Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I asked to go to Cuba. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I asked to go. We were denied. We were denied by Castro for the ability to go visit church leaders in Cuba. Yet, I constantly see, and I guess we are not supposed to mention the names of those in the other body, different members of the other body sort of floating into Havana and coming back out. We were not given the ability to go. The State Department was not able to help us. Castro would not let us go. So it would be a little more objective and a little more fair if those who are opposed to what Castro stands for who basically are taking the Reagan doctrine that he took to Eastern Europe there were able to go. Even in the Soviet Union under the dark days of Krushchev, we were able to go; and when we went, we brought computers in and different things. So I just want the record to show there has not been a case that I know of of any Member in this body, and there are good people on both sides, I know both sides do not favor Castro, but I have never seen a Member from this body who strongly opposes and speaks out against Castro to ever be given a visa to visit. You even have to go through the pro-Castro groups to ask for an opportunity to go. So I think the record ought to show that I want to go. And for those of my colleagues who have been and feel that they speak a little bit and have some influence, pick a time and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I will go and we will go into the prisons; we will go into the churches. But the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I have never been able to go. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Still allowed is food, medicine, medical supplies, equipment; receive only radio equipment for reception. It does not eliminate humanitarian aid. So the amendment prohibits implementation of a regulation that is still under development. This regulation, as I understand it, would provide several categories of items that BIS has approved for export to Cuba, the eligibility requirements for gift parcels that can be sent to Cuba without a license. The Commerce Department had told us that based on input from the public since they published the regulation and in consultation with the State Department, the Department is revising the rule. Castro has a number of people that are in prison today, many speaking out for human rights; and I think it would be important to send a message; and, as a result of that, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 4754 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 701, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except: Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of the debate; Amendments 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 20; Amendments 5 and 6, each of which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; Amendment 2, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Pitts regarding Department of State Diplomatic and Consular programs; An amendment by Mr. Wolf regarding the Sudan; An amendment by Mr. Baca regarding video violence; An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding an across-the-board cut of total appropriations; An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding an across-the-board cut of appropriations not required to be appropriated; An amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding the Court of Federal Claims; An amendment by Mr. Burgess regarding the Federal Trade Commission; An amendment by Mr. Weiner regarding Jerusalem; An amendment by Ms. Millender-McDonald regarding women's business centers; An amendment by Mr. Inslee regarding Justice Department detention of individuals; An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding litigation support contracts; An amendment by Mr. Sherman regarding enemy combatants, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Wolf or Mr. Serrano regarding SBA microloans, which shall be debatable for 12 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Flake regarding Cuba, which shall be debatable for 60 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Smith of Michigan regarding NIST and Contributions to International Organizations, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes; An amendment by Mr. Sherman regarding preemption of State laws, which shall be debatable for 20 minutes. Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member designated in this request, or the Member who caused it to be printed in the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or the Committee of the Whole. Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. All points of order against each of the amendments shall be considered as reserved pending completion of debate thereon; and each of the amendments may be withdrawn by its proponent after debate thereon. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described. The Speaker pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute of the 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This is a bad amendment. It will be bad for the country. Marijuana is the most abused drug in the United States. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, more young people are now in treatment for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or for all other legal drugs combined. The amendment does not address the problem of marijuana abuse and possibly, perhaps probably, makes it worse by sending a message to young people that there can be health benefits from smoking marijuana. In testimony before the Committee on Government Reform, the DEA provided an example of how marijuana trafficking is occurring under the guise of medicine. And there is so much more I could say, and we have the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) here and the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose). This is not a good amendment. The message that this sends to the young people is absolutely wrong. This was overwhelmingly defeated the last time it came up. I urge defeat of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) 30 seconds.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. A similar amendment was offered on DHS, and it failed by a vote of 148 to 259, so we are back to exactly the same thing. SCAAP funds are not available to States that violate current law, and the Justice Department tells us the gentleman's amendment would have no impact. I understand what the gentleman is trying to do. In the State of Virginia, we have a program where our State police are basically deputized to in essence enforce the immigration laws. But it is like Don Quixote. So what I would recommend the gentleman to do, and I mentioned this to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) earlier, the gentleman and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and others ought to sit down with the administration, with the Department of Justice and also with the Department of Homeland Security and fashion a regulation in that sense. I think there are other ways of doing this. I think you are just sort of coming up against it. My sense may be wrong. Maybe the 148 will go to 152, I do not know. But I think the gentleman really wants to be successful and do something. However, the Department of Justice says the Tancredo amendment would have no effect on those who receive SCAAP grants. I am not going to take a lot more time, but I would urge the gentleman, and I will be glad to help the gentleman set up a meeting with BICE and with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to see how to do this. But since it does nothing and says nothing and is in essence the same amendment I believe was offered on homeland security, I think the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) defeated by 148 for and 259 against, for that reason I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and offer to work with the gentleman, BICE, and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) to set up a meeting.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, when we had a vote on the floor, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) offered the amendment to not join UNESCO. I supported the amendment. I did not believe that we should have joined UNESCO. The decision was made by the Bush administration. Also, on that vote, if my memory serves me, I was on the losing side. I think it may have been Lantos v. Hyde. I voted with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and we were on the losing side. History will have to check the exact timing of that vote. The bill includes $71.9 million for the U.S. share of funding for membership in UNESCO, and I have had serious questions about UNESCO. UNESCO was rife with corruption and problems. The Bush administration, who wanted to join, has a very good and a very tough ambassador, a kind of a no-nonsense person. I have met her and think highly of her. The President announced 2 years ago at the United Nations, and I remember seeing the speech, that the U.S. would rejoin UNESCO. The First Lady, Mrs. Bush, addressed the UNESCO plenary session in Paris, France, last year. The U.S. withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 when the organization was rife with corruption and anti-Western bias, and I think the current ambassador, I have spoken to her, is going to make sure they do not go back to the corruption and anti-Western bias. It was mismanaged, and she has pledged that she would stay after that. Since that time, they have undergone reforms and the current leadership is committed. They say it stands for fundamental human rights and democratic principles; and participation in the UNESCO, many say, will allow us to be engaged as international partners in a number of issues. This year, the U.S. was elected to the UNESCO legal committee, the intergovernmental biotechnics committee, and other committees. I think now, although I do tend to agree with the gentleman, I think it is a fact and I think he raises some very, very valid points, but to strike funding for UNESCO just after the Bush administration has joined, just after President Bush's wife, Mrs. Bush, has spoken at a plenary session, I think would send a wrong message. So I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment out of respect to the Bush administration, having been on the losing side. But we are going to watch this. We are going to watch and see what UNESCO does, and I am glad this issue was raised by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). But in light of the vote on the floor and in light of the Bush administration request and the President's speech, and in light of the First Lady attending and addressing the plenary session, I would ask defeat of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for raising this issue, because it is a concern for Members on my side of the aisle and for many others, and also for constituents of mine. I want to assure the Members and the gentleman that the subcommittee is aware of these issues and will do everything we can to protect the rights of Federal employees. Ms. Dominguez has promised us, and I went back and I looked in the hearing record the other day, that the commission has no intention of closing offices or cutting jobs of current employees and that she will come to the subcommittee before spending any money on the call center or any other reorganization proposal. So I completely agree.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve a point of order.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. My concern is on the germaneness of the amendment. The function that this is involved with has been transferred to Homeland Security, and so I rise in opposition to it. It would earmark funding for litigation support contracts, really earmarking just the Department of Litigation Support Contracts, but I believe all this function has been transferred also to the Department of Homeland Security out of the Justice Department.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.