Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to several of the critical accounts in the bill that have been cut, which my amendment would address.

The CJS Appropriations Act specifically targets funding for NOAA's climate research programs by $30 million over currently enacted levels, a program so important for farmers, for businesses, for air safety, for so many different reasons. That is a 20 percent cut to programs that are imperative to our Nation's ability and resilience in the face of climate threats.

Twenty-five people were killed in the floods that saturated Texas last month. Damage from Hurricane Sandy was estimated at $700 billion back in 2012, and at least six people died in Boulder and Larimer County during the flooding that overtook my region in 2013. None of these places had ever seen storms like the ones they encountered over the last 5 years, and each were unprepared to handle it.

OAA and its partner institutions have made a huge dent in preventing disasters like these by keeping first responders, weather forecasters, businesses, communities, and families on the cutting edge of data predictability and resilience, providing quality raw data, as well as helping to develop new algorithms for interpreting existing data.

Two of our partner institutions, CU and CSU, are located in my district in Colorado. Together with NOAA, these institutions are developing unmanned atmospheric assessment aircraft that allow us to foresee changes in weather patterns, incoming storms, days before we could otherwise, saving lives and saving property damage.

These are very real tangible benefits that benefit all and protect Americans, regardless of whether one believes in climate change or what is causing it. I urge my colleagues to consider a world without these capabilities and what that would look like.

I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I wanted to inquire with regard to how the funding cuts would impact the development of the unmanned atmospheric assessment aircrafts that are critical to foreseeing changes in weather pattern.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, very specifically, this amendment would restore the $30 million of cuts--namely, a 20 percent cut--a disproportionate cut to climate science activities, including unmanned atmospheric assessment aircrafts and including creating raw data streams that can be used by those who predict weather, as well as by farmers and businesses, because you can't separate out weather and climate.

I think, perhaps because of political reasons--I don't know why--there is a disproportionate cut, 20 percent, to the climate science piece of NOAA. Now, that climate science piece of NOAA, just because it has the word ``climate'' in it, that doesn't mean it is something where they are out there doing things that are political.

What they are doing is they are trying to research the macro effects of climate on weather, on population and patterns, on dangers on ships. If the gentleman would simply allow that discretion within NOAA, undo the 20 percent cut, we fund that within NOAA.

We are not, nor can we, under the budget, seek new money. We are simply taking the $30 million and putting it back into the climate science program.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, very specifically, this amendment would restore the $30 million of cuts--namely, a 20 percent cut--a disproportionate cut to climate science activities, including unmanned atmospheric assessment aircrafts and including creating raw data streams that can be used by those who predict weather, as well as by farmers and businesses, because you can't separate out weather and climate.

I think, perhaps because of political reasons--I don't know why--there is a disproportionate cut, 20 percent, to the climate science piece of NOAA. Now, that climate science piece of NOAA, just because it has the word ``climate'' in it, that doesn't mean it is something where they are out there doing things that are political.

What they are doing is they are trying to research the macro effects of climate on weather, on population and patterns, on dangers on ships. If the gentleman would simply allow that discretion within NOAA, undo the 20 percent cut, we fund that within NOAA.

We are not, nor can we, under the budget, seek new money. We are simply taking the $30 million and putting it back into the climate science program.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, here in Congress we have just been spending a lot of time and energy discussing NSA surveillance. The American public--and now, Members of Congress in both Chambers--have spoken clearly that the kind of bulk data collection the NSA has engaged in needs to be stopped. However, there is a corresponding change that we need to make with regard to the Drug Enforcement Administration.

In a series of revelations from 2013 to 2015, it came to light that the DEA 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 and 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.

In 2013, the Department of Justice brought this program to an end, but there is nothing to stop the government or the DOJ from resuming it at will unless Congress acts by inserting this language in the appropriations bill. Without this language, the DEA could once again unilaterally sweep up the communications records of millions of Americans.

There is no reason that, as we work to end the unconstitutional surveillance that the NSA has engaged in, we should continue to allow the DOJ to have the very same abuses.

This is a corresponding piece of legislation to something that already passed the House with regard to the NSA 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 DOJ from using Federal funds to engage in bulk data collection of Americans' phone records or other data, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

In conclusion, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson). It is, indeed, the intended language and we believe the actual language of the amendment that would not interfere with any valid court orders or warrants. We are happy to work with them in that regard.

The amendment is designed to pertain to bulk collection of data, which was never specifically authorized by Congress.

I appreciate the gentleman from Texas accepting the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. Chairman, by the way it has been talked about by some on the other side, to be clear, this amendment does not legalize marijuana. It simply ensures that the Federal Government doesn't waste its limited resources in prosecuting men and women who are acting in compliance with State and medical marijuana laws. That is all it does.

It is very reasonable that States have enforcement priorities in this area, and we want our Federal resources geared towards crime that we view as more important. Have them go after the meth lab. Have them go after the heroin ring.

Colorado has had legal medical marijuana for nearly a decade. Some in our State are for it; some are against it. It is our right as a State to determine that. That is why I support this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I thank the gentleman from California for bringing forward this amendment.

I say to my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, I am actually from Colorado, and I don't recognize the Colorado that you are talking about.

I come from the Colorado where underage marijuana use is down since legalization. I am from the Colorado where we have driven criminal cartels that seek to prey on our children every day out of business.

I am from the Colorado where our violent crime rates are down and where we continue to regulate dispensaries to make sure they are not schools; rather than have a corner street dealer who doesn't care if they are selling to a 14-year-old, we moved that away and regulated it in a way to make sure that minors don't have access to marijuana. That is the Colorado that I am from. I welcome you to come visit. I welcome you to visit.

You know what, I don't have to convince you. I don't have to convince the State of Louisiana that they should do anything. I just wish that you would leave my sovereign State of Colorado alone.

Let our people and our State government decide what we want to do with regard to marijuana, rather than the Federal agents going around trying to arrest people for doing activities that are fully legal under State law. That is all I ask.

I am not going to send Federal troops into Louisiana to arrest people from whatever you do down there, smoking crayfish. You want me to ban that and send Federal troops down there? I bet maybe smoking crayfish ain't good for you. I don't know. What if it is fried? It might clog your arteries, huh? I bet that is not good for you.

You want me to send Federal troops down there? Is that what you want? Do you want me to send Federal troops to Louisiana to stop you from eating fried crayfish?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Reclaiming my time, I am from Colorado. I know Colorado inside and out, and we have been tremendously successful in reducing the abuse of marijuana among minors.

Again, it shouldn't be up to us to convince him, just as I don't have to eat their darn fried crayfish--I don't want it. I don't want it. Get the Federal law enforcement apparatus to leave our State alone.

That is all this amendment does, is respect the sovereign will of the people of my great State of Colorado to have innovative policies to reduce the abuse of marijuana.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

In conclusion, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson). It is, indeed, the intended language and we believe the actual language of the amendment that would not interfere with any valid court orders or warrants. We are happy to work with them in that regard.

The amendment is designed to pertain to bulk collection of data, which was never specifically authorized by Congress.

I appreciate the gentleman from Texas accepting the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source