safety.

I am also concerned--and I think what the problem is, if I could just maybe speak to the gentlelady from Illinois. I think if the administration were saying that there will never be any Guantanamo detainees transferred, but the problem is we see the veto threat on the DOD bill. No one is trying to hurt your community, and I commend you for fighting for it; but every time you begin to kind of say, okay, we will go that way, you then begin to see the veto threats. The administration has not set a veto threat to this bill but has expressed concern with regard to our Guantanamo Bay language.

And my sense is, if honestly, ethically, morally we were all convinced no Guantanamo Bay transfers--and, quite frankly, I don't think you want Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to come to your local community either. So I think you would probably agree with me as much as anything. But if there was convincing evidence that they were never going to be brought there, then I wouldn't have any problem.

But I think the gentlelady from Tennessee raises a very, very good, good point. And every time you come back to that, it always comes back to, we are going to veto that.

So I think it is a good amendment. I guess the challenge would be: How could we remove this so that this does not become a problem? Eventually, I can understand. I think you make a legitimate case. But the hurdle is Members up here on both sides of the aisle believe that the administration ultimately will take people from Guantanamo to Thomson, and that becomes a problem.

If you could remove that risk whereby nobody will ever come back to it, then I think this problem would go away. Until that time, I think it is going to be a battle constantly, constantly, constantly. And I know that Senator Durbin has made a strong effort, but there are some of us on this side who believe that it becomes a big political issue, too.

So if you can somehow make it whereby there is some convincing and not run the risk of, in 2 or 3 years from now, say, ``Ah-hah, we have got you; we are going to take them there,'' then I think this problem would probably go away. But until that time, I support the gentlelady's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

It boils down to the issue of trust.

I was specifically told by the Justice Department that the Uighurs from Guantanamo Bay would not be released. We had a meeting in my office. The White House was there. They were all there. They said they will not be released.

We got a call from somebody in the administration who called us to say that the helicopters are getting ready and leaving Guantanamo. And, by the way, they have leased an apartment at Seven Corners. These were three people who had been picked up at Tora Bora in a camp.

I understand. I mean, if we could work this thing out, I would be happy.

So when you see the veto message, as the gentlelady from Tennessee said, the concern is that they will just blink and come and go. But they looked me directly in the eye and said: We will not release these inmates.

And then had I not gotten that telephone call--and, quite frankly, I think this person who stopped them from being released was the current mayor of Chicago, to his credit.

And so that is the concern we have. There needs to be a basic trust that if somebody says something, there is absolutely no question that that is the word and it will never happen.

But I thank the gentleman for his comments.

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

The amendment seeks to fix a problem that does not exist. There is no restriction on use and transfer of domestically produced or traded industrial hemp products or seed. They never sought a license. They have every right to do this had they got a license. And the DEA had a responsibility, as the Customs and Border Patrol does, to ensure that imports are legal and safe, including the imports of agriculture products. The responsibility falls to those who seek to import these products to secure necessary import licenses in a timely way to ensure Federal law enforcement can do its job and confirm that the commodity imported is legal.

There is no reason to restrict the exercise of this important law enforcement mission. So they never sought a license, and that is what the problem was.

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

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

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

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

I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself 1 minute.

The following national medical organizations are currently opposed to medical marijuana: American Medical Association, American Cancer Society, American Glaucoma Society, Glaucoma Research Foundation, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and American Psychiatric Association.

Also, recent research has demonstrated that marijuana use during teen years decreases IQ rates by an average of eight points.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Harris.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Dr. Fleming).

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am concerned what this means for the Bureau of Prisons. I am inclined to maybe take the amendment. I think that is one of the concerns, somebody comes in without knowing.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Well, we may be, and I think that is probably not a bad idea.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to rise in opposition to the amendment. There are just so many questions. I think Chairman Goodlatte raises them.

We are open to work with you as we go through it. It is quarter after 9. Nobody is there at the Bureau of Prisons. We are not going to get a constructive answer, and we don't want to do something that causes damage.

One, I am going to oppose the amendment. Mr. Goodlatte was so convincing.

And secondly, we will be willing to work with you though to see. Because I understand what you are trying to do, and I am sort of sympathetic to it. But for now with the way it is drafted I will oppose the amendment and ask for a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment. I understand it says you must follow the law.

I accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Will the gentleman yield?

We accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. We accept the amendment.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I have read that amendment. It says that you are to follow the law. I agree with that, so I accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I accept the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. No one knows what the amendment does. If you know what this amendment does, you should vote for it because nobody else seems to know. And that is one of the problems of these things coming rolling in at 10:15. I don't know what it does, and I wouldn't want to vote for it since I don't know what it does. So if you know what it does and you are for it, you can vote for it. But no one knows what it does.

So I strongly urge, in the interest of making sure that this place does not mess up, a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is significant change. The authorizers should be looking at this. This is not something to put on an appropriation bill at 10:35 at night.

I listened to the gentleman, and a lot of what he said, I seem to agree with, but you have to really look at this and have hearings, and for those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments and think he is exactly right.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

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 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 requires new determinations.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

I accept the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chair, I strongly support the gentleman's amendment, and I appreciate him offering it.

Have you seen how difficult it is to get sanctions in Syria from Putin? sanctions against the Sudanese with regard to the genocide from China?

The gentleman is right. I accept the amendment and urge all Members to accept the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Consumer and financial fraud are major crimes in the country, and fraud investigations are a matter of high priority for the FBI.

I just think this issue ought to be addressed by the committee of jurisdiction. In this case, the Judiciary Committee, also the Financial Services Committee.

We do hear stories of, outside of military bases, veterans being exploited.

I am just concerned about what it actually means, and I think it ought to be looked at by the committee of jurisdiction and not by the Appropriations Committee at 11:15 at night. So for that reason I oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, we have now spent more than 15 hours debating and amending this bipartisan bill--and I appreciate Mr. Fattah's help in it--that sufficiently and responsibly funds Federal programs that provide for our safety and economic well-being.

This legislation ensures that our laws are enforced, that our businesses have the tools needed to succeed, and that uncertainty doesn't hinder progress.

This bill already provides targeted increases for counterterrorism and cybersecurity, fights the scourge of drug abuse, and bolsters American scientific innovation and manufacturing.

This is also a landmark bill for reducing violence against women. It strengthens services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking by funding above the current level and above the President's request for these programs.

In addition, it increases funding for victim assistance and programs that will address human trafficking.

After amendments, the bill includes $41 million for the Community Response Teams to address the sexual assault kit backlog program.

This is $6 million--17 percent--above the President's request.

The bill also includes $125 million for core DNA programs, including the Debbie Smith program.

This is $25 million above the President's request.

Moreover, we do all this while staying within our allocation for this bill--$400 million less than last year. Making commonsense reductions and eliminating waste wherever possible helps make a more efficient government that won't create undue doubt about the fiscal future of the Nation.

The bill has had bipartisan support throughout the process, and I believe it deserves bipartisan support today.

I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and pass H.R. 4660 tonight, and I yield back the balance of my time.