chew on some mold. of course i wouldn't do that. i write for 250 milligrams of penicillin. i don't write chew on mold a couple times a day. mr. chairman, why don't we have therapeutic tobacco? nicotine, one of the substances in tobacco, purified is actually useful as a drug to treat knock term frontal lobe epilepsy. no one writes a prescription, smoke a couple of cigarettes and cure your epilepsy, but that's what we're being asked to do. worse than that, this blurs the line in those states that have gone beyond medical marijuana. for instance, in colorado under amendment 64 a person can grow as many plants -- i'm sorry, six plants under the new law for general use but if it's medical marijuana, you can grow as many plants as you want as long as you can prove you have a medicinal use. how is the d.e.a. going tone force anything when under this amendment they are prohibited

from going into that person's house growing as many plants as they want because that's legal under the medical marijuana part of the law, not under the ew law? mr. chairman, this is not the right place for this the memorandum from this administration clearly states the department of justice does not prioritize prosecution for medical marijuana. clearly states it. they don't do it. this is a solution in search of a problem that opens many other doors to the dangers of marijuana. i yield back. mr. wolf: i yield the balance of my time to dr. fleming of louisiana. the chair: the gentleman isres. recognized. the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes. mr. fleming: i thank my friend, mr. wolf. first of all, let's be clear. marijuana is an addicting substance. it's schedule 1, it's against federal law, it was passed that y into the c.s. namplet 1970

and what this amendment would do is, it wouldn't change the law, it would just make it difficult, if not impossible for the d.e.a. and department of justice to enforce the law. now members on my side have been criticizing president obama for selective enforcement of obamacare. and for immigration and other laws like that. so now we're going to start going down the road of selective enforcement for our drug policy? now, medicinal marijuana. what is it exactly? folks, i can tell you, it is nothing more than the end run around the laws against the legalization of marijuana there is nothing medical or medicinal about it. it is not accepted by physicians. oh, somebody claims it may do something for glaucoma, perhaps. maybe it will, maybe it won't. but there are a lot more drugs that do a much better job than

that and are much safer. but the most important thing i want everybody to know, mr. chairman, today, is the fact that marijuana is highly addicting. it is the most common diagnosis for addiction in admissions to rehab centers for young people. why in the world do we want to take away drug enforcement and leave our young people out there vulnerable? yes, you say it can only be used by dulls. if it's sitting around on shelves at home, kids will get into it. we're already hearing abouticalering -- colorado, fourth graders dealing with it. we're hearing about more poisoningings in the emergency room. if you look at other places that have gone down this road, like alaska, they retracted their legalization. i don't think we should accept that this is history in the making and we're not going to go back. amsterdam have put a lot more restrictions back in the control even in that very, very liberal nation. for that and many reasons i

would just say tonight from a legal standpoint, it is -- this amendment is -- would not be constitutional. our laws are currently constitutional, as found so in 2005 by the supreme court. and this is an extremely dangerous drug for our children and future adults and future generations. with that, i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expyred. the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. >> is this the close of the debate? the chair: the gentleman is correct -- is correct. mr. rohrabacher: over half the states have gone through every argument presented and decided against what you just heard. there are doctors in every one of those states that participated in a long debate over this and found exactly the opposite of what we've heard today. some people are suffering and if a doctor feels that he needs to prescribe something to alleviate that suffering, it is immoral nor government to get

in the way. that's what's happening. we -- the state governments have recognized that a doctor has a right to treat his patient any way he sees fit and so did our founding fathers. i ask for support for my amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. >> i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will dez eport the amendment. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 20 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. grayson f florida. the chair: without objection the amendment will be read. the clerk: before the short title add the following new section. section, none is of the funds made available by this act may be used by the federal bureau of prisons to solicit officer -- solicit, offer or award a contract in which the federal government is required to provide a minimum number of inmates to a private correctional institution or a

private detention center. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. grayson: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is simple, it prohibits the federal bureau of prisons from solicitting or awarding a contract, i'm talking about a new contract, not an existing contract, to a for-profit prison that guarantees the number of prisoners that will be housed there. i believe it's not only bad policy but immoral to guarantee that our government will incarcerate a specific number of people so a for-profit entity can guarantee a profit margin. whether or not we agree on the main impetus for incarceration, punishment, rehabilitation or some combination, we can agree that a perverse conflict of interest such as the one this amendment addresses should not exist to guarantee a profit on human bodies. this amendment seeks to

eliminate any potential for repeat of the kids for cash scandal that unfolded in 2008. that is since two judges from pennsylvania accepted money from the builder of two private, for-profit juvenile facilities in return for imposing harsh sentences on jufles brought before their courts. all told, those two individuals received $2.6 million in payments from the managers at that company. american citizens' freedom and the length of a convicted person's prison sentence should never be a line item on a business sheet. i would hate to imagine a world in which certain segments of society could honestly request whether or not they're being quota d just to fill a guaranteed to a for-profit prison. i may not like for-profit prison bus this amendment would not ban them nor have any effect on existing contracts that the federal government has already entered into. what it does do is ban the practice of guaranteeing under

new contracts a specific number of human beings that will be jailed or imprisoned in a given year. i think that's wrodge. i hep that you do too. i urge a yes vote on this amendment and i yield the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek -- seek recognition? >> i have serious reservations about the amendment. mr. wolf: the bureau of prisons thinks it may be abpro. the chair: does the gentleman seek to strike the last word in mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. wolf: i'm concerned about what this means for -- meaners in bureau of prisons. i'm inclimbed to maybe take the amendment. i think that's one of the concerns, somebody comes in i will knowing, but reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman

eserves. mr. grayson: would the gentleman yield for a question? mr. wolf: sure. mr. grayson: the author of this amendment, me, is open to whatever ameliorating amendments the gentleman may offer. mr. wolf: that's probably not a bad idea. let me turn to mr. goodlatte, chairman of the full judiciary committee. mr. goodlatte: i have reservations about this that are very significant. i oppose this amendment very strongly in its current form. all private prison contracts provide for guaranteed population. without this the contracts -- contractors would operate at a significant risk which could only be addressed by significantly raising their corpting cost and such language would adversely impact competition. would they be willing to propose a 1,000-bed facility

without a guarantee in lack of competition would likely result in higher costs. but here's the thing, the federal bureau of prisons has both prisons operated by the government and pris that they privately contract for. there's never an intans where they're going to house somebody just for the purpose of meeting the obligations here. they -- if the prison population declines and they have a contractual obligation to house them in a private prison, they'll reduce the population in the government-operated facility. the bureau wants to retain the ability to strategically prepare and elist solicitations to allow for guaranteed population minimums. also with regard to children there are so few children in the federal prison population because we don't want to put them in a federal operated prison with adults. we usually contract out for the incarceration of juveniles. and to pass this amendment would make that increasingly

ore difficult. mr. grayson: would the gentleman agree that the principles of guaranteeing a contract would garen fwide giving them a certain dollar amount which i will concede my amendment doesn't prohibit. all my amendment prohibits is guaranteeing them a certain number of bodies. would the gentleman concede that allowing them to get their guaranteed contract through dollar amounts would achieve the same purpose. mr. goodlatte: it would not aheave the purpose of having a competitive bid process for -- for the operation of prisons. if you were to accept that premise, you'd have the federal government offering contracts and then if they are not utilizing those contracts, it's the taxpayers that are going to suffer the loss as a result of that. as long as the federal government, which operates a very large prison system, has both publicly run facilities

and privately -- and private contracts you won't sthre problem the gentleman's amendment is concerned with addressing and that is somehow people being incars rayed simply for the purpose of meeting the contractule obligations. the chair: the gentleman from virginia controls the time. mr. wolf: i'm going to rise in opposition to the ealt. there are so many questions, i think chairman goodlatte raises them. we're open to work with you as we go through it. it's a quarter after 9:00, there's nobody there at the bureau of prisons, we're not going to get a constructive answer. i'm going to oppose the amendment. mr. goodlatte was so convincing, and secondly, we'll be willing to work with you, though, to see, because i understand what you're trying to do, i'm sympathetic to it but for now with the way it's drafted, i oppose the amendment and ask for a no vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i hate to be the bearer of bad news but the prison system that the federal government is operating, which has been growing exponentially over the last decade is now -- has now gobbled up, by the time we pass this bill, you know, about a fourth of the d.o.j. budget, right? an ar is -- it's like cade game, it keeps eating money. there are very interesting things going on in the land. . there are democrats and republicans, the most conservative people in our country and most liberal who are saying things that are fascinating. like we need to stop incarcerating so many people. that america really should not be the leading nation in the

world in the percentage of people we put in jail, and that, you know, maybe we need to rethink part of what we are doing. we have problems where we have very violent criminals who we can't seem to have enough prison space for because we are locking up nonviolent prisoners, people, for things we should probably find some way to have diversions for. we have had multiple amendments today for diversion programs. you might not called them that, but that's what they are. drug courts, veterans courts. these are vehicles to divert people from the prison system because we know something about the prison system. we know that if you put someone in there, the most likely circumstance is that they are going to go back again and again and again, and they are going to go back for increasingly more serious and more violent activity because the one thing that's happening

in the prisons is that they are becoming educational circumstances for people who are involved in a vocation that's essentially anti-social. so i'm not dealing with the amendment itself because the chairman is right. we need to know what it says. we need to act in a responsible way. but we should not be in any way under some prenotion that we are going to continue to move as a country just to put more and more people away. it doesn't make sense. and it's politicians that are supposed to be leading the most powerful nation in the world, we need to start to make some sense on this point. i would be glad to yield. >> i agree with the gentleman. that's why last year we launched an overcriminalization of federal law task force and we are looking at prison overpopulation and who is getting sentenced and what kind of alternative sentencing should be looked at and what

kind of attention should be given to prisoners when they are in prison so we reduce the recidivism rate which also can reduce prison population. mr. goodlatte: there are a number of states seeing declining populations in their prisons, and they are not getting high recidivism rates. we should look at those states and find out what they are doing. mr. fattah: i can tell you those states. those are states that the chairman and the former ranking member, mola han, and now myself, have been investing in in the justice reinvestment programs to help states think through how to do that and operate in a safer environment. i yield back the remainder of my time. i hope that the gentleman would withdraw his amendment and work with the chairman and i and we'll see to what degree we might be able to meet his concerns. mr. grayson: based upon the kind reputations of the chair and based upon the kind reputations of the ranking member, i ask for unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

the chair: is there objection? without objection, the mendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. holding of north carolina at thend of the bill before the short title, add the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to transfer or temporarily assign employees to the office of the department attorney for

purposes of screening clemency applications. the chair: mursuent to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. holding: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my amendment prohibits funds from this bill being used to transfer or detail employees to the office of the pardon attorney. the president possesses the constitutional authority to grant repreeves and pardons for offenses against the united states. however, in the first five years of this president's administration, president obama granted fewer pardons and commutations than any of his recent predecessors. earlier this year the deputy attorney general took the unprecedented step of asking the defense bar for assistance in recruiting candidates for executive klemmency. specifically federal drug offenders. the justice department intends to beef up its pardon attorneys office to process applications

for commutations of sentence for federal drug offenders. this is clear. this amendment would prohibit that. the constitution gives the president the pardon power, but the fact that the president has finally chosen to use that power and use it solely on behalf of drug offenders shows that this is little more than a political ploy by the administration to bypass congress yet again. this is not as the founders intended an exercise of the power to provide for exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt. but these are the pardon power to benefit an entire class of offenders who were duly convicted in a court of law and are serving a sentence. it's also just the latest example of executive overreach by this administration. i'm urging support of this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania eek recognition?

mr. fattah: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: this is impractical. if there was a resignation in the office and you needed to have a detailee, it would be prohibited from this amendment. the last thing we would want the president using such extraordinary power without the benefit of proper staff and due diligence. i yield back and ask for opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. holding: mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the full committee, mr. goodlatte. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman for yielding. no one denies the constitutional power of the president to grant clemency. the question here is whether this power is being used by the president of the united states as a way around the enforcement of the laws passed by the ongress when you invite mass

representations of defense attorneys that thousands of their clients are entitled to have clemency granted to them. that's not a proper use of this power and the congress should not fund that office for that purpose. i think the gentleman's amendment is well advised and i strongly support it and urge my colleagues to vote yes on the holding amendment. yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields ack. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. fattah: i seek a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina will be postponed.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: many amendment offered by mr. flores of texas at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement executive order 135-4775, federal register 43023 relating to the stewardship of oceans, coasts, and the great lakes, including the national ocean policy developed under such executive order. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from texas, mr. flores, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. flores: mr. chair, i rise

today to offer a simple amendment to address an overreach by the executive branch of our government. my amendment bands the use of federal funds for the implementation of executive order 13547. executive order 13547 signed in 2010 requires the safety free-plus bureaucracy zone the ocean and the sources thereof. this amendment addresses a critical executive branch encroachment into the powers of congress set forth in our constitution. if activities being conducted under e.o. 13547 have not been authorized by congress nor have they -- appropriations been made by congress to fund these activities. mr. chair, since 2010 this body has voted in support of this amendment in a bipartisan manner several times. today i'm offering this amendment again because concerns have been raised that the effects of the recently created national ocean policy may extend well beyond restricting ocean activities.

i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> time -- pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i yield to the gentlelady from california. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. miss caps: i rise in opposition to this harmful amendment. mrs. capps: i rise in opposition to this harmful amendment. our oceans are not just important to coastal regions like i one i represent on the central coast of california. they are important to our nation as a whole. the many uses such as tourism, shipping, construction are increasingly complex and require a cohesive decisionmaking process. that's why i support funding for the national ocean policy which simply aims to coordinate marine activities in har honey with existing laws. by reducing redundiancies and conflicting government actions, we can remove burdens on ocean

stakeholders and better focus on the efforts on the more serious issues jeopardizing ocean health. we can give our local communities the ability to make informed choices about how they use their marine environment. a vote against the national ocean policy a vote against government efficiency through smart ocean planning. i urge a no vote on this amendment. yield back. mr. fattah: i yield time to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. farr: thank you very much. i rise in opposition to this. i have been around when this national ocean policy was before congress. heard in the committee. in fact the commission that created it was created by congress. and it was -- members were appointed by president george bush. those members included members of the oil and gas industry and they came up with recommendations that we need to do the conflicts of sea resolution. that's what the national ocean policy does, gets all the federal agencies together. bought they are together and can talk about what they each

do that are in conflict, it supports consistent with the gulf of mexico alliance which is supported by governor perry and the gulf state governors. it supports activities at texas a&m. they signed a letter opposing any legislation would undermine the national ocean polcy. it affects the texas coastal programs based in houston. they have also signed a letter in opposition to this amendment. local example of where national ocean policies worked as the army corps of engineers, navy, noaa, and u.s. geological and nasa have all worked on sensitive shorelines just north and south of houston in key destination and they were able to resolve the critical conflicts between these agencies and also would impact on the port of houston. so there are reasons why you want to do -- avoid conflict of interest. this is a great one to do t we do it in law enforcement. we do it in firefighting. we ought to do it in our conflicts in the oceans.

oppose this amendment. mr. fattah: i would like to yield some time to the gentlelady from the great state of maine. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you very much. thank you for he yielding the time and recognizing that it is a great state of maine. i want to oppose this amendment which would block funding for the implementation of national ocean polcy. this important policy seeks to improve the coordinated management our oceans and coasts to address the most pressing issue facing our oceans, our resources, and coastal communities. i happen to live on an island 12 miles off the coast of maine. i am well aware of the need for an improved coordination between federal agencies. and the inclusion of stakeholders in the policymaking process. the national ocean policy brings together a variety of agencies at a single table and it improves government efficiency and decision outcomes. the research conducted upped this policy supports tens of millions of jobs which in turn generate billions of dollars for our coastal communities. for example, in maine, working waterfronts are critically

important to maine's coastal economy. these working waterfronts are critical for a variety of water dependent activities like ports, fishing docks that are at the heart of our coastal culture and economy. these water dependent businesses, many of which are icons in maine, are struggling to maintain their access to water in the face of increasing development pressure. the national ocean policy will provide a framework to preserve waterfront access to traditional groups like fishermen. it's an extremely important issue for fishermen and the residents of maine. one of the constituents in my district, richard nelson, a lobsterman says, the ocean is our workplace. our cultural her taje. it economically sustains us and our extended communities. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting wise stewardship of our nation's oceans and our ocean policy by opposing this amendment.

mr. fattah: reclaiming my time. without oceans we're going to have trouble liveing. we have some responsibility. we now for the first time ever have an ocean policy the gentleman offers a proposal to prohibit the implementation of a policy to create better health for our coastal communities and for our oceans. i reject the amendment and hope the house will do likewise. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized. >> how much time do i have left? the chair: three and three uarters minutes. >> now that you've heard arguments against my amendment, it's important to hear the history of it. the -- congress did act to establish an ocean commission. it was appointed by president bush and made recommendations. mr. flores: those recommendations were considers

under the 180th, 109th, 110th, and 111th congresses, and congress elected to take no actions under those congress sms therefore you should the constitution that no further activity take place. the president has wired around congress by establish -- signing this executive order to establish a commission to spend money for which no funds have been appropriated and under which it has no statutory authority. i've got 93 interests that include fishing, agriculture and other industries that are concerned about the impact of this federal overreach. again this is a simple amendment that protects the -- stands up for the constitutional rights of this congress to create the statutes under which this activity can be conducted. we may not be against ocean planning but we are for -- what we are for, though is the constitution and to stand up for our congressional rights to enact the statutes related to

this activity. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields ack. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will reminority amendment. -- the chair: the clerk will eport the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. poe of texas. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the fol logue, section 541, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to enforce section 221 of title 13, united

states code with respect to the american community survey. the chair: pursuant to thed orer of the house from today, the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: thank you, mr. chairman. the american community survey, first of all, is not the census. what it is is a survey conducted by the census bureau of a portion of the american population every year. it has 48 questions. and those questions are intrusive. and there is, in by -- in my opinion, intimidation by the community survey workers to get this information from citizens. a woman, a single mother in my district, told me that one of the workers came by her house, started peeping in the window, knocking on the door, sat in the street, waiting for her to come home from work to get this information from her.

the information is intrusive, it violates the right of privacy in my opinion. it asks questions like, how many times have you been married? does anyone in your household have a mental problem? how many toilets do you have? 48 questions, very intrusive. my amendment is very simple. it prohibits the federal government from enforcing potential fine against a person for failure to fill out this information. right now if a person doesn't fill out this information, the community survey workers tell the citizens that they can be fined $5,000. do we really want to fine americans $5,000 for not telling the government how many toilets they have in their home? there are other ways this information can be gathered by the government without being intrusive, without violating the right of privacy. i would ask members to support my amendment to prohibit a fine being imposed on the american community survey. i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i will not take more than 50 seconds. simply put, the notion that we as a country is better off having less information defies most logic that i can think of at this hour of the night. i think more information is probably good and i would ask that we vote against this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. poe: i would make this simple comment. this information can be gathered by other means without violating the right of privacy of citizens. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the

gentleman from -- >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the chair very much and i -- my amendment is a simple amendment as well that i can imagine nothing more than bipartisan support. first of all, i want to again thank the chairman, mr. wolf, and the ranking member for their steadfastness and leadership on this appropriations. and to again acknowledge, mr. wolf in his service and tenure

not only to his district but to the nation. i believe that we all have come for the common understanding that this nation is founded on principles of due process and justice and as well the recognition that we have a system of criminal justice laws that there are people who will be incarcerated. i'm pleased to serve on the judiciary committee, where my chairman, chairman goodlatte, established an overcriminalization committee. with that in mind, it is to discuss how do you look at laws and be fair to those who may be the victim and also the person who may be the perpetrator or look at the different charges and various offenses and determine whether or not today, 2014, they are still appropriate. my amendment is an amendment that addresses the question of the existing authority of the

torney general to manage executive responsibility under 28 u.s.c. 509 and 28 u.s.c. 509 as it relates to authorizing the performance by any other officer and as it relates to all functions of agencies and employees. it speaks to the prison overcrowding. it's as straightforward, as i indicated. it makes a positive contribution to the problem of overcrowding in our prison. the united states incarcerates nearly 25% of the world's inmates even though it only has 5% of the world's population. 30 years ago there were less than 30,000 inmates in the federal system, today there are nearly 216,000, an increase of 2%. i've worked on this issue for almost two decades. in the early 1990's, i offered amendments called the good time early release legislation to look at providing relief to inmates who had been in the federal system, had reached the

age of 45, had in fact not been engaged in any violent crime with a weapon and had no violent incidents while they were incourse rated and made the recommendation that we would have an opportunity to release those older inmates. i'm glad to say that senator kennedy had the same kind of legislation and over the years we managed to get it into the authorization bill. but as i indicated, no other country imprisons as large a percentage of its population. the prison system costs $6.5 billion. that's part of the appropriations today my amendment will alleviate this overcrowd big clarifying that nothing in this bill prohibits the attorney general from exercising his statutory authorities to expand the use of executive clemency to address prison overcrowding and address injustices as long as he does so in a manner consistent with the law and the constitution. much of the overcrowding of our federal prison system is a direct result of a

proliferation of offenses carrying a mandatory minimum. i again applaud the judiciary committee. hundred e we had the to one disparity between crack and powder cocaine. we changed that along with the senate. the president signed that legislation. we now know the cost of imprisoning so many nonviolent offenders is fiscally unsustainable and morally unjustifiable. my legislation that i offered before the good time early relief was for nonviolent offenders. it will take the combined efforts of policymakers, reform advocates and private citizens to solve the problem. is a ssure you there is bar of lawyers that are interested in making sure that they are treated fair i under the law. my legislation gives life to this by allowing the attorney general to act within the law.

example is parents in mobile, alabama, arrested in 1992. he receive and enormous sentence, first-time offender and received a life sentence. these are the kinds of issues that can be addressed if we're acting within the law. my amendment simply says to act within the law using the authority that's given and address the requests -- questions of overincarceration of persons and give people a second chance. i ask my colleagues to support my amendment and i reserve my time. the chair: the screalt's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wolf: strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: we accept the amendment. we understand it says you must follow the law and we accept the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the sque on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

s. jackson lee: i thank you. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. massey of kentucky. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used in ontravention of the legitimacy of industrial hemp research, public law number 113-79 of the department of justice or the drug enforcement administration . chip pursuant to thed orer of the house of today, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky.

mr. massie: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today with four colleagues to offer a bipartisan amendment that requires the d.e.a. to comply with federal law. despite clear language in the recently passed farl bill that specifically allows state agricultural agencies and universitys to grow industrial hemp for research, the d.e.a. decided to ignore the plain text of a federal statute. officials in my home state of kentucky were recently forced to file a lawsuit in federal court to compel the d.e.a. to release industrial hemp seeds intended for university research pilate -- pilot program. what a waste of time, money and the court's limited resources. states cannot launch industrial hemp pilot programs if the d.e.a. seizes the seeds before they reach their destination. though the d.e.a. did recently agree to release the seeds, my amendment ensures that this type of d.e.a. action won't happen again. if this were simply about seeds, i wouldn't be here.

we've got that resolved. but there are further issues. there are more issues. for instance, the d.e.a. has been very ambiguous on whether they are going to assert authority to say that hemp can't be grown on private property. listen, where else are you going to grow it? it's not like the government has forms -- farms. and the farm bill is clear in this language. the farm bill says that the state authority shall register these sites, not the d.e.a. yet the d.e.a. refuses to acknowledge that. and furthermore, with regard to the seeds, the d.e.a. requires and this i find ridiculous, that the seeds, and these are industrial hemp seeds with no active t.h.c., must be kept under lock and key with only three keys available and the way we've got these stored in kentucky is you put your hand print on the door and you can get into these hemp seeds. you want to know how ridiculous that is? by the end of the growing season we're going to have thousands of pounds of hemp

seeds, not 250 pounds of hemp seeds. the question is, what is the d.e.a. going to do going forward? we want them to obey the law. . the d.e.a. purposely used regulations to stop any of this research. the farm bill that i co-sponsored was to clear the way for hemp industrial research. not to perpetuate a broken process where the d.e.a. obfuscates and delays. but to give that freedom to state and local governments. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. who seeks recognition? mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to this the amendment and yield such time -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minute. mr. wolf: i yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the judiciary committee, mr.

goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this is where i came in a lyle while ago. the gentlewoman from -- a little while ago. the gentlewoman was correct that i was speaking earlier about this amendment and hers, however, i oppose both the amendments. the principle is the same. with regard to this amendment i would say to the gentleman that the gentleman's amendment in the farm bill is new law and it is being implemented, but it does not exclude the role of the d.e.a. your amendment here today would strip funds from the ability of the d.e.a. to be involved and the involvement is as described in your amendment with regard to the confiscation, otherwise impeding the importation, transfer, movement or interstate commerce of seeds intended for the purpose of growing or cultivating industrial hemp. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. goodlatte: be happy to yield. mr. massey: that is not my amendment you just read. mr. goodlatte: what is your

amendment? i yield to the gentleman. mr. massey: the clerk read it. none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of section 7606 legitimacy of industrial hemp research of the agricultural act of 2014 by the department of justice or the drug enforcement administration. my amendment at the desk says nothing about seeds. mr. goodlatte: ok. seeds or hemp you have to still have the involvement of the d.e.a. because seeds and hemp can be used to grow marijuana as well as to grow hemp. so if you don't have the ability to determine just by looking at it whether or not it is something that is going to be used for research purposes for hemp or whether it's going to be used to grow illegal marijuana to be sold to whoever, you need to have the d.e.a. involved in that process. and if you take the d.e.a. out of the process, which your amendment in the farm bill did not due do, and which i would strongly oppose having occur

now, you're going to have a situation where this law will be honored in name only and will not be used for the purpose for which i presume you intended it, which is to do research with regard to the growing of hemp. that is not what you're going to have here because you cannot determine, for example, the t.h.c. limits of cannabis plants by looking at them. you got to have this zampled. you've got to have it licensed and that's a proper thing to do since the law requires it to be done. but the d.e.a. needs to fulfill the role that the law requires them to do for that very purpose. as a result i must strongly oppose this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. massey: mr. chairman, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. fattah: would the gentleman be willing to share a minute of that? mr. massey: i will yield one minute to the lady from oregon.

the chair: the gentlelady from oregon is recognized for one minute. ms. bonamici: thank you very much. i rise in support of the bipartisan amendment. i'm proud to co-sponsor with mr. massey of kentucky. this amendment simply says none of the funds in this bill can be used by the department of justice or the d.e.a. in contravention of the section of the farm bill, the duly enacted farm bill which i supported for many reasons, one of which was that it had an industrial hemp research program, that authorizes industrial hemp research. this is very simple. we passed the bipartisan farm bill. its provisions are law. in kentucky one of the states conducting research the d.e.a. intervened only when kentucky sued did the d.e.a. get out of the way. the amendment restates a law that is already on the books but maybe the d.e.a. needs to hear it twice. remember, it's rope not dope? i urge an aye vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady -- the gentleman is recognized.

>> reserve. the chair: does a member seek recognition? the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massey: thank you. i hope the chairman will vote for my amendment. basically it just says we are going to enforce the farm bill. the language of the farm bill. the farm bill is very clear in its language. it says no other federal law withstanding. isn't it ironic that thousands of pounds of cocaine and heroin are passing our borders every week? yet the d.e.a. thinks that seizing industrial hemp seeds in kentucky is worthwhile use of the time and resources? for furthermore, what are they going to do this fall when we harvest the seeds. there's no export or import there. there's no federal nexus this fall. so i hope that the farm bill and the language in the farm bill will be will be honored. we voted for it. it was signed by the president. our amendment is simple. it states that no funds may be

used by the department of justice or drug enforcement administration to violate the clear language of the farm bill. which says states are allowed to grow and cultivate industrial hemp if the industrial hemp is grown and cultivated for the purposes of research conducted under an agricultural pilot program or other agricultural or academic research. the d.e.a. is not above congress. it's not above the law. executive branch agencies like the d.e.a. must follow the laws passed by the legislative branch. please join us in support of this common sense reasonable amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question sont amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. the amendment is agreed to -- the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what reason does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: on that i ask

for the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kentucky will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the chair: amendment offered by mr. huffman of california, at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to access or collect the fee established by section 660.115 of title 50 code of federal regulations. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i want to begin by thanking two of my colleagues, ms. herrera nd

butler for their hard work. i have been collaborating with them on this and related efforts to bring relief to our west coast fishermen. it would defer for one year the collection of a cost recovery fee in the west coast program and provide relief to ground fish fishermen facing mounting costs at a time they can ill afford t the west coast ground fish industry has been rebuilding its stocks for stefrl years. they have made hard decisions and faken marched cuts to ensure the long-term sustainability of that fishery. they should be commended for that. one aspect of that rebuilding plan was the adoption of program -- mr. wolf: if the gentleman would yield. mr. huffman: managing and that was implemented this year. mr. wolf: if the gentleman would yield. we accept the amendment. it the chair: the gentleman from california controls the time. mr. huffman: i thank the gentleman. the chair: does the gentleman yield back the balance of his time? mr. huffman: i do.

the chair: the question sont amendment offered by the gentleman from california. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. susterland of florida. -- southerland of florida. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from florida, mr. southerland, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. southerland: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. -- the chair: without objection. mr. southerland: i rise today in the amendment a bipartisan

provision that reaffirms for the third time the houses' intent that no funding under the underlying bill should be allocated for new limited access privilege programs. also known as catch shares in the atlantic and gulf of mexico fisheries. catch shares is a fishery management tool that allocates a portion of a once opened public fishery to a select group of fishermen, forcing the others off the water and out of business. put more simply, it's cap and trade for the oceans. our bipartisan amendment takes a big step toward halting the perpetuation of economic harm on our coastal communities, one of which, my family has lived in for 200 years. let me be clear, our amendment has zero impact on catch shares already in place. if you have catch shares now, you'll have them tomorrow. but we owe our fishermen a voice in addressing these issues through the house and senate re-authorization of the

management act before we consider funding for the development, implementation, or approval of new catch share programs. that's proper process. it is common sense. i encourage all of my colleagues to -- from both sides of the aisle to support this bipartisan southerland-tierney-jones amendment and prevent the a implementation of new catch shares programs going forward. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wolf: we accept the amendment. the chair: the gentleman moves to strike -- the gentleman yields back. mr. fattah: if the chairman would yield. we have a member of the committee who wanted to say a few words on this and had some concerns. she's only going to take a minute. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields to the gentlelady from maine. ms. pingree: thank you. i want to oppose the amendment

offered here tonight because i think we shouldn't be prohibiting any new catch share programs because it is such an important tool to manage our nation's fisheries. this effectively supersedes the regional fisheries management council process that was already set up by congress. we have a lot of families in maine who have very deep ties to the ocean. generations of members who worked in the fishing industry. but fisheries are facing a crisis. everyyear our fishermen struggle to make a living on fewer fish and trips going out fishing. the new england fisheries management council is working very hard to develop solutions for these challenges by implementing catch share programs as an effective way to manage the fisheries. this results in success stories as many we have seen in maine. take a look at port clyde, one of our largest i inshore fisheries communities. the fishermen have developed a fisher mens cooperative as a way to market their fish using environmentally conscious fishing methods. the result is sustainable fish,

better quality fish, better frieses for the fishermen, membership in this sector has led to profitable sustainable on and offshore fishing strifment i just want to say that fishermen in new england are not being forced into enrolling in the catch share programs. they can choose to stay in the common pool fishery or join a sector. if we remove catch shares and management option, we would only be hindering fisheries management efforts around our nation, stifling the creativity and innovation within the fishing industry, and permitting -- preventing fishermen from working in an industry that is safer and more profitable. catch shares work. i have seen the benefits first hand in maine. don't think we should be denying fishing communities the chance to improve their industry by removing a management option. i thank you for the time. mr. fattah: if the gentleman would continue to yield for 10 seconds of the i accept the chairman's ability to accept the amendment. we wanted to register our opposition to it. i thank the gentleman for yielding.

the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized for 3 1/2 minutes. mr. southerland: i would like to also remind that no one was a greater champion of my amendment than former massachusetts congressman, barney frank. so definitely a stalwart in new england fisheries. though he's not here, his spirit in favor of this amendment rings true. i'd like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from florida. georgia, excuse me. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. >> i would like to thank mr. southerland for his work on this issue and thank the democrats for allowing us to have this. i want to tell you as a father who spends time in the gulf of mexico, in 2007, in 2007 we were allowed to fish as a family 194 days out of the

year. mr. scott: 194 days i could go out with my son and we could catch snapper and we could catch up to four fish apiece. today we have been reduced to nine days. of the ost 95%, 95% time that a family could spend on the water fishing together has been taken from us and sportsmen in the gulf of mexico with regard to red snapper. i want to thank you, mr. southerland, for your work on this. i want to thank you for understanding us, this issue, those of us who are recreational anglers, i'd like to yield my remaining time back to mr. southerland but again, thank you for your work on this issue. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida yields back his time. >> how much time is left in opposition?

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. >> can i be recognized in pposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized if -- recognized in opposition for five minutes. >> i want to start by saying i want every father and son to be able to fish year-round in federal waters. nine days is a problem. it absolutely is a problem. i look forward to working with the gentleman from florida and georgia to ensure open access in our federal waters. i am also upset with noaa and their continuously low stock assessment and flawed assessment methods. mr. weber: my opposition to this amendment comes from the negative impacts it will have on boat captains in the e.f.p. this is a pilot program. the texas gulf coast, an area i proudly represent, we have a strong fishing heritage, recreational and commercial fishing supports nearly 40,000 jobs in my state and generates

$4.2 billion in sales. i've talked to fishermen in my district, mr. chairman, and they're against this amendment. they don't believe that the bureaucrats on washington, d.c., i agree with the gentlelady, regional fishing councils and local fishermen how to manage their fishery. the gulf of mexico fishing management council is composed of folk who was lived on the gulf their whole life. it's a successful high pilot testing program where captains have access to the water year round, not just nine days but year-round. they have the -- they catch the same amount of fish but have the flexibility to go out when it's most convenient for customers. i've heard from my constituents who want this program to grow. like the gentlelady said this amendment would gut that pilot program and kick people out of the water.

mr. chairman, as a proud conservative, i believe the fishery management decisions -- decisions should be made at the he call level. given the challenges our fishermen face, congress should ensure that local councils have all the tools in the fishery management toolbox available to them. i will vote against this amendment and i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield become. the chair: the gentleman yields ba. the sque on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> i request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be post-poped. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. -- clerk:

the chair: will the gentleman specify his amendment? -- ellison: my amendment is it's styled amendment to h.r. 4660 as reported and offered by mr. ellison of minnesota, the 080. -- where -- the chair: the clerk will reminority amendment. the clerk: amendment by mr. ellison of minnesota. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the physical lowing. section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used in contravention of any of the following -- mr. ellison: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. he chair: without objection. r. wolf: we understand the

amendment says you must follow the law and we accept the amendment. mr. ellison: the chairman has accepted the amendment. the chair: pursuant to thed orer of the house of today the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison and a member opposed each could control five minutes. the question -- does the gentleman yield back in mr. ellison: yes, i do. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. will the gentleman also specify -- >> amendment number 36, mr. speaker. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. perry of pennsylvania. page 100, after line 17, insert the following new section.

section 541, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for the national err naughtic and space administration advanced technology project. the chair: pursuant to thed orer of the house of today the gentleman mr. pennsylvania, mr. perry and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. perry: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank the chairman for giving me this opportunity. this amendment prohibits funding for the advanced food technology project. the a.f.t. it's responsible for providing space flight rues with a food system that's nutritious and safe and acceptable to the crew while on missions to mars. the problem is we're not going to mars any time soon. since we have accepted as a fact that other nations such as russia will be taking the lead on space exploration and we have no plans to go back into space over the next fiscal year, at least to mars, there's no reason to waste taxpayer money on food research for a

mission to mars. this project has been highlighted as a source of waste for years by my colleagues in the united states senate, starting with nasa's use of taxpayer money to develop pizza and hundreds of other recipes for, again, a mission to mars which nasa has no plans to undertake. i want to ensure the taxpayer funding is not wasted on projects that are not going to happen. i urge passage of this amendment and i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wolf: strike the requisite number of words. we accept the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: we accept the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. fattah: i reject the entire predicate of the amendment that we're not going to mars or that russia is leading space exploration or any of the other things, however, i understand

the gentleman would like to not waste taxpayer money and therefore he's offered this amendment and i -- the chairman has accepted it but the idea that our country is not -- is not the lead preg mere nation in the world in space -- pre-- leading premier nation in the world in space exploration i do not accept. i yield back. the chair: the question is on -- the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania controls the only remaining ime. does the gentleman from pennsylvania yield back or would like to recognize the

gentleman in opposition? mr. perry: as long as there's o opposition, i yield. mr. fattah: reclaim my time, unanimous consent to reclaim my time. i wasn't aware he wanted to speak. i yield back my remaining time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from pennsylvania controls the only remaining time. mr. perry: i yield the balance. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his type. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to -- is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? the chair: i have an amendment at the desk -- >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will port the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. at the end of the bill before

she short title add the fol logue new section, none of the funds made available by this act -- mr. ellison: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection? without objection, the reading is dispensed with. pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: no hardworking american should ever have to worry about whether her employer will refuse to pay her when she works overtime or take money out of her paycheck. especially if she works for a federal contractor. this practice is known as wage theft. right now, federal contractors who violate the fair labor standards act are still allowed to apply for federal contracts. my amendment would deny federal contracts to those who violate the federal labor standards act to deny workers the pay they have earned. the amendment ensures that those in violation of the law do not get taxpayer support.

we should only reward good actors. taxpayer money must be spent wisely and as the largest purchaser of goods and services the federal government must find a way to make sure that funds are going to companies that treat their workers fairly and accord to the law and give -- and according to the law and give every family a chance to succeed. more importantly it signals to working americans around the country that wage theft will not be tolerated. low wage workers are fighting back. they are demanding they be treated fairly. and now it's time for congress to stand with these low wage workers and say clearly that wage theft is not anything that we're willing to tolerate. we may not agree on the minimum wage and on a lot of other things but i believe that americans on both sides of the aisle believe that a penny earned is a penny that must be paid and any time a federal contractor is found to have violated a worker's rights and denied -- been found to be

guilty of that according to the law, that that federal contractor should not benefit from the money in this particular bill. i would like to add with the remainder of my time that this is a very serious problem. that a recent report by the health, education, and labor committee in the united states senate revealed that 32 noveget largest department of labor penalties for wage theft were levied against federal contractors. there should be a consequence. similarly the national employment law project study found that 21% of federal contractor -- contract workers were not paid overtime and 11 have been forced to work off the clock. we do hope that we can get cooperation for from all members on this. i yield to the gentlelady my remaining time. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i rise to support the gentleman's amendment and add this point,

that many of these federal workers are women who are head of household and therefore the undermining of their compensation based upon overtime and the theft of wages, because they're not paid fully for their dollars, for their work and hours really undermines the family and so i believe that this is a very important amendment and ask my colleagues to support the gentleman and yield back my time. mr. ellison: i yelled back the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. wolf: strike the requisite number of words. i rise in opposition to the amendment. no one know what is the amendment does. if you know what this amendment does you should vote for it. nobody else seems to know. that's one of the problems of these things that come 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. if you know what it does and you're 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 chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. ellison: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings by the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will eport the amendment. the clerk: offered by mr. broun of georgia, at the end of the bill of -- mr. broun: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection? without objection. pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, and a member opposed will each control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: mr. chairman, this amendment would prohibit fund from being used for the loan guarantee program created by the america competes act of 2010. a program which is essentially an $84 billion science experiment in stimulus spending. the american competes act directed the commerce department to establish loan guarantees within the innovative technologies in manufacturing program of the economic development administration or e.d.a. these government-backed loans are meant to provide small and medium sized manufacturers with new opportunities to use, manufacture, or commercialize any innovative technology. however, authorization for america competes ran out in 2013 with little passing interest from industry. in fact, not one loan has been issued under this program to date. not one. not the first one. in july of 2013, the government

accountability office found that the eda had done nothing with its appropriated funds outside of establishing a staffing budget and a timeline for executing the program. at the same time, g.a.o. noted that the e.d.a. officials had reached out to the small business administration, technical assistance on how to run a small loan guarantee program. mr. chairman, think about this for a moment. if one government agency needs to consult another government agency about how to run a program, which is similar to a program that is already established elsewhere, is the new program really necessary? there are similar loan programs sprinkled throughout the federal government, yet we keep authorizing more and more. congress needs to seriously evaluate this approach and instead focus on real innovation in manufacturing. i would submit if the federal government simply stopped taxing small and medium businesses out of the country

or out of business, we would see an immediate increase in growth and new jobs. no new programs needed. the american competes loan guarantee program is a wasteful duplicative attempt to spur innovation in manufacturing by creating more bureaucracy and we should not allow it to go any further. not one loan has been put out by this program. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: we have had about 30,000 small medium manufacturers close their shop in our country over the last 20 years. we have 11 million americans who go to work every day making things with their hands. we still lead the world as the number one manufacturer, but our -- what used to be absolute lead is now relative. part of the challenge is

technology. this congress has provided items for new machinery and writedowns on capital equipment. we need to fortify our manufacturing base and we also need to provide technical support. we provide billions of dollars to our national laboratories. i went out to visit oak ridge in tennessee. a manufacturing center there. helps small manufacturers think through their challenges. and the last thing we need to do is retreat on this battlefield on manufacturing. so the gentleman from georgia is headed in the wrong direction. i hope that the congress does not following. i'll be voting against this amendment and i support this technology loan guarantee program. in fact i authored it in this bill and, yes, it's been built up over the last couple years to make sure before they do anything that they do it

correctly because we want to get it right, but the one thing we should be certain about is that small and medium manufacturers, which are at the heart of our manufacturing industry in our country, they need our support and this is a way to help them. it's not hand out. it's a loan. and it's actually a loan guarantee. it's a way to go and help manufacturers across our land. and i hope that -- even at this late hour that we not fall victim to the suggestion that we can do what we should do to make sure that this country can continue to lead in this critical area. i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. during the public comment period there was absolutely zero interest in this program. zero. the s.b.a. already does this. i'm all for manufacturing. i'm all for small and medium

businesses. but we do not need this program. it's an $84 billion program with no interest in it within small and medium businesses. not one loan has been given out. ll it's done is fund the bureaucrats that are established to do this program and no loans have been made. since 2010. in four years, zero loans. zero interest. we need to eliminate it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. testimony amendment

offered by mr. grayson of florida, at the end of the bill before the short title, add the following new section, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to negotiate an agreement that includes a waiver of the buy america act. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: thank you, mr. chairman. this concerns the buy american act and how it interacts with the work of the trade representative under this bill. the buy american act dates back to every republican's favorite president, president hoover. who signed it into office on his last day in office in 1933. it requires the u.s. government to prefer u.s. made products in its purchases and there already is precedent for this in the trade organization agreement called the w.t.o. 1996

agreement on government procurement. the buy american act was specifically excluded from the government procurement agreement program. we are coming up upon a time when according to news reports the president may be presenting us with trade agreements. he may be presenting us with a fast track procedure for those trade agreements. the fast track procedure would basically give us a take it or leave it situation on these principals. obviously these trade agreements that vn negotiated are complex, but i think we shouldn't be throwing out the baby with the bath water. this is a law that requires the american government give preference to american made products when making procurement decision. this is a common sense principle pal that guides purchasing throughout government as it should. hard-earned american taxpayer dollars should be reused here at home, going back into our economy, and putting americans back to work. i would hate to see this

fundamental principle of government procurement slurred or undermined in any way by any agreement that is now being negotiated by the trade representative or anybody else. in this administration or any future administration. therefore i submit this amendment to make sure that the agreements now shall negotiated respect this pacic fundamental principal that american did -- basic fundamentalal principal that american jobs is what it's about. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: does any member seek recognition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those posed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek

recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. salmon of arizona page 100 after line 17 insert the following new section, section 541, none of the funds made available to the national science foundation by this act may be used to examine climate effects on tea quality and socioeconomic responses under cnh. number 1313775- the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of today, the gentleman from arizona, mr. salmon, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. salmon: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer an amendment to cut all funding for the national science foundation program to study the climate effects on tea quality and socioeconomic responses in china and other locations. in fact i find it deeply troubling that while our country is facing fiscal challenges of gigantic proportions, staring down over

$17.5 trillion in debt, that i can quickly find programs such as this that are being funded on the back of the american taxpayer. to date this program has already received about $1 million in funding. regardless of whether or not you believe that we must get our national debt under control, i believe we can all agree that these are difficult times for american families. with this in mind how can we seriously look our constituents in the faces and assure them we are looking out for their best interest when we allow their money to be spent like this? i certainly understand the value of predicting agricultural trends for tea, i believe that that is a task that ought to be left to the private sector, the ones that benefit from this kind of information. amendments like this are high water mark. if we can't make the easy choices to eeliminate these kinds of programs, how are we going to do the tough cut? in a time when things are tough enough for the average american family, we certainly don't need to add another burden such as programs like this.

i might just say finally that our history has shown us that government getting involved in tea policy, as great britain did, can lead to a very, very slippery slope. i think government needs to stay out of tea policy. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fattah: i stand in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i'm going to take about 50 seconds. i'm opposed to this amendment. i think intruding on the national science foundation and the work that is based on merit, peer review science should not be -- should not use politics in the political process as a substitute for it. i hope that congress in its wisdom would vote against the amendment offered by my friend. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. salmon: i yield to the

gentleman from louisiana. the chair: how much time? mr. salmon: as much time he consumes up until it expires. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for as much time he may consume. mr. boustany: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleague for bringing this amendment forward. i rise in strong support of the amendment. mr. chairman, we are talking about appropriations bills of course people across the country are concerned as we are about the fact that our country is spending money we don't have. washington spends almost 40 cents of every dollar of borrowed money. this is money we are borrowing from countries like china and here you have an amendment that highlights the fact that we are spending money throughout national science foundation on grants to study the effects of global warming on china, tea grown in china. mr. scalise: is this part of the deal we cut with china when they borrow money from us or loan us money to continue deficit spending? this is ludicrous. this is a lastic example --

classic example of wasteful washington spending. i commend again the gentleman for bringing this amendment because there are opportunities we have highlight of areas of wasteful washington spending we should be able to agree as republicans and democrats that every single dollar we are looking at, we ought to ask the first question, is this program, is this program worth borrowing money not only from countries like china, but borrowing money from our children? our children are going to have to pay for these bills. and does this really rise to that level that it's worth borrowing money from our children who are going to be getting that credit card bill? $931,000 of taxpayer money to study the effects of climate change on tea grown in china. this is ludicrous. this is ludicrous spending. we ought not be doing it. we ought at least be able to

set priorities and agree as republican and democrats that we are going to get serious about fiscal responsibility and it starts with the little things. this isn't billions and trillions we are talking about, but this is how you get to billions and trillions of dollars of deficits and debt. so while china holds maybe over $1 trillion of our debt, i don't think it's going to cause any kind of international relation problems the fact that we are going to say let's not spend $931,000 of money we don't have that's being borrowed from countries like china to study the effects of global warming on tea grown in china. this is ludicrous. this doesn't pass the laugh test when they say it's not all the tea in china, this is a place where we ought to agree to stop spending taxpayer money on something that's incredibly wasteful. again we don't even have this money. this is money borrowed from our children and from countries like china. we ought not be doing t i thank the gentleman for bringing this

amendment. it's a great example of where we should be able to agree to stay enough is enough. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from arizona has 30 seconds left. for what purpose -- the gentleman from arizona is recognized for 30 seconds. >> i'll say in sumation, and i thank the -- i think the credit from louisiana said it very well, how in the world are we going to get to the serious cuts to get our budget balanced if we can't cut $1 million to give to china to see how their tea is going to grow with the climate change? mr. salmon: if we can't do an easy thing like this i fear for america. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. the chair: for what purpose

does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. grayson: i have an amendment at the desk, grayson number 100. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. following this, we'll do the other 99. i'm just kidding. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida. at the end of the bill, before the short title, add the following, none of the funds used in this act may be used to force a journalist or reporter that the journalist or reporter has quashed an a subpoena receive as a journalist or reporter or that he regards as confidential. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson spi i regret bringing this -- mr. grayson: i regret bringing this up at 10:30 at night. i apoll use for that, i think i is a weighty matter and

think it deserves more consideration. this corresponds to the shield law already in place in 49 state bus not at the level of the federal government. a child law is legislation designed to protect a reporter's privilege or the right of news reporters to refuse to testify as to information and sources of information attained during the news gathering and dissemination process. in short, a reporter should not be forced to reveal his or her source and that is in fact the law in 49 states. the only exception being wyoming. this has come up in court cases at the federal level, at the supreme court level, beginning ith the 1972 case bransberg v. hayes which i think pose this is question in the microcosm. in that case a reporter wanted to inform his readers about the nature of a drug -- of the drug

hashish and he realized the only way to go about that was to find and interview people who had actually used the drug hashish. so he did that. and after he published his article, relying on these two confidential sources, at that point, he was subpoenaed to provide those sources, compromising their identity and compromising the principle of protecting sources. this is an issue that comes up from time to time, often at the state level, occasionally at the federal level. some of us may remember the case of the plame affair, the c.i.a. leak scandal, a reporter was asked to release the name the person from whom he'd restheaved leak regarding valerie plame. reporters were asked in general, who are the sources with regard to this leak. one reporter, judith miller, was jailed for 85 days in 2005 for refusing to disclose her source in the government probe.

at this point under current law journalists are in a quandary. they realize the need to protect their sources. that right is recognized in 49 states. but it's not codified at the federal level. what i seek to do at this late hour today is to do just that. i think this is a very important principle as franzford pointed out -- as bransford pointed out that springs from our law. the constitution and first amendment provides for freedom of speech and of the press. it is incongruent to say we have freedom of the press but the federal government can subpoena your sources and put them and you in prison, you if you don't comply. this is something that should have been handled perhaps years, not decades ago. it falls upon us tonight at this late hour to try to handle it ourselves. i respectfully submit this amendment as being a much-needed and long-delayed

clarification that the federal government treats this matter no differently than 49 states now do and therefore i ask for support on this amendment. i reserve the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: i rise in opposition to the amendment. it's significant change. the authorizers ought to be looking at this. this is not something you put on an appropriations bill at 10:35. i listened to the gentleman a lot of what he said i seem to agree with but i think you have to really look at this and the authorizer, you have to have hearings, so for those reasons i urge a no vote and yield -- and i yield to the gentleman from, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i share the gentleman from florida's interest in and support for shield laws as well but i don't believe this has been carefully vetted.

there are implications about who has the right to make the determination about whether or not funds could or could not be used the way the language is suggested. maybe it's the reporter that would have that right rather than a court. to me, this is not the best way to go about doing this. we'll continue to work on shield law legislation in the house judiciary committee which has passed out reforms of shield laws in the past and we'll continue to worken it but i must oppose this amendment in these circumstances. i don't think this is the right place to legislate something as complicated as this issue. mr. wolf: reclaiming my time -- i yield to the gentleman. mr. fattah: i want to, without claiming my own time, support the thrust of this proposed amendment which is that we should provide a shield law, the idea that in 2005 a reporter was jailed over 85 days is wrong and we do want to have a -- we have a

constitutional responsibility to protect the freedom of the press but i agree with che chairman, we don't want to do it on an appropriations bill at 10:30 at night. we want to make sure we're clear about what we're doing. i oppose the amendment under those circumstances and i yield bush i thank the gentleman for yielding me time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia yields back? mr. wolf: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. grayson: i want to point out that the supreme court decision we're talking about here was decided in 1972. there have been hearings. there's been plenty of draft legislation. it's hard enough get anything voted on around here. it's time to vote on this. after 42 years since the supreme court first addressed this, we do not have this body on record as saying whether or not there should be a federal shield law. i understand the reservations that have been expressed but the fact is, the time is now. the reporters in this country have waited long enough. it's time to be fair and show femality to the first amendment

and to -- and show fealty to the first amendment and to support this amendment tonight. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. grayson: i ask for a recorded vote. chip pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk, number 126. the chair: the clerk will eport the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to create or maintain a national firearm registry.

mr. gosar: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. >> mr. chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. wolf: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. without objection, the reading is dispensed with. pursuant to thed orer of the house today, the gentleman, mr. gosar from arizona, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer a multifaceted amendment to limit funds within the commerce, justice science and related agencies appropriations act to programs that are constitutionally appropriate and sane. for the sake of time i'll highlight some provisions within my amendment. my amendment protects second amendment rights and individual liberties by prohibiting a federal firearm registry from being created with funds in this bill. similar language has passed previously by the house. but i wals want to bring to the house's attention to some of the ludicrous studies taxpayers have funded via the national

science foundation. let me first say i appreciate the national science foundation's mission and its work. the national science foundation uarantees grants and funds have been instrumental in chemistry, physics a and other areas. but the bureaucracy begins to grow and proper oversight of the grant process begins to wane. in 2011, senator tom coburn released a publication titled national science foundation under the microscope. in that document he outlined a litany of wasteful, superfluous, and seemingly idiotic studies, some of which i'll outline here. there was a study on human reaction to popular baby names. there was a $580,000 grant to study racial preferencing in online data. there was grants to study how rumors were started. there have been grants awarded to a certain panel in which the national science foundation has granted $60 million.

one of the pam's study covered how much housework a man creates for his wife in his household. there was a grant to show the relationship between a researcher and their online avenue tar in virtual worlds and differences in their behaviors. since 2000, grants have been used to study crustaceans running on tiny treadmills after consuming might be robes. they were given tiny backpacks to weigh them down to study weight and resistance. in 2011, they planned to create such studies for lobsters and blue crabs as well. this was a 2009 grant disbursed to the tune of $300,000 to study how humans ride bicycles. there was another $300,000 grant that came from stomach liss -- stimulus funds that was disbursed to a married couple to travel around the world and study stray dogs to see how dogs became man's best friend.

sounds like a heck of a honeymoon to me. the most ridiculous was a fwrnt toport a robot rodeo hoedown. i would like to point out how laughable it was to my staff to work with legislative counsel to define what a hoedown was for purposes of the amendment. it programmed small robots to dance to the chicken scoot shuffle. i suppose it wasn't an a total loss, it produced hundreds of youtube views. i want to thank senator coburn bringing ff for these to light. my amendment won't prevent all such studies but i hope it will cause them to have more discretion. i have a feeling i will be back here again next year offering a similar amendment. i reserve -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise?

>> i make a point of order against the amendment. it proposes to change existing law and constitutions legislation in an appropriation bill and violates clause 2 of rule 21, the rule states in pertinent part, quote, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment requires a new determination and so therefore i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any member wish to be heard on the mat her if not, the chair is ready to rule. the chair finds that this amendment requires -- includes rule.ge requiring a new the point of order is sustain and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the

gentleman from arizona rise? mr. gosar: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. at the end of the bill before the short title thead following, section, none the funds made available by this act may be used to obtain the contents of wire or electronic communications in a remote computing service as described in section 103 of title 18 united states code. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i rise to offer an amendment which seeks to correct a serious injustice against u.s. citizens and the united states constitution. as many of us learned from the intelligence disclosures last year, the federal government is engaged in a wide variety of surveillance practices. these practices, though mostly focused internationally also encompass domestic

communications on a regular basis. i hear many making excuses as to why this happens or how it's not all that bad. i say that it is. it's an absolute violation of our basic civil liberties and the fourth amendment. i could go on and on about the different practices that violate our constitution and the trust of the people but my amendment focuses on one statute, one statute i believe almost everyone will agree needs to be changed. section 23 of title 118 allowed the federal government to obtain your personal emails in your email account if they are 180 days or older. . la is it about a east of email being 180 days old means it's not your property? are they suddenly a threat to national security? moreover, if these personal emails do not discuss plots against the nation, in many cases a little too little a

little too late since the government six months behind the ball. do i not know anyone who can make legitimate argument to keep this provision of law. i know of no real justification. to put support for this amendment in perspective, there are a handful of bills in the house that significantly alter this position of the law. one is introduced by my friend and colleague from arizona. the other is h.r. 1852, troduced by kevin yodor -- yoder of kansas. if you add up all the republicans and democrats co-spopsoring these two bills alone the number is 217. just about enough to pass this amendment. can i tell you our constituencies certainly do not

accept this gross vie lavings privacy and abuse of power. we saw a good bill get watered-down and mutilated last week. i supported the original act because it made real reforms. i voted against the version that came to the floor because it extended section 215 of the patriot act for two years. can i not agree on -- but can we not agree on this simple change? must the n.s.a. or f.b.i. or department of homeland security have access to our emails that are several years old with no other justification than an arbitrary date? i think not. i urge passage of my commonsense amendment. with that i would like to yield to the gentleman from judiciary committee, mr. goodlatte. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i thank the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, for raising this important issue. the electronic communications privacy act was written long before the internet was in common use. it is out of date. it needs to be modernized. it needs to have some of the

requirements that not only the gentleman has noted but also some of the courts of appeals have noted. however the particular way this amendment works on the particular section of the store communications act which is art past electronic communications privacy act, has implications beyond what i think the gentleman intends would have significant impact on not only federal but also state and local law enforcement ability to carry out their job. if the gentleman would agree to work with me as have the two individuals that you refer to have introduced bills and many others in this congress who know that this needs to be modified, i have had conversations with senator leahy, chairman of the judiciary committee in the senate, and we have agreed that this is a priority for both of us to significantly reform this law and address some of the very concerns that the gentleman raises. if he would agree to withdraw the amendment, i would look

forward to working with him and others to accomplish that goal. when i think would be a better setting, we already hell two hearings on this issue and we will be continuing to work on this in a expeditious manner in the judiciary committee. mr. gosar: with the understanding the chairman has given, i withdraw the amendment. the chair: the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: it gentleman specify which amendment. >> it's 141, formerly offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. perry -- mr. perry: i request unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: without objection. mr. perry: it's my understanding that the chairman accepts the amendment. if that's the case i would yield the balance of the time to the chairman. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized.

mr. wolf: strike -- we accept the amendment. yield back the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yield back the. mr. perry: yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have t the amendment is agreed to. -- the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. duffy of wisconsin tend of the bill before the short title insert the following. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to relinquish the responsibility of the national telecommunications and information administration with respect to internet domain name system functions, including responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone file and the internet assigned numbers authority function.

the chair: pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. duffy don thank you -- mr. duffy: thank you, mr. chairman. i think most americans are aware that the mezz has recently stated that he intends to transfer the core functions of the internet to an international or foreign body. what my amendment does today will prohibit the president from using any of these funds to relinquish control of those core functions to the internet. i think this is an incredibly important amendment because merica in our zest for freedom of speech has made sure that the internet an open forum for dialogue, an open forum for ideas. by relinquishing these rights, our core functions to a foreign body, i don't think we will retain the current system of

the internet and the current rights or freedom of speech that internet currently enjoys. if you look at stakeholders who have a say in how the internet is run, i think when we use the term stakeholders what we are referring to are foreign governments and corporations, i think we have to ask the question, do we think that hina, that russia, that iran who have a say in the core functions of the internet have the same concern for freedom of speech that we americans do? i think it's important that this institution use its control of the pursestrings to limit the president's authority to transfer those core fungs to this foreign body. with that i retain the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. wolf: strike the requisite number of words.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wolf: 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 suedianese with regard to the genocide from china? the gentleman's right. i accept the amendment. urge all members to accept the amendment. yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from wisconsin continues to reserve? mr. duffy: if i could, i would yield one minute to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. royce: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i rise in support of mr. duffy's amendment. the current way the internet is governed is soon set to change as we all know. the question remains who will take over? the answer will have consequences for human rights, for the global economy, as well as internet security and stability. we must get it right. it is important to the future of our economy. it's important to the type of world we want to live in. we need to ensure the

continuation of an open and accessible internet which can serve to fulfill people's aspirations for freedom and democracy and when it comes to internet policy, the administration has botched consultations over the transition of the duties at the ntia. we cannot allow countries to use their influence to stifle speech and commerce on the internet. this amendment will give us more time to ensure we get this right. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from's time from wisconsin has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. fattah: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: the process that the gentleman seeks to intervene in with this amendment started some 16 years ago. and i'd like the congressional record to reflect this that if a presidential election doesn't if in the right direction, the

other team's notion is to yank all of the authority away from the person who did win. unfortunately in our democracy doesn't work like that. so when they are not calling for some member of the cabinet to resign or doing something else to intervene in the president's authority, they have these theories. this new theory is that obama's concongressed some strategy to turn over the internet -- concocted some strategy to turn over the internet to our enemies. this is a process that started 16 years ago through the bush administration, the clinton administration it is a process having to do with what we might want to call the yellow pages for the internet. the domain names and how people can create their addresses on the internet. the theory of the internet was to have no government in control. the chamber of commerce of the

united states of america is then one of the major proponents of this. i don't believe that anyone on the other team would suggest that somehow they are -- they have concocted this scheme with the president to have us in power -- empower the syrians or someone with control of the internet. it's hard for me to focus on this as a subzahnive matter because the truth is -- substantive matter because the truth is so far from what has been stated it's hard to reconcile the two things. but the point here is that one of the things we try to say to the rest of the world is that the internet is not controlled by government. that it is an opportunity for people to enjoy an american ideal which is freedom of speech, freedom of association. there were those on the other team who were happy when during the arab spring people were

using social media and twitter to interact against oppressive regimes around the world. so we have this kind of selective amnesia on these issues. it seems to come into play having anything to do with the obama administration. there's nothing i can do about it this evening. maybe it's covered under the affordable care act. but i oppose this amendment and i oppose the knee-jerk, irresponsible actions that would suggest to countries like china and others that we want to control the internet versus we want it to be an opportunity for people to gather information, speak freely and associate freely. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired on the amendment. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair,

the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin will e postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used -- the chair: without objection. pursuant to the order of the house today, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. . mr. garrett clovep i rise today to offer an amendment that stops the justice department from using one of the most dangerous and ill lodge inc.al theories of all time, the theory of disparate impact.

it allows the government to allege discrimination on the bay siffs race or other factors based solely on the statistical analysis that finds disproportionate results among ifferent groups of people. the justice department has increasingly used this theory in lawsuits against mortgage lenders, insurers and landlords and forced these companies to pay multiple dollar settlements. what's wrong with this one might ask. under disparty impact, one could never intentionally discriminate in any way and even then have strong anti- discrimination policies in place and still be found to have discrame nated. example, a mortgage lender uses a completely objective standard, like debt-to-income ratio, they can still be found to have