Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. WOLF

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), is a good friend, and I appreciate all the good work he has done on Sudan and the Sudan Peace Act and other issues. It is painful to rise in opposition to this. This amendment is exactly what we did before on the Homeland Security bill. There was a vote on the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the Rogers bill, it was 106 for the Tancredo amendment, 322 against. We are facing this issue again. In this subcommittee we do not have jurisdiction over the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That is under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security appropriations and not this subcommittee. Also, I understand the gentleman's amendment could result, or probably would result, in the States not being able to receive funding under State and local law enforcement assistance. It could have a devastating impact on resources made available to State and local law enforcement and to citizens that are involved. It could result in States losing tens of millions of dollars in programs such as the Byrne program. People are complaining that there is not enough money in here for the Byrne program; this amendment would reduce that. The SCAAP program, the budget request has zeroed out SCAAP. We have it at $400 million. That would be impacted, drug courts, State prison drug treatment programs. So to punish the State and local law enforcement, I believe, is not the way. Also, this amendment really should have been offered as it was drafted and it is more appropriate for the Homeland Security bill. We do not have the jurisdiction over the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. So I oppose the amendment and would urge Members to vote no. This amendment is basically what we did several weeks ago, the amendment failed 322 against and 122 for.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, without really knowing completely what it does. Let me just say if anyone from the Justice Department is listening, is there an office of legislative counsel down there who can give opinions? Hello, is there a policy office down there? This would be a mistake, though. We are amending the PATRIOT Act, this is not an appropriations issue, on the floor of the House. The gentleman may very well be right, and he seems to have pretty good information, but he may not be. So for us to amend the PATRIOT Act in this bill, I think would be a mistake. This is not an appropriate amendment for an appropriations bill. This is clearly for the authorizers; this is clearly for the Department of Justice to come up and sit down with the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and discuss this with him. This is clearly for the legislative counsel of the Department of Justice to address. The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) may very well be right. The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) may not be right. But undoing a statute with a funding limitation at 6 o'clock at night without knowing what the ramifications are is not really the way to legislate. So because of that, not because the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) is wrong, I want to stress again he may very well be right; and then again, I want to stress he may not be, but I also want to stress that the Department of Justice is AWOL on this issue with regard to coming and sharing with the Congress, and with the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), some of the concerns. But in an appropriations bill, I do not think it would be appropriate to amend the PATRIOT Act, without having extensive and deep debate. So with that, I oppose the amendment. I would be glad, as I said, to set up meetings, should this amendment fail, with the Justice Department and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) so we can get to the bottom, to make sure whether what the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) said is true or not true. With that, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I understand the gentleman from Iowa is going to withdraw the amendment, and I appreciate that; but I think Members ought to understand that the gentleman raises a very, very valid and very, very important point. I voted for Fast Track. I voted for it without the administration asking me to vote for it. But he makes a very valid point, so I hope someone from the Trade Representative's Office is listening to what the gentleman is trying to say here. We have a 6.4 percent unemployment rate in the country; and there are many of these workers, moms and dads, who desperately want to return to work. So I do appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Iowa is going to withdraw it. I know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) is going to address the amendment. But the Trade Representative's Office ought to be paying attention to the King amendment and paying attention to what the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is saying, or else I think this issue will be dealt with later on. So I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I just would say I strongly support the amendment and want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for this. This has been a real problem, and I think what the gentleman has done is going to force this to be addressed. I know that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) has done an outstanding job with regard to the Saudi government. I saw the ``60 Minutes'' piece; and when we talk to these moms, these children have not been released. So I will vote for the amendment, support the amendment. I think it is a great amendment; and with that, I want to again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and all the others.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and any amendment thereto be limited to 60 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. The Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police wrote a letter and said, ``Dear Mr. Chairman'' to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), ``I am writing to advise you of the strong opposition of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police to an amendment to be offered today by Representative Maurice Hinchey to the appropriations measure on the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State which would effectively prohibit the enforcement of Federal law with respect to marijuana in States that do not provide penalties for the use of the drug for so- called `medical' reasons.'' It ends by saying, ``The Hinchey amendment threatens to cause a significant disruptive effect on the combined efforts of State and local law enforcement officials to reduce drug crime in every region of the Nation.'' In the year 2001, the Supreme Court issued a notwithstanding rule and held that marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act. It has no currently accepted medical use and treatment in the United States. There are other drugs that now can take its place. It cannot be used outside the FDA-approved DEA-registered research. Marijuana is the most abused drug in America. More young people are now in treatment for marijuana dependency and for alcohol than for all the other illegal drugs. Marijuana use also presents a danger to others beyond the users themselves. In a roadside study of reckless drivers who are not impaired by alcohol, 45 percent tested positive for marijuana. It sends the wrong message. What a message it sends. I urge the defeat of the amendment which was, I might say, defeated in the full committee. Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, Washington, DC, July 22, 2003. Hon. Mark Souder, Chairman, Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to advise you of the strong opposition of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police to an amendment to be offered today by Representative Maurice D. Hinchey to H.R. 2799, the appropriations measure for the Department of Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary, which would effectively prohibit enforcement of Federal law with respect to marijuana in States that do not provide penalties for the use of the drug for so-called ``medical'' reasons. In these States, Federal enforcement is the only effective enforcement of the laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana. Federal efforts provide the sole deterrent to the use of harder drugs and the commission of other crimes, including violent crimes and crimes against property, which go hand-in-hand with drug use and drug trafficking organizations, particularly in the State of California where marijuana is sometimes traded for precursor chemicals for methamphetamines, and in the State of Washington, which is a significant gateway for high-potency marijuana that can sell for the same price as heroin on many of our nation's streets. The Hinchey amendment threatens to cause a significant disruptive effect on the combined efforts of State and local law enforcement to reduce drug crime in every region of the country. On behalf of the more than 308,000 members of the Fraternal Order of Police, we urge its defeat. If I can be of any further help on this issue, please feel free to contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco through my Washington office. Sincerely, Chuck Canterbury, National President.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2799 and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I completely agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), completely; and I would ask Members to vote against the Hinchey amendment. The Hinchey amendment would weaken the bill and we would end up with exactly what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said. This is an issue of values. This is an issue of values that Members on both sides of the aisle have to deal with. I know that there have been powerful lobbyists and interests that have been hired in this town to work against what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is doing, and in essence they would come down here and ask you to probably support the Hinchey amendment. But it is an issue of values. Many times there is such garbage on these TV shows that a locality cannot preempt them, ``The Millionaire,'' ``The Bachelor,'' ``The Bachelorette.'' They do not cover the issues with regard to the famine in Africa or issues like that. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is right. I would ask Members on my side of the aisle, this is an issue of values. If you look at those concerned with the expansion in allowing one network, one network that may not very well repeat and have our values, be able to do this, what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said is exactly right. So I just second it. He said it better than anyone could. I urge Members to defeat the Hinchey amendment, because it would do exactly what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. We have a position from the Justice Department, and I will read a portion for Members. It says that ``The Justice Department asked the United States Supreme Court to reaffirm the right of Americans to recite voluntarily the Pledge of Allegiance. Two decisions of the Supreme Court have said without qualification that the Pledge is constitutional.'' And I, as I am sure most Members of this body are, am opposed to what the Court ruled and agree with what the Justice Department is saying here. Two decisions of the Supreme Court have said without qualification that the Pledge is constitutional. No Justice has expressed any other views. Schools across America and hundreds of thousands of school children have relied on the Supreme Court's repeated assurance as they have started their day with the Pledge. And they go on to say, and I agree, ``Our religious heritage has been recognized and celebrated for hundreds of years in a National Motto, 'In God we trust,' the National Anthem, the Declaration of Independence, and Gettysburg Address. As the Court has ruled again and again, our government and people can acknowledge the important role religion has played in America's foundation, history and character. ``The Justice Department,'' they go on to say, ``will vigorously defend our Nation's heritage and our children's ability to recite the Pledge.'' And I believe that Attorney General Ashcroft will do that. The concern of the amendment is, and I will submit the full statement of the Justice Department in the Record, they end by saying this: ``Consideration of this legislation at this point would probably be premature. Congress,'' they say, ``should consider whether the Supreme Court should be given the opportunity to review the Ninth Circuit's decision without intervening legislation complicating its analysis and the procedural posture of the case. For example, part of the government's case before the Court involves demonstrating that there is real harm to the Ninth Circuit's ruling.'' And this is the case. ``So if the Ninth Circuit's ruling is gutted legislatively, the Justice Department might find it harder to make that claim and could strengthen the hands of our opponents' efforts to diminish or eliminate the Federal Government's role in defending the Pledge of Allegiance. ``Also, if the Justice Department prevails in the Supreme Court, there is a chance that opponents might try to construe this statutory language as limiting the Federal Government's ability to spend funds in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.'' I do not agree with the Court's ruling, and I understand, and I was with my colleague here, but I certainly do not want to do anything in this bill that does, as Justice Department said, if it is gutted legislatively, the Justice Department might find it harder to make that claim and could diminish the strength of the hands of the opponents' efforts to diminish or eliminate the Federal Government's role in defending the Pledge of Allegiance. I think to do this on a legislative appropriations bill, we really have to go with the Justice Department, and I am going to rely on Attorney General Ashcroft to fight the Ninth Circuit's case and not do something that might, even though the meaning is good, work against the other way and result in something taking place that I certainly do not want to take place, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) and frankly, I do not think this House wants to take place; and I oppose the amendment. The Justice Department asked the United States Supreme Court to reaffirm the right of Americans to recite voluntarily the Pledge of Allegiance. Two decisions of the Supreme Court have said without qualification that the Pledge is constitutional. No Justice has expressed any other view. Schools across America, and hundreds of thousands of school children, have relied on the Supreme Court's repeated assurances as they have started their day with the Pledge. Our religious heritage has been recognized and celebrated for hundreds of years in the National Motto (``In God we trust''), National Anthem, Declaration of Independence, and Gettysburg Address. As the Court has ruled again and again, our government and people can acknowledge the important role religion has played in America's foundation, history and character. The Justice Department will vigorously defend our Nation's heritage and our children's ability to recite the Pledge. The Newdow case was about whether the inclusion of the phrase ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Newdow sued both the United States and the Elk Grove School District to have the Pledge declared unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit held that the Pledge is unconstitutional when its voluntary recitation is led by teachers in public elementary schools. On April 30, 2003, the Justice Department joined the Elk Grove School District and asked the Supreme Court to overrule the 9th Circuit (Newdow has also sought to overrule the 9th Circuit for an even broader invalidation of the Pledge). The latest filling by the Justice Department was on July 14, 2003. Some time in October, we will know whether the Supreme Court has decided whether or not to take the case. Consideration of this legislation at this point would probably be premature. Congress should consider whether the Supreme Court should be given the opportunity to review the 9th Circuit's decision without intervening legislation complicating its analysis and the procedural posture of the case. For example, part of the government's case before the Court involves demonstrating that there is a real harm to the 9th Circuit's ruling. So, if the 9th Circuit's ruling is gutted legislatively, the Justice Department might find it harder to make that claim and could strengthen the hands of our opponents' efforts to diminish or eliminate the Federal government's role in defending the Pledge of Allegiance. Also, if the Justice Department prevails in the Supreme Court, there is a chance that opponents might try to construe this statutory language as limiting the Federal government's ability to spend funds in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court ruling.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The bill includes $71.4 million for the United States to join UNESCO. There was a vote, I believe, in the last Congress whereby this issue was voted on. I believe it was offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). This was an initiative that President Bush announced last year. The U.S. withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 when the organization was rife with corruption and an anti-Western bias. The organization was mismanaged and was not working with regard to the national interest. Since that time, the Bush administration believes that the organization has undergone a number of reforms and the current leadership is committed to sustaining these gains and is committed to fundamental human rights and democratic principles. The Bush administration believes that participation in UNESCO will allow them to be engaged with the international partners on a host of critical issues. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to stand with the Bush administration on this initiative and reject the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman for his comments on the importance of the Police Corps. I have heard from several other Members on this issue, and I know that many of our colleagues would agree with the gentleman about the role this program has had in helping to provide an exceptional level of training for our Nation's police force. I support the program. It is a good program, and I will work with the gentleman and the Senate to ensure the program is well funded in the conference.

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

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, there was an analysis of the FCC's travel paid for by non-Federal sources. They found that agency officials took more than 2,500 industry-sponsored trips between May of 1995 and February of 2003, costing $2.8 million. Each of the current commissioners took trips. One commissioner took 44 trips during that time frame, including trips to Las Vegas, Hawaii, and London. When the issue came out, a member of the FCC staff said that it was because the Committee on Appropriations did not fund their travel. That is not accurate. And as a result of that, we wanted to do this. One commissioner, who has only been a commissioner since July of 2001, took 12 trips valued at over $14,000. One career employee took 104 trips valued at $150,000, including to France, Japan, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and Sweden. That means the regulatees are paying for the trips of the regulator. So the reason we are putting this in, I would say to my friend from Michigan, was that when this study came out, the FCC said the reason they had to do this was because they were not being adequately funded, which was not accurate and, therefore, they are adequately funded to travel. I think from a public interest point of view, to allow one person to take 104 trips valued at almost $150,000 to France, Japan, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and Sweden was why the subcommittee did that from a public policy point of view.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes. I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 2799, the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004. This bill provides funding for programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and communities, to the conduct of diplomacy around the world, to predicting the weather from satellites in outer space. The bill before the House today reflects a delicate balance of needs and requirements. We have drafted what I consider a responsible bill for fiscal year 2004 spending levels for the Departments and agencies under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We have had to carefully prioritize the funding in this bill and make hard choices about how to spend scarce resources. The bill before the House today recommends a total of $37.9 billion in discretionary funding, which is $700 million above the enacted level for fiscal year 2003 and $237 million above the President's request. For the Department of Justice, the bill provides $20.15 billion in discretionary funding, which is $1.15 billion above the request. The bill includes funding for Federal law enforcement agencies to perform traditional law enforcement duties and fight terrorism. The bill also provides more than $1 billion above the request to support State and local law enforcement crime-fighting efforts. It includes $4.64 billion for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an increase of $424 million above fiscal year 2003 and the same as the President's request. This funding will support almost 2,500 new agents and analysts in the FBI to improve counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts and to continue fighting violent crime, drugs, corporate fraud, and cybercrime. The bill includes $80 million for high-priority FBI technology needs and funding above the request for language translation and training programs. $2.16 billion is provided for the Drug Enforcement Administration, an increase of $237 million above fiscal year 2003 and $57 million above the comparable request to fight drug crime. The amount includes a transfer of the interagency crime and drug enforcement program under the DEA to consolidate drug law enforcement efforts, $25 million to establish a drug intelligence fusion center to allow agencies to share realtime investigative data, and funding above the request to support 939 new positions, including 434 new DEA and FBI agents. $3.5 billion is provided for proven State and local law enforcement crime-fighting programs, which is $1.2 billion above the request. When combined with funding provided in the homeland security bill, the committee is providing more than $2 billion above the request for State and local crime control and domestic preparedness funding. The bill restores funds for programs that were proposed to be eliminated, including $500 million for the Byrne formula program, $400 million for the local law enforcement block grant program, and $400 million for SCAAP. The bill also includes $179 million dollars for DNA backlog elimination and crime lab upgrades, which is very important to the administration; and $388 million for violence against women prevention and prosecution programs, and $462 million for juvenile delinquency prevention and accountability programs. For the Department of Commerce, the bill provides $5.3 billion, a decrease of $475 million below the 2003 level, which is largely a result of the reduction of lower-priority spending in NOAA, and elimination of funding for the Advanced Technology Programs. The bill includes $319 million for the Economic Development Assistance Programs to assist communities struggling with long-term economic downturns, as well as sudden and severe economic hardship, the same level as 2003; $1.24 billion for the Patent and Trademark Office to reduce the growing backlog in patent processing, $57 million above 2003; $494 million for the international trade agencies to negotiate and verify free trade agreements, $38 million above 2003; $3.05 billion for the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, including $786 million for the National Weather Service to improve forecasting. The Judiciary: The bill provides $5.2 billion for the Federal Judiciary, $304 million over fiscal year 2003 and $236 million above the request, to process an all-time-high number of criminal and bankruptcy cases in and of offenders under supervision of probation officers. The bill continues funding for the renovation of the Supreme Court building and Judiciary's critical, vital security requirements. For the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the recommendation includes $8.4 billion, an increase of $570 million over 2003 and $223 million below the request. The committee's 2004 recommendation for foreign affairs agencies is $2.26 billion above the fiscal year 2000 level. This is an historic increase of 37 percent in just 4 years. Within this total we are providing $1.5 billion, the full request, and $200 million above fiscal year 2003, for worldwide security improvements and replacement of vulnerable facilities. The Department is making great strides to expand and improve the worldwide security construction program, and that is good news for the safety and security of thousands of Americans and foreign nationals who represent us all in the diplomatic frontlines overseas. The bill also includes funding to support over 600 new positions to improve diplomatic security, border security, and diplomatic readiness. For the related agencies, the bill includes $2.2 billion, $83 million above the current level; $746 million for the Small Business Administration, an increase of $14 million over 2003, for important lending and assistance programs for the Nation's businesses; $183 million for the Federal Trade Commission fully funding the Commission's National Do-Not-Call list to protect Americans from intrusive telemarketing calls; $338.8 million for the Legal Services Corporation; $841.5 million for the Securities and Exchange Commission to protect American investors and implement the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In closing, Mr. Chairman, this is a quick summary of the recommendation before the committee today. The bill gives no ground in the ongoing efforts to fight crime and terrorism and restores the needed help to State and local law enforcement and to address their most pressing needs. The bill also includes funds to protect our diplomats working overseas, increases funding for international trade agencies to negotiate and verify free trade agreements to protect American jobs. It is our best effort to make a difficult choices to match needs with scarce resources. I want to personally thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking member, who has been very effective and a valued partner and colleague on this bill. I appreciate his principled commitment and thorough understanding of the programs in the bill. I also want to thank members of the subcommittee for their help, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo). I also want to particularly thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), full committee chairman, and also the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member, for their help. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) has been as fair as one could possibly be, and quite frankly I think he has been an outstanding chairman of the full committee. No one can complain about his leadership. I also want to thank the subcommittee staff for their relentless efforts in producing this bill. The staff did a fantastic job with what was a very difficult allocation, and we should commend them. I first want to say thanks to Mike Ringler, the clerk of the committee, who leads long nights and made sure everything flowed smoothly as the process went forward. I also want to thank his wife and his family for the time away. I want to thank John Martens, whose wife recently had a baby and he was part of it, and is always running on full steam even though he has long nights and has been away from home during this period of time. I also want to thank Christine Ryan Kojac, who has been instrumental in putting together the Commerce section of the bill. She has done a lot of work to help the country that most people will never even know about. I also thank Leslie Albright, who has fought to make sure funding for the Department of Justice and FBI remains adequate to protect the country. Again because of her efforts, bad things will not happen; people may not know why, but it is because of good work that Leslie has done. I also want to thank Anne Marie Goldsmith and Alan Lang, the subcommittee's detailees who have stepped into the subcommittee and done terrific jobs. Both have been able to use their backgrounds to significantly contribute to the subcommittee and have always had a good attitude. I also want to thank Dan Scandling and Janet Shaffron, on my staff, and J.T. Griffin and Neil Seifring, in my personal staff, for their efforts. Finally, I want to thank Rob Nabors of the minority staff who has been there with Mike every step of the way as the team has been working on this bill. Also David Pomerantz, Lucy Hand, and Nadine Berg from the Democratic staff who were willing to pitch in. It is a good bill, Mr. Chairman, and I would urge all Members to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I absolutely am. These are provisions that have been carried before. The gentleman is the new chairman of that committee. Before we do that next year, we will sit down with the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing these to our attention and for not striking.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), my good friend.