Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we will do that, I can assure the gentleman.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) about an amendment that we are prepared, when we go to conference, to make sure it is not in the bill, which is what he desired. Since his time has passed, and in fairness to others who missed that time, rather than going back, and there may be an objection, I just want to assure the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) that what he is offering, working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), we will accept that amendment and strike it when we go to conference, in fairness to the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I will do that and work with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano); and in order to protect the gentleman's interests, we will do that.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

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

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

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

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

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Before I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), let me say I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for the comment. To the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), we have been very fair. In fact, we have been very fair to every Member in the House, on both sides of the aisle; and I think the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) points are well taken. There are other amendments that have not been made in order, and I am not going to get into a debate. If the gentleman wants me to yield, I will yield to him; but I think we have been fair, and I did just want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for the comments.

Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) for bringing this matter to our attention. We are confident that the Department of Justice will soon resolve the issue, and I will continue to work with the gentleman to make sure this happens.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) is supposed to be here, but in the interim, just to briefly discuss the issues. The bill provides, as people know, the funding for the programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in their homes and community diplomacy. The overall bill today recommends a total of $37.9 billion in discretionary funding, which is $700 million above the enacted level of 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. That has been an issue that a lot of people have been deeply concerned about. It provides $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 will result in more than 2,500 new agents and analysts at the FBI to improve counterterrorism and counterintelligence and continue the fight on crime, drugs, corporate fraud and cybercrime. Also, there is $80 million for high-priority FBI technology needs and funding above the request for language translation. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. It really is not an appropriate amendment for an appropriations bill. It really should be dealt with by the authorizers. Also, the gentleman's amendment would allow the Department of Justice to prosecute cases involving the death penalty, but would then prohibit them from the sentencing phase. That is probably not a very good way to go. I understand what he is trying to do, but the Congress has enacted numerous bills dealing with these issues, and I think undoing these bills with a funding limitation is probably not the way to go. I would urge the gentleman to go through the authorizers. I know they are opposed to this amendment. So because of that, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and any amendments thereto be limited to 30 minutes to be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and by an opponent, and that would be, I think, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee accepts the amendment.

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendments because it proposes to change the existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part ``an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?

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

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the State Department has been in touch with the committee, and I want to share with the Members their position. They said that this is an amendment that they strongly oppose. They go on to say, we the State Department, have taken a hard stand against Libya, a country that supports terrorism and has a dismal human rights record in its election to chair the Commission on Human Rights. In calling for a vote, the State Department said that they forced members to take a stand on this issue, and everyone knew what the U.S. position was. They end by saying that withdrawing support by withholding part of our assessed contributions, thus accumulating arrears and eliminating funding for U.S. participation in these bodies, weakens our effectiveness and would be counterproductive. That is the position of the State Department. This amendment would prohibit U.S. contributions for activities funded within the budgets of the U.N. or its affiliated agencies whose decision-making bodies (e.g., commission) are chaired by a member state which supports acts of international terrorism (as determined by the Secretary under section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979). The Administration fully agrees that U.N. bodies should not be headed or chaired by member states which sponsor or support international terrorism. We have made these views abundantly clear over the past year. We took a hard stand against Libya, a country that supports terrorism and has a dismal human rights record, in its election to chair the Commission on Human Rights. In calling for a vote, we forced members to take a stand on this issue, and everyone knew the U.S. position. We also work hard to keep states that support international terrorism off the U.N. Security Council. But we strongly believe that withholding funding for bodies chaired by such states will not help us achieve our policy goals at the U.N. To effect change at the U.N., we need to remain fully engaged, which is our goal and our plan. Withdrawing support by withholding part of our assessed contributions--thus accumulating arrears--and eliminating funding for U.S. participation in these bodies weakens our effectiveness, and would be counterproductive.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 8\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).