n from texas is recognized. mr. culberson: thank you mr. chairman. the question before the house is whether or not our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars are going to be used to build a prison facility in the united states to house the terrorists and killers and cowards held in guantanamo bay. that's the question before us. mr. nadler: will the gentleman yield? mr. culberson: yes. mr. nadler: does the gentleman not know what has been testified to repeatedly, that it would be a lot cheaper for the taxpayers, to hold them in the united states than guantanamo? mr. culberson: that may be your opinion, sir, but we will not and will not ever afford constitutional rights or house foreign fighters captured on a foreign battlefield who have been killing men and women of the armed forces of the united states on a foreign battlefield, we're never going to house them in a prison of the united states, we're not going to give them constitutional rights. those rights are reserved to the people of the united states and to people who commit crimes within the boundaries of the united states the 19th

terrorist who didn't quite make it that day was captured in the united states, he was given a trial as he should be. the constitution extends protections to persons within the united states. these people are again, who we are at war with, have never been afforded constitutional protections and you're right, nazis captured on long island and in florida were given due process in a military tribunal as these individuals have been given due process and military tribunals at guantanamo bay and that's the way it always has been and always should be and certainly the members of this house have voted repeat lid in the past and i'm confident they will vote again tonight to defeat this amendment, to reaffirm that these precious rights in the united states constitution are reserved for the people of the united states and will never be extended to enemy foreign fighters, particularly these cowards who have been waging war against women and children and won't come out and fight our men and women on the battlefield in

open combat. this language in this bill is the only thing standing between president barack obama and his attempt to close guantanamo bay and move these people into prison facilities in the united states, so i urge members to vote against mr. nadler's amendment. . the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. >> i move to strike the last word and enter into a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> i yield to my friend and then we'll yield to mr. posey. >> mr. chairman, i'm seeking an increase in funding for commercial crew.

for the past several years the united states taxpayers are paying to launch our astronauts to rush ands. we must set priorities within the nasa budget to make sure the astronauts are launched from american soil on american vehicles sooner rather than later. when it comes to spending, it is important we set a precedent of what we think is the most important thing to do. nasa is the only government agency that has human space flight as its mission. if nasa dose nt do it, it isn't going to be done. and this investment in commercial crew which is out of johnson texas center would aid the flexibilities and lay the future for commercial

transportation and end our dependence on the russians. we need to give this program the funding and i want to thank you for your time. mr. culberson: i assure you as we work through this process and additional funding becomes available and as we move forward, we are going to make sure that gaps or holes in the orion programs that we will give as much support as we can to the commercial crew and or ryon program and if we get additional funds -- mr. fattah: i'm a very supporttive of the commercial crew program and there is a shortfall in that particular program and that's what the gentleman is referring to in his hopes we could address the

shortfall and don't spend what has been $500 million with our russian counterparts in order to transport astronauts. mr. culberson: if we find additional fund. i would be happy to yield to my good friend, mr. posey. mr. posey: thank you, mr. chairman. this bill funds the rocket mr. williams: capture the rocket into space. it funds exploration grouped systems which are getting orion off the ground. we risk delaying the deep space exploration missions. it is very unique and unique aircraft that we have ever spent into space and carry them into taste space. the challenges are enormous and requires proper funding to get

the job done. it is critical that we remain on schedule. my rough circulation calculations, so much less than authorized, can result in the delay by as much as two years. imagine having it ready to go and nothing space capsule ready to fly for two more years after that. unfortunately when congress assigns risk to nasa, america's space program gets criticized for being behind schedule. i thank my colleagues for their work and i'm hopeful we can work to together to stay on schedule and carry americans into deep space and i'm sure we can work together to keep orion on

schedule. mr. culberson: we funded at the level requested by nasa and fully funded the number they asked for. and if additional funds are going to speed up the program, we will make those funds available to them because we want americans to get back into space. and we plused up the heavy launch rocket program that will have so many uses. i don't know there is any stronger advocate for america's space program than i am and you gentlemen are. >> would the gentleman would? mr. perlmutter: i would move to strike the last word with the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: do i have the ability to strike the last word? the chair: only the gentleman

from from pennsylvania and the gentleman from texas can strike the last word. mr. perlmutter: i thank my friend for speaking up. orion can take astronauts and land our astronauts on march s. it was a resounding success. the program, as mr. posey stated needs a full funding for this and we believe it to be $1.35 billion to meet those needs. i appreciate the language requiring nasa to provide an assessment of these challenges but congress needs to provide the resources necessary in 2016 to mitigate the entire risk. i thank the gentleman from texas for his support of the program. we need to make sure it has

sufficient resources to get our men and women to march s as quickly as possible. i yield back. mr. culberson: i look forward to working with you and colleagues from florida and everyone in this house supports nasa and the space program and i will work with you to ensure any additional funding that they receive as we move through this process. and the report -- the bill we have before us funds it at the level requested by nasa and gave them what they asked for and asked them to give us reports to meet their deadlines for testing the aircraft and meeting the milestones and as additional funds become available, we will put them at the top of the list. mr. perlmutter: i look forward to staying on top of this so that as they move forward, we have sufficient funding to

really propel this project forward and get our astro nauts to march s. mr. culberson: and we are going to make sure to preserve america's leadership in manned and unmanned. and i yield back. mr. perlmutter: thank you. the chair: the clerk will read. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition -- tennessee. mr. cohen: thank you. i'm doing something i would rather not do that we did save texas and i rise to ask unanimous consent that my request for a recorded vote on the amendment that i offered that the chair was against if he withdraws that the amendment stands. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: is there any objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. cohen: we will work together to resolve this. the chair: the request for a recorded vote is withdrawn and the amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: section 529, funds should be used to purchase light bulbs. section 530 the director shall sfruct to get grant accounts that includes in its annual performance plans the following, details on future actions. and undisbursed balances. section 5 1, none of the nunds may be used to develop, design or execute a bilateral policy with china unless specifically

thorsed by law. none of the funds may be used to pay the salaries or expenses of a personnel to deny the application of any model of shotgun if all requirements of law with respect to the proposed applications are met. etet -- ms. esty: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: page 94, gidge on-line 16, section 5 2 page 96 beginning on-line 12 section 5237. mr. culberson: i reserve ar point of order against the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentlewoman from connecticut and a member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. esty: my amendment section 532 and 537.

mr. chairman, appropriation bills are not the proper place to address significant policy provisions. instead, such changes to gun policy must be seriously and properly considered by congress through the regular order. the american people deserve an open and transparent process where a full of options can be discussed and debated by the proper congressional committees and the entire hundreds. over the past several years various appropriations riders related to gun policy have unattended gun con see squenses that had these issues been debated in congress. today is gun violence awareness day. today of all days, we can and must do better. we should not allow contentious

policy provisions relating to important policies to be attached to these appropriations bills. mr. speaker, i will withdraw my amendment, but i urge the appropriations committee and the house as a whole to sop inserting significant gun policy provisions into must-passed spending bills. thank you and i reserve. the chair: does the gentlewoman seek to with dwraw the amendment? ms. esty: i do. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. the clerk will read. the clerk: section 5 , none of the funds may be used to maintain a computer network. section 534, the department shall submit toe spending plans to the committees of the house and the senate within 45 days

after the date of enactment of this act. section 535, none of the funds may be obligated to implement the arms trade treaty. section 36, none of the funds may be use todd relinquish the responsibility of the national telecommunications administration with respect to internet domain names. section 537, nobody of the funds may be used to require a person licensed under title 18 united states code to perform information regarding the sale of multiple rifles to the same person. section 538, no funds shall be used to impede the inspector general's access to records unless in accordance with an express limitation. section 539. the department shall provide a report to the committees of the house and senate on any official

travel china by any employee. section 540. no funds may be used to duplicate or promote ex-medical reports to the cuban military or any officer of the cuban military. >> mr. speaker. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk to strike section 540. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. farr of the amendment, strike section 540, page 97 line 18 through page 98 line 10. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. farr: thank you mr. chairman. i'm serving my 28th year in congress and i've never seen a provision in a appropriations bill like this. this could be labeled the family feud. there's only one member of congress who is related to anybody in the leadership and in the military in cuba and he's

the person who put this amendment in. what it zuzz -- what it does is prohibits businesses from doing business in cuba because it makes it almost impossible for any business to get a license. that's why the united states chamber of commerce the national foreign trade council, the emergency committee on american trade, u.s. engage, which is a trade group, and cuba now which is a florida--- which is florida cuban americans, are all opposed this bill and support my amendment to strike it. almost every -- every country in this hemisphere, almost every country in the world has normal trade relations with cuba. we're trying to open those up so that businesses in america particularly our agriculture and other trading goods, can take advantage of the market in cuba. not a big one but an important one because it's so close to shore. what this amendment does is it stops all that. it targets cuban military in saying that anything related by

the cuban military that, what they owe them, which is a lot of businesses in cuba, may not be used to facilitate, permit, license or promote exports of cuban military intelligence services. or the immediate families thereof. and this is what's really so damaging. that means the term "immediate family" is described in the bill means a speaker of the house, sibling, son, daughter grandparent, grandchild, aunt, uncle, niece or nephew. how does a businessperson know in the united states if any of those people are working for any of the agency this is bill restricts from? it hurts american businesses, it hurts cubans let's stop living in the past, let's strike this amendment. let's strike this provision in the bill and support my amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserve s? mr. farr: i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you.

i'm glad this amendment is here. president obama said, and i quote him that his policy are he said this a while ago, to help promote the cuban people's independence from cuban authorities. mr. diaz-balart: now no one can claim that the cuban military and the cuban intelligence community and their direct family members are not the cuban authorities. nothing has more authority than those two things system of let's unmask what this amendment does. the language in the mark, in the bill, simply affirms that we should not send exports to, make this very clear, the cuban military or the intelligence community, nor their immediate families. so unmasking this amendment, what this amendment is saying is, no no, we do support and do want to do business with the cuban military and the cuban

intelligence services and their immediate families. by the way it's the same military intelligence services that brutalized the cuban people, that beat pro-democracy demonstrator, that by the way new york panama, beat a number of american citizens in panama recently. that illegally smuggles weapons which has members of that cuban military under indictment here in u.s. federal court for the murder of american citizens. so i'm glad this amendment is here. it unmasks, this amendment unmasks the underlying issue, the chairman's mark specifically says again, as i mentioned, deals with the cuban military and the intelligence community and their immediate relatives and if this amendment were to happen, what we'd be saying is that we want to do business, not with cuba, not with the cuban people, but with the cuban

military and the intelligence service and their direct relatives. this amendment, frankly, i'm glad it's here because it does unmask the issue. i would like to yield the remaining part of our time to the distinguished gentleman from florida, -- from florida. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the farr amendment. section 540 is critical in ensuring that exports to cuba reach and benefit the cuban people not the regime's military and intelligence service which is actively and aggressively collaborate with our enemies throughout the world. still today, cuba has one of the most robust spy networks in the united states. these are not the people we should be rewarding with american business. the most recent state department report on cuba's human rights conditions se that -- says that harsh prison conditions, arbitrary arrests and denial of

fair trials continue in the country. mr. curbelo: the arm fist of the castro regime cracked down on activists with over 2,000 people arrested since the president's december 17 announcement. just this past sunday, 59 members of the ladies in white were arrested along with 25 other human rights activists. their crime? attending sunday mass, mr. speaker. and the oppression is not limited to cuba's borders. according to high level military defectors from venezuela's fwoth, there are between 2,700 and 3,000 cuban military and intelligence agents aiding in the crackdown on protesters and opposing american interests in that country. these are the thugs, the very individuals that would most benefit from the farr amendment. mr. speaker, i understand that there's a diversity of views in this chamber with regard to broader cuban policy.

what i cannot understand is why anyone would want to reward the individuals responsible for the deaths of americans, for the oppression of the cuban people, for spying against our country. i respectfully ask my colleagues to oppose the farr amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california has three minutes. mr. farr: rhetoric is real cheap here but i would urge you to read the bill, read the second term, it says, term cuban military intelligence service, includes but is not limited to the ministry of revolution armed forces and ministry of interior of cuba and any subs -- subsidiary of such the analysis by our own library of congress says that this would severely hurt the communications, consumer communication devices that are being sent to families in cuba as part of the negotiations that are going on right now between the united

states and the administration. it would also hurt materials equipment, tools of use by private sector used to renovate privately owned businesses. tools and equipment for private sector supplies, this provision just kills the ability for the united states to open up trade that every other country has. this is just a family feud amendment. this is not a good business amendment, that's why the business community is opposed. how much time doif left? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. farr: i yield a minute and a half to the distinguished gentlewoman, barbara lee. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one and a half minutes. ms. lee: i thank my colleague for yielding and rise in strong support of the amendment. once again the other side, you're rush egg -- pushing the envelope in terms of characterizing what this amendment actually does. this amendment would strike provisions including -- in this

build that would prohibit the department of commerce from issuing licenses for new types of exports that are permitted under the obama administration's new policy of engagement with cuba. this provision is not only an inappropriate policy rider in this appropriations bill, but if included it would put this house once again on the wrong side of history. supporters of this provision claim that it would only prohibit exporting to anyone that works with the cuban military intelligence service and their immediate families. but the reality is that the effects of this provision are much, much broader. it would make it difficult for the department of commerce to issue licenses to companies that want to export to cuba. u.s. companies that create jobs in the united states of america. this includes equipment and supplies for entrepreneurs that are related to running their own businesses here in america and materials, equipment, and tools to construct or renovate

privately owned businesses. simply put, this rider is wrong. it's wrong for business, and it certainly should not be part of a bill that funds our critical commerce justice and science program. the majority of americans and cubans agree that u.s. policy toward cuba has been an unpopular failure for more than 50 years. instead of including misguided provisions that undermine the process of -- process of normalizing relations with cuba we should move toward increased exchanges, creating good-paying jobs in the united states by allowing exporting u.s. products to cuba. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california has 30 seconds remaining. the gentleman from florida has 30 seconds remaining and the right to close. mr. diaz-balart: i'd like to yield to mr. scalise.

the chair: -- to mr. culberson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. culberson: the only thing standing between president barack obama's attempt to override the woifl the people as expressed by congress, which is we will not do business with cuba that's the federal law president obama's attempting to change that. the only thing stopping president obama from doing business with the -- with cuba is this language. and language says you cannot do business with the communist military in cuba or the communist intelligence services. so it's very straightforward. if you want to do business with the private sector in cuba, go ahead. all this says is you can't do business with the communist military or communist services so we urge members to vote no against the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california. mr. farr: it's interesting that the capitalistic society -- capitalist society out there supports my amendment. engaged cue bark the emergency committee on american trade they wrote this letter, we urge house

members to strip section 54023r hrment r. 2770, consumer science and related agencies. it would turn back efforts to normalize relations between the united states and cuba. majorities of americans, cuban americans, cubans support normalization of relations and ending the unilateral trade embargo. bipartisan support exists in both houses and the throughout the community. the question of cuba policy should be approached deliberate i -- deliberatively and in full context of hemispheric relations. i urge support of this amendment and urge you also to support it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the -- for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. fattah: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fattah: we spend a lot of time making something simple, complex. the problem is, a small nation, an island like cuba, trying to discern whether somebody is

related a cousin a nephew of so and so who might work for some entity, right, is very problematic. what it would mean, this restriction would basically mean you wouldn't be able to do any business. that is, notwithstanding everything else, not withstanding the failure of the last 50 years, notwithstanding the fact that everybody in the world is doing business in cuba, language would event us from being able to do any business there because you would not be able to do predetermine whether there was a blood connection between some person you were selling a cell phone to and someone who at some point was a grunt in the military. and that's the issue. that's why we should support the farr amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it.

mr. farr: roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further amendments -- further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from -- by the gentleman from california will be postponed. clerk will read. the clerk: major 98 line 11, section 541 none of the funds may be expended in fiscal year 2016 for the shutdown of the trats feerick observatory for infrared observatory, spend regular ducks account, section 542. the amount by which the allocation of new budget authority made by the committee is zero dollars. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona sook

-- seek recognition? mr. schweikert: i have an amendment at the desk. scharmente the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. schweikert. at the end of the short bill, the following, none of the funds shall be used to transfer imsi or similar cell phone technology to state and local law enforcement that haven't adopted procedures for the use of technology that protects the constitutional rights of citizens. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. culberson: i receive a point of order. i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman and a member opposed each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. schweikert: i know there is a point of order. this is one of those moments where a concern about new adopted technology, we have all heard the stories of some of these shall we call them dummy cell sites that are used to capture the phone calls because they produce the largest most powerful signal. now some of this technology that is being used is being transferred to state and local law enforcement. the amendment is meant to be very simple and just says, for the federal government to design protocols, that the constutional rights are being protected. if they are going to use this captured technology that they better well follow the

constitution and before that technology is transferred that there is an understanding, mechanics of that being laid out. we tried to make the amendment as clear cut as possible. and that, mr. chairman, i will reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. culberson: i rise to make a point of order. i share his concern about privacy matters, but it proposes top change existing law, it therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. i do share the gentleman's concern and it is very important that we remember that our most important right as americans is to be left alone and right of the privacy. i'm concerned about the cell phone towers and now compromised

by these electronic devices. an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law and this requires a new determination as -- by its expressed terms and while i will work with the gentleman to address this concern and make sure our privacy rights are protected, i ask for a ruling on the chair and my substance on the point of order. the chair: the gentleman from arizona mr. schweikert: with the chairman's friendship and commitment and understanding where he is on understanding the importance of the issue i will withdraw the amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: mr. --

mr. engel: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. engel of new york, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available may be used by the department of commerce or other federal agency to lease or purchase light-duty vehicles or for any agency's fleet envin territory except in the fleet performance dated may 24, 011. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from new york and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. engel: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, on may 24, 2011, president obama issued a

memorandum on federal fleet performance that required to be alternative fuel vehicles such as hybrid electric or biofuel by december 31, 2015. my amendment echoes this by prohibiting funds in this act to purchase new light-duty vehicles unless that purchase is made in accord with the president's memorandum. i have submitted the memorandum over the past few years and they have been accepted by the majority and minority. i hope my amendment will receive similar support. we no longer $147 per barrel but despite increased production, the price is determined biopeck. and the primary reason is our cars and trucks run only on petroleum.

we can change that with alternative technologies that exist today. the if i had government operates the largest fleet in america. over 633,000 vehicles. nearly 50,000 of these vehicles are within the jurisdiction of this bill used by the department of commerce and department of justice. when i was in brazil a few years ago, i saw how they diversified their fuel. people there can drive to a gas station and choose to fill their vehicle and make their choice based on cost or whatever choice they deem important. i'm proposing a bill this congress as i have in the past which will provide for cars to be able to run on a fuel in addition to gasoline. and it doesn't coast much in bras dill.

these alternative fuels will help break the lenchings that the oil companies hold over americans and increase our domestic security and protect consumers. i ask my colleagues support my amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. culberson: i seek unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition but i do not oppose the gentleman's amendment and i urge the adoption. mr. fattah: we had a big celebration for electric cars and it was a variety of vehicles but alternative fuel is important and i think the gentleman's amendment is one that we have accepted in previous appropriation bills and i would concur that we accept it. mr. culberson: i urge its adoption and yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. engel: i thank my colleagues and i look forward to continuing to work with them in a bipartisan fashion for the good of the american people. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. 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 texas seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: will the alspecify which amendment. mr. poe: amendment regarding the

fourth amendment to the constitution with multiple co-sponsors. there are four of them up there. the poe 4 , specifically the number the clerk is looking for. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. poe of texas. insert the following section, a, except as provided by subsection b, none of the funds made available by this act by the department of justice or federal bureau of investigation may be used to mandate or request that a person as defined in the section of the foreign intelligence act of 1978, 50 u.s.c. offer the product or service of the person to permit the electric tronning surveillance --

the chair: is there an objection to the gentleman. the reading is dispensed with. pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from texas and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. poe: i have a simple amendment to protect the fourth amendment of the constitution and this passed the d.o.d. appropriations last year. i thank representatives lofgren conyers, polis and labrador working on this amendment. the director of the federal bureau of investigation recently asked congress to update the law to ensure that federal government can access information from america's cell phones american cell phones in the future. many u.s. technology companies

have been approached by the government agencies urging them through intimidation or through requests to create back doors so the government could access it. we have learned about the government's abuse of section 215 under the patriot act and abuse under section 702. what this amendment does, mr. chairman, is prohibit the government from going to apple, for example, and telling apple they want an encrip ton in cell phones and allow the f.b.i. to have access to this information which would include not just conversations not just include emails, but would include text messaging as well. this prohibits the federal government specifically, the f.b.i., from going in and receiving this information,

privacy is important and under our constitution. there should be no doubt that the federal government should have no access to our cell phones and the information that is in those cell phones. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. . for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. culberson: i seek unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition. i agree with his amendment and encourage the house to support it. >> reserving the right to object. the chair: does the gentlelady from texas --? ms. lofgren: i sought to seek the time in opposition although i do not -- i support pt amendment as do you. mr. culberson: that was my point. we are here in this chamber looking at george mason to refuse to sign the constitution

because he was conserned about the power of the federal government -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. ms. lofgren: further reserving. i was wondering if the democratic side of the aisle might be able to splite the time and i was reserving the right to object. mr. culberson: i would be happy to. claiming the time in opposition, although i do not oppose it. and i will yield in a moment. but i think it is important in this age that we in the congress debate and be aware -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend. ms. lofgren: i will withdraw my reservation. the chair: the ressser vacation is withdrawn -- the reservation is withdrawn. the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. culberson: judge poe brings an important point to the floor tonight in this new era of

expanding technology that intrudes on every aspect of our lives, it's important to remember the admonition that those who gained safety are going to find themselves with neither. we are looking at george mason on the right here who refused to sign the constitution because he was skeerned that the constitution would obliterate the rights of individuals and deal scluse i havely with the states. and thomas jefferson who was aware of and concerned about the power of the federal government, we are entering a whole new era where the government has the right to intrude and i share judge poe's amendment and i urge the house to support it to make sure absent a court order, if they got a court odd, if the

national security agency has a court oord -- i asked this question if i could the new director, he said these can't be cracked. so therefore, you have to open them up like you would a safe. so i agree with the amendment and would yield the remainder of my time from california. . ms. lofgren: this is a diverse group of authors that don't agree on everything but this is very important for a reason. first it's fundamental that our privacy be protected, that the fourth amendment be adhered to. secondly, we all know and if you ask any computer scientist they will tell you that once the vulnerability is introduced far good reason, it's available for hacking for very bad reasons.

finally, for competitiveness think how competitive it is to sell an american product around the world when everyone knows that it's compromised. not a really good marketing tool system of last year, as mr. poe mentioned, we had almost precisely this amendment. on the floor. the amendment to the d.o.d. appropriation. what was the vote on that amendment? 293-123. overwhelming. so i'm hoping that members will not flip-flop, that they will in fact vote the way they did last year and i will just go on a little trip down memory row, when i was first elected to the congress, i took my oath of office january 4 1995, and i met bob goodlatte for the very first time and he and i went all over this congress to try and work on decontrol of encryption

and although a lot of people we talked to in 1995 had no idea what we were talking about when we talked about encryption, ultimately that bipartisan effort was successful. we must not let that successful effort to protect privacy protect technology to be eroded at this point. soy look forward to a very strong vote on this. i think it's important that we have a vote, even though there's agreement, just to send the message to the other body how serious that we are and with that, i yield. mr. culberson: our most important right as americans is to be left alone. your home is your castle. mr. lofgren: yielding further, i thank you, we might not agree on everything, but i think we agree on the fourth amendment. so this is a great day for this body to come together across the aisle for that purpose.

i thank the gentleman for yielding. i yield back. mr. culberson: i reserve any time we have remaining. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. poe: i yield to the gentleman. mr. fattah: i want to say on behalf of the minority we agree with your amendment. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. poe: i yield to the gentleman from kentucky. >> thank you for introducing this amendment. this was substantially the same amendment that we offered last summer that passed with a veto-proof jerrett -- majority, 293-123. back doors are bad for three reasons. when the government forces companies to put back doors or weaken their encryption software, it's bad for security because hackers will find the back door, other foreign countries will find the back doors. mr. massie spst: it's bad for

private -- mr. massie: it's bad for privacy, as my colleague from california mentioned, because it makes us less competitive overseas. who wants to buy a piece of defective software that was made defective by our country. i urge members to vote for this amendment because it would prevent these bad thing from occurring. i yield back to mr. poe. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. culberson: which gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: how much time do i have? the chair: two minutes. mr. poe: i want to thank the support from the minority and from ms. lofgren and the co-sponsors on this, as well as the chairman of the subcommittee and the issue of privacy in this time where we have threats to this country, we can have security and we can certainly have privacy and we can have the constitution to be followed as well and the fourth amendment requires, and has always

required that if the government wants to search, the government must follow certain rules and those rules are, you must get a warrant from a judge based on proximate cause. and that is still the law of the land even in 2015. all of this law -- all this law does or all this amendment does is ensure the fact that the government, the f.b.i. follows the constitution. and the idea that the federal government wants to have encryption in american cell phones so they have access to the information is repulsive. so all this does is keep the federal government out of our business. without appropriate constitutional protections. and i yield back the balance of my time and i ask for the support of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas, mr. culberson is recognized. mr. culberson: i just want to reaffirm judge, as you've written this amendment, there's an exception if the government gets a court order, they can go

in and put a back door on the phone when the judge says there's a compelling reason to do so and sufficient evidence. mr. poe: certainly, the law, the constitution still applies, if the government -- that the government must go and get a warrant based on proximate cause, the fourth amendment. of course there are exceptions to warrantless search. mr. culberson: and the way the amendment is written, the government can't force all companies to build a back door into all phones, you have to have a reason for that specific person that specific phone. that's what mr. madison intend -- and mr. jefferson supported. i yield back. mr. poe: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the all the offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> mr. speaker. the chair: the gentleman from --

for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. polis of colorado 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 execute a subpoena of tangible things pursuant to section 506 of the controlled substances act 21 u.s.c. 876, that does not include the following sentence, the subpoena limits the collection of any tangible things including phone numbers dialed telephone numbers of incoming call the dureation of calls, to those tangible things identified by a term that specifically identifies an individual account, address or personal device and that limits to the greatest extent reasonably practical the scope of tangible things sought.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from colorado and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: here in congress, we just have been spending a lot of time and energy discussing n.s.a. surveillance. the american public and members of congress in both chambers have spoken clearly to the kind of bold data collection the n.s.a. has engaged in needs to be stopped. however there is a corresponding change we need to make with regard to drug enforcement administration. in a series of revelations from 2013 to 2015, it came to light that the d.e.a. had for more than 20 years been gathering a vast database of information on america's personal communications. there was no congressional authority for this program. no oversight by congress or any area of the federal government. legal experts who weighed in after the program was finally made public have said without hesitation that the program was illegal. now in 2013, the department of

justice brought this program to an end. but there is nothing to stop the government or the d.o.j. from resuming it at will unless congress acts by inserting this language in the appropriations bill. without this language the d.e.a. could once again unilaterally sweep up the communications records of millions of americans. there's no reason that as we work to end the unconstitutional surveillance that the n.s.a. is engaged in we should continue to allow the d.o.j. to have the very same abuse. this is a corresponding piece of legislation, something that already passed the house with regards to the n.s.a. by an overwhelming majority. i urge my colleagues to support our bipartisan amendment that we worked on with mr. griffith, mr. schweikert, mr. nadler and mr. farenthold to simply prohibit d.o.j. from using federal funds to engage in bulk data collection of americans' phone records or other data and i'm proud to reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman reserves. does any member seek time in opposition? for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. culberson: i want to reserve the time in opposition, just being given mr. polis' amendment here. i oppose the idea of bulk data. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. culberson: i would like to accept the gentleman's amendment because of my previous expressed concerns about, we want to make sure we're protecting the privacy of law-abiding americans so i would accept the gentleman's amendment with the understanding that i would work with him to make sure we -- there may be unintended consequences here that i'm not immediately awear of, judiciary committee staff is working with ours right now, mr. polis, to make sure we've got our arms around this. i want to make sure the d.e.a., if they've got a valid court order a valid subpoena, they can go after lawbreakers and complete their investigations, but again, we want to protect the privacy of law-abiding

americans and i yield to my friend from philadelphia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fattah: i think with the understanding the chairman laid out, you accepting this amendment would move us a way forward and i agree soic we have a clear understanding that you're accepting it but we will work together to make sure it doesn't have any unintended consequences. mr. culberson: with that understanding, i want to ensure the court orders can do their work. with that understanding, i withdraw my opposition and will accept the antidepressant. -- the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: i yield one minute to the gentleman, the co-sponsor of the amendment, mr. nadler of new york. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: i thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in strong support of this amendment to prevent bulk collection of data at the department of justice. last month, this house spoke loud and clear that we oppose the national security agency's bulk collection of telephone

metadata. we have reaffirmed our commitment to the fourth amendment and to protecting americans from unconstitutional government surveillance. we learned earlier this year that long before the n.s.a.'s program began, the drug enforcement administration engaged in its own bulk collection program that provided the model for nearly a decade later. this included logs from virtually all telephone calls from the to us 116 countries ospenceably linked to drug trafficking. mr. chairman enough is enough. though the d.o.j. has since shut down this program, there's nothing preventing the department from renewing it in secret without authorization as it did before this would ensure it remains dormant and american's privacy remains secure. i think mr. polis and the other co-sponsors and thank the gentleman for accepting this amendment. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: the co-author of the moment -- of the amendment i'd

like to yield to mr. farenthold. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. farenthold: i rise in support of this amendment and thank my colleague from texas for agreeing to accept it. this has been a great victory this week in our ability to work with the senate to rein in what i believe to be the unconstitutional bulk data collection by the n.s.a. but just because we stopped the n.s.a. doesn't mean we shouldn't be ever-vigilant. with the reports of the d.e.a. engaging in similar activity, it's absolutely appropriate that we use the power of the purse to ensure that this type of spying on american citizens this bulk data collection is stopped. this is no different from the general war warrants complained about when the king of england would send his troops to rifle through people's desks looking for stuff. it's the same thing in the digital age. i encourage my colleagues to support it and look forward to working with my colleague, mr. culberson new york making sure it does become part of this bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: in conclusion, i want

to thank the gentleman from texas, mr. culberson. it is indeed the intended language and we believe the actual language would not interfere with court orders. it's designed to pertain to bulk collections of data. i appreciate the gentleman from texas accepting the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . the chair: the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from tennessee seek recognition? mrs. blackburn: wife of i have even amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 287, the gentlelady from tennessee and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mrs. blackburn: first of all, i want to begin by thanking the committee and chairman culberson for their tremendous work that they have put into this bill identifying ways to reduce spending and to be a good steward of the taxpayers' money. this funding bill is $51.4 billion and i would like to point out that this is $661 million below the president's request. so good work on behalf of our team. now, i am one of those who thinks more needs to be done. there is more we should do. so my amendment calls for a 1% across-the-board spending reduction. that would reduce the budget authority by $540 million and

outlays by $340 million in 2016. i'm fully aware of the opposition that exists to across-the-board cuts by many of the appropriators and i have many times stood on this floor and heard how they think this is just a little bit of a cut too much. however we are nearly 18.3 trillion in debt. indeed admiral mullen on july 26 2010, said the greatest threat to our nation's security is our nation debt. getting our spending under control is an important step for us to take. that is why we need to move forward and do what many of our states have done and institute across-the-board cuts to save one penny out of a dollar. engage the rank and file federal employees, have them bring to the table our best ideas.

our children are depending on us to do this in order to maintain the fiscal sovereignty of our nation. with that, mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition. mr. culberson: i claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. culberson: in our personal lives or business lives the appropriations committee has prioritized the hard-earned taxpayer dollars that we are entrusted to appropriate to make sure they are spent on the most urgent priorities first. we do not want to cut, the f.b.i. we do not want to cut our operations of our cybersecurity forces as mrs. blackburn would. i do not want to cut the work that is being done by our law enforcement officials across the

country, as mrs. blackburn would. this would cut the work that is being done by the marshals service and the new immigration judges that we have incrude concluded in the bill and the money we have set aside for the operation of our prison system of the a.t.f., all law enforcement agencies that perform such a vital role. we prioritize them and make sure they are protected from cuts. i would oppose this amendment on the basis that we do not want to cut federal law enforcement. we also don't want to cut our nation's investment in the sciences, in the national science foundation or our work to preserve america's leadership role in space exploration and make sure we are doing all we can to accelerate our work to bring astronauts on an american made rocket and this amendment would cut nasa.

we have in the bill cut or eliminated dozens of programs that the authorization has expired or the usefulness has expired. and cut programs that were not effective anymore completely eliminated programs. we found all kinds of savings in this bill and i'm sure our priorities are ones that the good people of tennessee that mrs. blackburn represents. we share our commitment to the america's space program and they would agree with our cuts to the department of commerce, our cuts on the unavoidable cuts to the census. we did our best to protect the important work that our men and women in uniform do and this amendment would be a blunt cut across the board to all of these worth while programs and i urge

the members to oppose it and reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the the gentlewoman from tennessee -- mrs. blackburn: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: i ask the gentleman from texas to yield me texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas -- mr. fattah: would you yield me 10 seconds. i concur with the chairman and i'm opposed to the amendment. mr. culberson: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: i preesht that the work has done, but i think it is imperative that the burden we are placing on future generations quite frankly it is rather selfish of this body to

force our children and grandchildren to pay for the out-of-control spending of today. have we done a good job? yes. cutting one penny out of a dollar is a wise step. i don't know of anybody that thinks we are underspent. i know a lot of people that think we are overspent and that we are overtaxed. you know what is going to take to get our fiscal house in order and to secure this nation's future generation a yes indeed, targeted cuts. it is going to take across-the-board cuts and going to take everybody agreeing, we don't have a revenue problem but a spending problem. and that is a component of our budget and appropriations process that the american people

are demanding that we get under control. it's not necessarily a debate about worthyness. there are lots of good programs and essential programs. what it is is about a debates of stewardship, making sure we are focusing and that we are doing the extra work that is necessary to get this sending under control. as i said, this is $51.4 billion in discretionary funding that this is in this appropriations bill. it is below the president's request. the committee should be commended for that. taking the step of a 1% cut, talking about $540 million in budget authority and $3408 million reduction in outlays. it is a goal we should set for ourselves, it is doable and

attainable and take a playbook and from the counties and communities that we represent and make the effort to reduce the spending just a little bit more. with that, madam chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from tennessee yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. culberson: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: 2 1/4 minutes. mr. culberson: it would cut one percent of the relationship kits. we increased funding to eliminate that. we increased funding to make sure that programs to prevent violence against women. this amendment would cut those funding increases for violence against women and not the annual appropriations bill that is the

biggest part of the problem. we need to recognize, that we have to look at the entire budget. the appropriations bill is one-third of the problem. the other 2/3 are the mandatory -- looming bankruptcy of social security and medicaid and obamacare has threatened torl bankrupt, the national debts, the national debt. the american taxpayers are taxed too much. but we are on these automatic programs that are consuming 2/3 of the nation's resources. in fact, if you pay -- just paying for those existing programs the mandatory programs which is america's mortgage and interest payments, once you pay society, security, medicare, medicaid, you are only left with

$689 billion. national credit credit card. july 27 is the day when we run out of existing revenue and living on borrowed money. a far better way is to deal with the looming bankruptcy of medicare of social security and deal with the debt and deficit and not look at some 1% cut on the one-third of the budget that we have already prioritized and cut where we can while protecting law enforcement protecting our investment in the sciences and space exploration. i urning ms. blackburn to work with us throughout the year and help us find cuts in programs rather than bring the amendment to the floor at the last amendment than i urge members to vote against this amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentlewoman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mrs. blackburn: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. scott of virginia, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, the amounts otherwise provided by this act are revise by reducing the amount made available for federal prison systems salaries and expenses, and increasing the amounts for justice programs, office of justice programs by $6950

15,000. mr. culberson: i reserve a point of record. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287 the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: this amendment that i'm offering today would repurpose of the funding for the federal prison system and restore funding for the office of juvenile justice and delinssi prevention. it has discretionary grants for early programs which were funded last year at $70 million to ensure that our states' are not

damaged, this amendment would take one% away and to maintain our commitment to prevention and early intervention. the prison system can take steps by limiting duplicatings prosecutions particularly for first time offenders. these practices will not only save money but improve public safety. we have a choice madam chair. we invest in prisons after the fact or invest in prevention or early intervention and eliminate what the children's defend fund calls and i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes.

mr. cardenas: thank you, madam chairwoman. appreciate the opportunity to speak to my colleague and friend's mr. scott's amendment. this is to encourage this body to restore critical funding for the office of justice programs, office of juvenile justice and delinquency. this is the office of juvenile justice delinquency prevention this existing appropriations bill decimates funding for title 2 state formula grants and title 5 delinquency programs which are essential investments that are proven to reduce crime this amendment would provide $69,515,000, the equivalent of less than 1% of the federal prison budget, a small investment when you consider the cost of incarcerating youth is on average $88,000 per year. that's hundreds of $s a day to incarcerate a youth. alternatives to incarceration

for youth costs $11 per day. these methods cost pennies compared to incarceration of young people. members from both parties have espoused the importance of investing in our children. conservative organizations have been among the loudest advocates for reforming our criminal justice system. in particular, for our youth. to move from an incarceration based system to one that funds proven research-based alternatives to putting behind bars america's children. there's a bipartisan consensus on this, ladies and gentlemen. while this amendment will be withdrawn, i hope we can work together to fund these critical programs to give our children the opportunity to be productive members of our community, reduce crime and save billions of tax dollars going forward. i yield back to my colleague. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. mr. scott: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves.

>> i reserve my point of -- mr. culberson: i'm prepared to assert my point of order unless the gentleman is going to withdraw. >> i'd like to claim time in opposition. the chair: we have a point of order pending. the chair: the point of order -- mr. culberson: we have a point of order pending. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. mr. fattah: i want to thank the chair on education and the work force for raising this important issue and assure him that it's my intention we will be working between here and the final bill to improve upon this area in the bill. i want to thank the chairman for all his work in this regard and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. does the gentleman from texas continue to reserve?

mr. culberson: i continue to reserve, depending on -- the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: i yield myself the balance of the time. i thank the gentleman for his -- for allowing taos debate. i understand the point of order will be sustained and there will be other opportunities during the legislative process as the ranking member of the subcommittee has indicated, to deal with this issue. the way the bill has been drafted, it is impossible to get an amendment in order but there will be other possibilities later on in the process that i hope the chair and ranking member will work effectively to make sure that we deal the choice that we have, whether we're going to just put money wait for young people to get in trouble and then deal wit or we can deal with it in advance with prevention and early intervention. this was what this amendment would do. madam chair, if the gentleman is going to assert his point of

order, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and deal with the issue later in the process. the chair: without objection, the motion to withdraw -- the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentlewoman -- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california, a member of the committee, seek recognition? >> thank you, madam chair. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. lee of california. at the end of title 5 of the bill the following, add, section 5-a, for each fiscal year after the expiration of the period specified in subsection b in which a state receives funds for a program referred to in section c-2, the state shall

require that all individuals enrolled in the academy of a law enforcement agency of the state and all law enforcement officers of the state fill a training -- fulfill a training session on sensitivity each year including training on racial sensitivity and bias. ms. lee: i request to waive the reading of the bill. the chair: is there objection to the request to waive the reading of the bill? without objection, the reading is suspended. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. culberson: i wish to reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentlewoman -- pursuant to house -- pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentlewoman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentlewoman from california. ms. lee: thank you, madam chair. i want to thank the chair and ranking member for your leadership on this subcommittee and for your interest and support on this amendment. i recognize the point of order and plan to withdraw. recent events in ferguson, staten island, baltimore and around the country illustrate the need for significant reform in police interaction in the communities that they are sworn to serve and protect. that's why this amendment would require the states receiving funding from the department of justice's edward burn memorial justice system program put academy students and law enforcement officers through sensitivity training on ethnic and racial bias, cultural diversity and police interaction with the disabled, mentally ill, and new immigrants. as you know, d.o.j.'s program is a primary provider of federal criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions, supporting a wide range of law enforcement and court activities. our law enforcement agencies and

officers play a critical role in protecting the safety of our communities. we need them to work cooperatively and competently along with community members to protect the public safety and integrity of our neighborhoods. this is a major issue in many congressional districts where many officers live outside of the communities they serve and do not have the training to deal with a diverse constituency. mr. chairman, i know that we all agree that the status quo is simply unacceptable. i'd like to now yield time to my colleague who has demonstrated incredible leadership on this issue and continues to work in a bipartisan fashion on this very commonsense policy. congressman clay. the chair: what is the length of time? ms. lee: how much time do i have remain, madam chair? the chair: the gentlewoman from california has 3 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. lee: i yield two minutes to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman from

massachusetts -- from missouri is recognized for two minutes. mr. clay: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. i rise in strong support of this amendment. f.b.i. director james comby's february 12, 2015, speech entitled "hard truths on law enforcement and race" address what he characterized as a disconnect between police and minority communities. director comby -- combey challenged officers to acknowledge the widespread existence of unconscious bias. we appreciate his candor and acknowledgment of issues we have long felt. experience in our communities indicates negative police interaction and excessive force disproportionately affect communities of color. but there are other communities who would also benefit from

better law enforcement relations. as f.b.i. director comey requires all new agents and analysts -- analysts to study the agency's interaction with dr. martin luther king jr. follow bd -- followed by a visit to the king memorial. the f.b.i.'s required study serves as recognition that in order to truly see each other as people, we must recognize our shortcomings and create and identify opportunity to understand respect, and be decent to one another. police officers -- police officers sensitivity training and annual retraining demonstrate a commitment to communities across this nation. as members of congress it is a practice we must encourage. ferguson staten island, cleveland, baltimore the need

for reform is as clear as it is urgent. thank you, madam chair, and i thank the gentlewoman from california and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california reserves. for what purpose does the -- ms. lee: i yield 30 seconds to the ranking member. ms. fattah: i want to thank the gentlelady for her steadfastness and her focus on this matter and pledge that i will work with the chairman as we go forward to see that we get this incorporated in the final product of the bill. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. culberson: thank you, madam chair. i assure my colleague i will continue to work with her and our ranking member. the chair: does the gentleman continue to reserve a point of order? mr. culberson: i do. the chair: does the gentleman rise to claim time in

opposition? mr. culberson: i rise to claim time in opposition but continue to reserve my point of order. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. culberson: i assure my colleague i will continue to work with her and the ranking member as we move through conference but i do reserve my point of order. i appreciate the gentlewoman's withdrawing of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time and his point of order. mr. culberson: i do reserve the point of order pending the gentlelady's withdrawal of the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: i want to thank our ranking member and chairman for their commitment to continue to work on this important issue along with congressman clay and so i therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: without objection the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentlewoman -- the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: would the gentleman

specify the amendment. mr. poe: 41. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the follow, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to phone force section 221 united states code with respect to the survey conducted by the secretary of commerce commonly referred to as the american community survey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287 the gentleman from texas and a member opposed each will control fife minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. poe: i thank the chairman. madam speaker, we're all familiar with the census that takes place every 110 years where there's a counting of the people in america. the census bureau also has another project, not constitutionally required, but something they d called the american community survey which is a partial sampling of about three million americans a year.

a survey is sent out, i ask unanimous consent to introduce this 28-page survey. the chair: the gentleman's request is covered by general leave. mr. poe: i thank the gentlelady, the chair. it's 48 questions long. and the questions have nothing to do with how many people live in your house. it has -- some of the questions are like this. when do you leave for work? when does your spouse leave for work? when do your kids leave for school? does anyone suffer from a mental illness in the residence? does your house have a sink with a faucet? does anyone have trouble walking? does anyone have trouble getting dressed or bathed? so there are 48 questions like this. and failure to abide by and fill out this document, send it back to the census bureau could result in a fine. now, people in my district have called my office and -- and from all other the country about

getting this thing in the mail and the harassment by the census bureau and subcontractors, including the fact that have a single parent in my district that called and was complaining about the fact that the census bureau person would sit in her front -- in front of her house waiting for her to come home from work and then go to the door, peek through the windows, trying to get her to fill out this page, or these pages 28 pages, and send them back to the census bureau system of harassment takes place. it's made some -- some people are threatened with a fine that's imposed for failure to abide by the survey. now, what this amendment does, it does not eliminate the american community survey. the ranking member and i had a discussion, i guess five hours ago, on the house floor about whether it's a good idea or not. it doesn't even stop the survey from being conducted. all it does is prohibit the federal government from imposing

a penalty for failure to fill out the survey. and that results in the fact that people can voluntarily fill out this form and send it back if they want to. if they don't want to voluntarily have their privacy invaded by the government, they don't have to fill it out and don't have to worry about a fine. that's what this amendment does. prohibits funding to allow the fine to be collected, thus making the survey voluntary. and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from -- does the gentleman from texas. -- for what purpose does mr. fattah: i supported the gentleman's last amendment. i strongly oppose this amendment. it is impossible for me to see that we want to run the greatest

country on the face of the earth without data, without knowledge without circumstances of the circumstances are. where to locate v.a. hospitals all of the other information that is generated through this community survey. i know there is talk about a fine. but we haven't been able to identify anyone with a fine. when the canadians volunteered, they stopped getting almost my compliance. if the federal government is going to plan in terms of federal highways and federal programming and going through a formal grant not through earmark but by knowledge what is happening through communities, these surveys are critical. the idea that we would say we are going to run this great

count and which continue information and put on blindfolds and hope for the best about education and housing and transportation needs or healthcare needs, it doesn't make sense. but as a notion for actually intentional leadership for our nation to say we want to separate ourselves from actual information about what's going on, i think the gentleman, as right as he was in the original amendment, in this particular matter, i think he is headed in the wrong direction, woy ask democrats and republic caps, put the party aside and put the national interests first and you talk about running the government like a business, no one would run a business without

utilizing the government without a marketplace and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. mr. poe: how much do i have left? the chair: the gentleman from texas has two minutes. mr. poe: i a yield a minute to the chairman of the committee. mr. culberson: i want to express my strong support for judge poe's amendment because our important right of americans is to be left alone. and i agree that this data is important but can be included in the census itself. any essential questions the department of commerce can include within the core questions. they don't have tom send this survey out to every american and subject americans with a threat of a $10,000 fine if they don't comply. i support the gentleman's

amendment as a furtherry fleck shon of our committee to protect the right to privacy and be left alone so i urge members to support mr. poe's amendment. if the government needs this data -- mr. poe: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas -- mr. fattah: how much time is left between the gentleman and myself? the chair: the gentleman from from pennsylvania has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. let me remind the house that we had another texan and he was the president of the united states and under his administration that the questions that were put together in the community survey that were developed under that

administration -- the chair: would the gentleman from texas -- the gentleman from pennsylvania has the right to close. mr. fattah: i would reserve. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. poe: i thank gentleman bringing up the american economic survey. americans should not be required to give personal information to the federal government. if they want to fill it out, go for it. and what takes place in your residence, but it should not be required. the federal government could go to polling and go door to door and this information is gathered from different business is not going door to dire i would ask

that the law or that this amendment be adopted that basically requires the american survey be voluntary and not be collected under this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. fattah: i move to close i wanted to make sure there is some things that may eminate from this administration and this isn't a democratic scheme. that this is a legitimate activity of the federal government and one joined in by the chambers of commerce hotel us that this is vitally important. so i think from a commonsense basis we know as politicians when we are engaged, we try to get a lot of information.

we know it's important and important for making sure that federal programs are focused on the priorities of your community. and if we don't have the knowledge of how many people need day care slots or how many veterans are there or what the other circumstances are in a particular community, it is impossible to do the planning that is necessary. reject this amendment and we continue to use data as a basis to make informed decisions here at the national level. thank you and i yield back. the chair: 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 and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek

recognition. >> i have an amendment at the desk offered with mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. foster of illinois, insert the following, section 54 , none of the funds made available by this act may be used to fund any experimental programs to stimulate experimental research. the chair: the gentleman from illinois and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. foster: hundreds of billions of dollars are transferred from out of states that pay more in federal taxes than they receive back in if i had spending. and this money is transferred into states that receive a lot more of federal spending than

they pay in federal taxes. this is an enormous and unjustifyable of redistribution of wealth between the states. the payer states can be characterized inal number of ways. while virtually all of the taker states are smaller, which means they are overrepresented in the senate. over time, senators from these states have inserted hundreds of programs that steer money into the taker states. our amendment takes a first small step to begin rolling back these preferences by eliminating one haven't most unjustifyable of them all, the experimental program to stimulate competitive research. it was started as an experiment call program in 1978 where the goal of redistributing research dollars into states that receive

less share of funding. fair share was determined on a per-state basis rather than a per capita basis it has deinvolved into a program that steers into smaller states that goes into states. since no allowance is made for whether the state has a big or small population, the program systemically discriminates against researchers simply because they come from states from large populations. they are hardly lacking. according to the tax foundation, the states received approximately $60 billion more in federal spending than they paid in federal taxes. how does one justify a program that excludes researchers in states which over the past three

years that got $7 in funding while steering funding in rhode island in rhode island and alaska. why should a researcher be eligible for a grant set aside that is unable at uc lmp a or northern illinois? as a scientist, i find it is not surprising that it is difficult to find supporters. precious research funding would be far better spent in a merit-based process as it will be if our amendment is adopted. madam chair i would like at this point to yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett and the co-sponsor of my amendment. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one

minute. mr. garrett: i thank the gentleman from illinois and i'm honored to serve along side on the the payers' state caucus. this program is exenal of good intentions and bad policy. what was intended to be temporary assistance to some states to rebuild the infrastructure and exit the program that become a part of the their growing subsidy. this is a part of subsidies the government has enacted. look for three decades 0 years after establishment this program continues to be called what? an experimental program that no state and none have graduated from the program and yet exists 30 years later. this can only demonstrate one thing, another example of wasteful redistribution programs that the taxpayers are compelled to support. the amendment would relieve the

taxpayers of this burden and again i thank mr. foster for his work for protecting the payer states. and i urge my colleagues to support. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. foster: i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. culberson: i seek sime to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. culberson: this program is to designed to ensure that industry company develop science and engineering capabilities that are outside our research hubs and the the strategic importance in aerospace research and i do urge a no vote on the gentleman's amendment and i

would be glad to yield to my colleague for further -- in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields to the gentleman from rhode island. mr. cicilline: i rise to speak in opposition to this amendment that would eliminate the program. the national science foundation has provided academic research to colleges and universities around the nation and has been critical to ongoing research that is essential to maintaining our competitive advantage. the program to stimulate research is an authorized program whose nirkttives to balance negotiations of funding to avoid undue concentration of money. this program has a profound impact on rhode island allowing

institutions to increase research capacity and contribute toll advances in a variety of fields. 25 states including rhode island and three jurisdictions account for only 10% of all n.s.f. funding despite they account for 20% of the population. and this should continue to do so in the 2016 fiscal year and beyond. research and outcomes across the country and funding should be considered to ensure we are taking advantage of the particular experiences, knowledge and perspectives of academic institutions. this amendment to eliminate this program would be a step backwards. investments in critical programs are essential to creating jobs, innovating for the future and maintaining our competitiveness.

i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and yield back. . the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from illinois had yielded back. so the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. culberson: i ask members to vote no and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from illinois will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. will the gentleman please send his amendment to the desk. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. goodlatte of virginia. 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 to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel of the department of justice to

negotiate or conclude a settlement with the federal government that includes terms requiring the defendant to donate or contribute funds to an organization or individual. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from virginia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: the -- my amendment requires the department of justice to prevent mandatory donations as part of settlement agreements. the department of justice is systematically perverting congress' authority by sending funds to groups. an investigation reveals that in just the last 10 months, the department of justice has used mandatory donations to direct as much as half a billion dollars

to activist groups. these payments occur entirely outside of this of the congressional appropriation and oversight process. in some case, the department of justice is using mandatory donations to restore funding that congress specifically cut. this is money that could otherwise be going directly to victims. the department of justice continues to resist document requests, but what little has been provided confirms that act vist group which food to -- which stood to gain from mandatory provisions, were involved in placing those provisions in the settlement. the committee's raised concerns with the department of justice in 2014 but instead of suspending the practice, the department of justice has doubled down. it recently entered into an over $50 million settlement relating to robo signing. $7.5 million of that did not make it to victims.

instead it went to a third party. incredibly, the settlement specifically provided that there would be no oversight of the money. the situation is even more egregious when one considers that the required donation will nearly double the net assets of the d.o.j.'s specified recipient. it is deeply troubling for that to happen at the unilateral discretion of the executive barrage. this amendment takes no money away from any organization, it is purely prospective. it sheen -- it ensures that money goes directly to victims or to the treasury for elected officials to decide how it is to be spent. it is critical that we act. the department of justice is ignoring congress' concerns, increasing the use of third party payments even as we object. the purpose of enforcement actions is punishment and redress to actual victims. carrying that concept to communities at large or activist

community group, however worthy is a matter for the legislative branch and is not to be conducted as the unilateral discretion of the executive. this is fundamentally a bipartisan institutional issue. there was abuse of third party payments in the bush administration. this amendment is about preserving congress' appropriations authority and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. fattah: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman for five minutes. mr. fattah: i'm not planning on strongly objecting to this but i want to make a few points. one is this is something that should be dealt with in an authorizing circumstance but i think because it's on an appropriations bill it could have unintended consequences. as i would understand the plain english of what's being said is an administration faced with, for instance the gulf oil

spill, could not have been involved in a settlement in which various entities received dollars to try to find redress for harm that was created in the gulf. i think that would be very problematic because there were a lot of groups, fishermen and other associations, chamber of commerces, others, who received support through that settlement. i think we ought to be careful, it would probably be better that there be hearings and that there be an understanding around what this actually means. i've offered my own bipartisan supported legislation that would create a congressional framework for settlements. i'm not opposed to what's being said here and i do recognize that there have been circumstances in past administrations, i'm not aware of the incidents that the chairman speaks of now, but i would just hope that rather than rushing forward, we would be mindful that this is part of the

-- this is probably the kind of thing where we would want authorizes to handle not have it tucked into the appropriations bill. at this time. and plus if we really think the executive branch is using their authority the idea that they would sign it away by signing this brill, if it's meaningful to them, might slow down passage of an important piece of legislation. i'm happy to yield. >> i want to a-- mr. goodlatte: i want to make it clear that the language is designed to ensure that this applies to donation, not money given to victims where redress is sought for that, redress for them is not a donation, it's recompense for the harm they suffered. mr. fattah: i know the chairman is quite aware of how these words donation, mandatory

settlement so forth and so on, might be applied and abused in various ways so i just think that you know, again, obviously this is something the majority wants to do, it will do it. i just think it may have unintended consequences and this administration, the next administration and various administrations going forward, this should be a congressional framework for settlements. i've offered legislation that's bipartisan in that regard. i'm not opposed to creating a congressional framework, i just think that we don't want to have unintended consequences here if we can avoid it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: how much time -- how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has two minutes remaining. mr. goodlatte: i yield such time as the gentleman may consume to the chairman.

the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. culberson: i want to express my strong support for chairman goodlatte's amendment, words he's chosen have been chosen very carefully. donation or contribution is just that. it's a gift, it's a donation, it's -- if the money is paid in compensation for an injury, as a result of a claim, it's not covered. so the chairman of the judiciary committee has written this very carefully and very narrowly to address a very real problem. i strongly support the gentleman's amendment, have worked with him and his staff and appreciate, i genuinely appreciate the good work your staff has done mr. chairman new york working with you to find common ground. this is one of those areas where i believe we're doing good public policy. i support the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption and would yield my remaining time to the chairman of the judiciary committee. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself the balance of the time just to say, this is an important principle not only to address the abuse that's taken place in the executive branch but to

protect the prerogatives of the congress on both sides of the aisle. these are funds that if they are not expended for the specific purpose of providing compensation to victims, relief to victims in these lawsuits, those funds should go back to the general treasury of the united states and they should be appropriated by the congress. in fact, by this very subcommittee of the house appropriations committee to make sure that the people's will is exercised with regard to the expenditure of these funds. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. 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 oregon seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: i have an

amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. 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 for any inspection under section 510 of the controlled substances act 1 u.s.c. 880 with respect to narcotic drugs and section 3 4 or 5 of section 302, u.s.c. 812 or combinations of such drugs being dispensed pursuant to section 303-g-2 of such act 1 u.s.c. 823-g-2 for the maintenance or detoxify case treatment. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 287, the gentleman from oregon and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: thank you, madam chair. that's a rather imposing title to deal with a relatively simple

concept. we have a national epidemic dealing with opioid painkillers. prescription drug overdoses are a serious problem. we find people who become addicted, we're finding that in a routine matter of course that this drug dependence often leads to heroin and we're watching a chain of events. in oregon, we found that there's 15% of young oregonians between 18 and 25 abuse prescription pain relievers last year. i mention that chain of causality. we're finding that people in this sequence are often -- often use heroin as a substitute when they -- when the pills get too expensive or the high is no longer high enough. it's easy to switch to heroin.

and it's not just a problem in oregon. we've seen the c.d.c. chart heroin deaths doubling between 2010 and 2012 in 28 states. opioid addiction can be devastating. but there's a drug that can be used to safely and effectively treat this addiction. for more than 12 years bupreef norpeen has been a critical use in fighting opioid addiction. it can be taken on an outpatient basis and is easy to administer. but we've made it harder for doctors to prescribe these scheduled 3 addiction treatment drugs even though it's comparatively easy to prescribe the schedule 2 drugs that cause addiction in the first place. such as vicodin.

and oxy con tin. -- oxycontin. and the schedule 3 drugs, we're finding that there are audits taking place by d.e.a. doctors who complete the eight-hour certification process have been approached by d.e.a. agents in my community before they even write a single prescription. they report hostile and intimidating behavior from agents who demand inspections of their prescription records at random unscheduled intervals. and these are doctors who can simply write a prescription for powerful narcotics without having to worry about random d.e.a. inspections. we need to allow doctors to treat their patients with compassion and with the care they deem appropriate. they shouldn't have to worry about d.e.a. agents having a super overlay of attention.