[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 14, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4410-H4414]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2862, SCIENCE, STATE, JUSTICE, 
        COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 314 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 314

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2862) making appropriations for Science, the 
     Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except for 
     section 607. During consideration of the bill for amendment, 
     the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and 
     reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that 
     the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 314 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2006.
  The rule allows for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Appropriations. It waives all points of order against consideration 
of the bill.
  The rule provides that under the rules of the House, the bill shall 
be read for amendment by paragraph. It waives points of order against 
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, 
prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an 
appropriations bill.
  Except as specified in the resolution, the rule authorizes the Chair 
to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their 
amendments in the Congressional Record.
  Finally, it provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2862 funds our Nation's priorities without swelling 
our Federal budget. It is a bill of fiscal restraint, yet one that 
increases funding to some of our most important weapons in the fight on 
terror and crime, including the FBI, the DEA, and State and local law 
enforcement agencies.
  As we continue to reassess our security and law enforcement 
priorities to meet threats abroad and at home, we must provide funding 
for programs that protect our communities. This bill accomplishes that 
goal.
  Under H.R. 2862, funding for the Department of Justice will increase 
to almost $57.5 billion, with much of that additional money going to 
the agencies that are helping us fight the war on terror, the war on 
drugs and the war against gang violence.
  The Federal Bureau of Investigation will see an increase of $542 
million above the fiscal year 2005 level. The additional funding will 
go toward enhanced agent training and the hiring of additional analysts 
and translators to keep the FBI on the cutting edge of the war on 
terror. Increased funding means greater information technology, better 
counterintelligence capabilities and improved efforts to fight white-
collar and gang crime.
  The United States Marshals will see an increased funding of $41 
million over last year, while the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Agency, 
will have $67 million additional to assist State and local law 
enforcement officials.

                              {time}  1030

  H.R. 2862 also funds important prevention programs for violence 
against women, gang crime, and juvenile delinquency. All of this adds 
up to better protection for our communities. This is the kind of 
fundamental support that Americans rely on Congress to pass. These are 
true national priorities, not frivolous programs tailored to special 
interests. This is legislation that deserves our support.
  H.R. 2862 also funds our science agencies and provides for a vision 
of space exploration that has fascinated minds, both young and old, for 
generations, and provided many breakthrough technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, I personally hope we will continue to prioritize science 
funding to ensure that our Nation remains at the forefront of 
scientific research and development into the future.
  Through State Department funding, we have earmarked $1.5 billion to 
continue worldwide security improvements and the replacement of 
vulnerable United States embassies around the world.
  Finally, and this is a very important point, H.R. 2862 provides $590 
million for the Small Business Administration, and it supports a record 
level of business loans to help entrepreneurs across our great Nation 
access capital to start a small business. So much of our U.S. economy, 
of course, is driven, as we know, by small businesses.
  As we begin the debate on this rule and the underlying appropriations 
bill, let us keep two things in mind: one, we must hold fast to our 
spending limits. To quote President Bush, ``The American people deserve 
to have their tax dollars spent wisely or not at all.''
  Second, we must commit wholly and without reserve to funding our 
Nation's security and law enforcement priorities. Protecting our 
citizens from harm is the utmost duty of this Congress and our 
government. This protection stems from Federal agencies that stop gang 
violence, crack down on drug trafficking, and give counterterrorism and 
counterintelligence efforts the full support that they deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last night, the Committee on Rules considered H.R. 2862, 
the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies' 
appropriations bill for FY 2006. And while I am pleased that the 
committee reported an open rule, as is customary with appropriations 
bills, we all know the amendment process for these bills is very 
restrictive. This makes it easy for the majority to allow an open rule 
and still maintain tight control over what is debated and deliberated 
on the floor through the waiver process.
  If we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time 
and thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule, 
not just appropriations bills, which are already restricted. An open 
process should be the norm and not the exception.
  That being said, I want to congratulate the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for working 
together to create a bill that seems to be

[[Page H4411]]

a fair and responsible piece of legislation.
  I have always said that budgets are moral documents. Where and how we 
decide to spend the taxpayers' money says more about our values as a 
society than any speech or political rhetoric possibly could. If any of 
my fellow Americans really want to know who and what each party cares 
about in this country, look at where the money goes and the truth will 
be what follows. That is exactly what an appropriations bill such as 
this does. It gives us a road map to see what is important to our 
elected leadership.
  That is why I want to congratulate my friends across the aisle for 
having the courage to essentially reject the White House's inadequate 
budget request for this bill. Clearly, many Republican Members in this 
body do not share the same values as the President, and I congratulate 
you for having the courage to demonstrate this rare moment of 
independence and moderation to the American people. The bill clearly 
rebuffs the White House's agenda on spending issues, such as funding 
for the National Science Foundation, which is still inadequate, and the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of 
Justice, and the Drug Enforcement Agency by providing adequate, if not 
ideal, funding.
  Also, I am pleased that Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan saw 
fit to prohibit the use of funds in this measure to support or justify 
the use of torture by the United States Government. Unfortunately, this 
language is both necessary and appropriate.
  We also have language included today that will prohibit the White 
House from blocking the importation of discount prescription drugs 
through trade agreements. That means this body is acting to ensure that 
the White House does not try to subvert our authority and take further 
steps to prevent the American people from having access to life-saving, 
affordable prescription drugs. I strongly believe that access to 
affordable medication and health care should be a right in this country 
and not the fodder of a political power struggle.
  Mr. Speaker, just when I saw the rays of hope sprinkled throughout 
the bill that this typically extreme leadership has finally begun to 
place the needs of everyday, hardworking Americans before their agenda, 
I was offered a reality check last night in the Committee on Rules. The 
moderation I had seen had merely been an illusion.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, brought to the Committee on Rules a 
necessary, important, and reasonable amendment to this bill. The 
amendment would have increased funding by $410 million for local law 
enforcement agencies and for COPS grants, which is the most successful 
crime prevention program in our Nation's history; and we have decimated 
it. It would have put more police on the streets in America's 
neighborhoods.
  Additionally, it would have increased funding for EDA grants by $53 
million, which spur the public and private investment in order to 
create new jobs in our struggling communities.
  The cost of his amendment would have been offset through a less than 
1.5 percent reduction in tax benefits for only the wealthiest 
Americans, those with annual incomes in excess of $1 million, and would 
have meant about a $2,000 decrease in their refund. But the Republican 
majority opposed it on a party-line vote, choosing the rich over safer 
neighborhoods.
  This issue, I believe, gives us a clear picture of exactly the 
difference between the Republicans and the Democrats in the House. If 
anyone had a doubt who was fighting for everyday Americans, they should 
not any more. If there was a question over which party is the champion 
for the middle class, the safe neighborhoods, and for job creation, 
that question has been answered because the majority was willing to 
sacrifice placing police officers on the streets in our neighborhoods 
in order to protect a small tax cut for only the richest Americans.
  Since 2001, our police have been asked to do more with a billion 
dollars less in Federal funding so that the millionaires can keep their 
extra $2,053. Today, we will have another opportunity to stand with the 
vast majority of everyday Americans and families instead of 
millionaires, and I will be asking Members on both sides of the aisle 
to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can try once again to 
allow the Obey amendment to be considered on the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to point out that this bill does provide $2.6 billion for assistance to 
State and local law enforcement for crime-fighting initiatives, and 
that is actually $1 billion above the President's request, in response 
to the gentlewoman's remarks about the Obey amendment.
  Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules could not waive points of order 
against the gentleman's amendment. While the intent of his amendment is 
admirable, the means of his amendment does not comply with the rules of 
the House. The amendment would seek to offset an increase in funding 
for States and local law enforcement through a tax increase; and such 
changes in tax policy, as we know, are under the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. Therefore, the amendment, as written, was 
not germane to H.R. 2862 and subject to a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder).
  (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in 
support of the underlying bill; but I have some deep concerns with this 
bill, and I will probably support a number of amendments today. I want 
to lay out a little of my concerns about this bill.
  This bill has to be taken in the context of a number of appropriation 
requests that the administration made in their budget. I chair the 
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources in 
the Committee on Government Reform, as well as co-chair of the 
Speaker's Task Force; and I have been appalled at the President's 
approach to drug policy.
  OMB did uninformed meddling in this budget process. There was lack of 
leadership out of the drug czar's office, and benign neglect out of the 
White House. There is no other simple way to say it. They proposed 
zeroing out Byrne grants, which would devastate all the drug task 
forces across the United States. They proposed zeroing out a number of 
other local law enforcement programs that are critical, including meth 
hot spots programs. In another appropriations bill, they proposed 
knocking out 60 percent of all State and local participation in HIDTAs 
and transferring it under Federal control and cutting the program 
immensely. They proposed changing the CPOT program, which gives aid to 
State and local law enforcement to fight methamphetamines and other 
issues, that and Safe and Drug Free Schools, which will be coming in 
another appropriations bill, they propose zeroing out the State and 
local funding for drug prevention.
  The question is: Where is the antidrug strategy of this 
administration? Many of us on this side of the aisle took to the floor 
to criticize the last administration when in the first parts of their 
term they abandoned the national narcotics strategy and did misguided 
efforts. What should be good for one party should good for the other. 
We should have a consistent antidrug strategy.
  And this is particularly appalling in the area of methamphetamines 
that are sweeping across every State and are moving increasingly from 
the rural areas into the suburbs and then into our major cities. If 
they hit our major cities and major suburbs, this will be an epidemic 
like we have never seen. The reaction out of the Federal Government is 
nothing. It is not in the national ad campaign. The Partnership For a 
Drug Free America is addressing it some, but it is not in our national 
ad campaign. It is not in our drug-free prevention programs.
  They are proposing to zero out the meth hot spots programs, they 
propose to zero out the Byrne grant programs, they propose to knock out 
the meth hot spots, or the meth program that the last HIDTA is in, 
which is in Missouri. It was a meth program, and they said they did not 
want the new HIDTA programs.

[[Page H4412]]

  Now, there will be a number of amendments today, we may have a few 
more this year, but these will be the only votes we will have that will 
enable us to address the meth question. Chairman Wolf, to his credit, 
in a very tight budget, recognized the failure of the administration's 
policies and put many of these dollars back. Unfortunately, in many of 
the categories, meth hot spots got more funding even than last year, 
even though the administration tried to zero it out. He put much of the 
Byrne grant money back in, much of the State and local funding back in, 
but the fact is we are still looking at merely a 50 percent whacking in 
some categories of these task forces.
  There are likely to be a number of amendments today to try to address 
the Byrne grants, to try to address meth in particular, and a number of 
other subjects. I support Chairman Wolf and his efforts in every way; 
but at some point we have to stand up as a Congress and say, if this 
administration is not going to come up with a meth strategy, then this 
is the way it gets done on the House floor, amendment by amendment, in 
a fairly chaotic way.
  It is time this administration faced up to the fact that gangs are 
not our number one problem in America, meth is our number one growing 
problem in America; and it is closely related to the gang problem. We 
need a coordinated methamphetamine strategy out of this administration. 
And quite frankly, the same thing is happening over in the United 
States Senate. And if administration does not address the meth 
question, then it will be addressed by the House and the Senate in the 
force of law, unfortunately often chaotically through the 
appropriations process or random little pieces of bills.
  So while I plan to vote for this rule and I plan to vote for the 
underlying bill, even if these amendments do not pass, I strongly urge 
Members to realize what is happening here. We are going to have a meth 
epidemic in America unless we increasingly address it with some of the 
amendments that will be offered today.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to ask the 
gentleman from Georgia a question. In his opening statement, he 
indicated how many times, or how many waivers had been provided. In the 
gentleman's statement he indicated the number of waivers that this rule 
provided.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY. In response to the gentleman's question, I do not know 
the exact number of waivers that were granted.
  Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thought I heard the 
gentleman say something like 40.
  Mr. GINGREY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that was not 
part of my opening statement. You may be correct, but I am not sure of 
that number.
  Mr. OBEY. But the committee has provided a number of waivers?
  Mr. GINGREY. The committee has provided a number of waivers. I am 
just not sure what that number is.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GINGREY. Certainly.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me just say, then, Mr. Speaker, that is why I intend to 
oppose the previous question and the rule on this bill, because the 
Committee on Rules did some picking and choosing. They provided waivers 
to the rules when they wanted to, and they did not when they did not 
want to.
  As a result, they have tried to block my ability to offer the 
amendment that was our number one priority on the minority side of the 
aisle, which is to restore the funding for the local law enforcement 
grants and to restore the cuts in EPA that were made by simply reducing 
the size of the tax cut that persons making $1 million a year or more 
will get in this country by $2,000.

                              {time}  1045

  That would mean instead of getting $140,000 tax cut this year, a 
millionaire would have to settle for $138,000. I know there are many 
Members on the majority side of the aisle who get irritated when I keep 
bringing up this trade-off, but the fact is that the wealthiest one-
thousandth of 1 percent of our citizens have seen their share of the 
national income double since 1980. The bottom 90 percent of earners in 
this economy have seen their share of income fall. The 400 most well-
off taxpayers in this country make at least $87 million a year. Those 
earning $10 million per year pay a smaller share of their income in 
taxes than those making $100,000 a year. Meanwhile, while the upper 
crust is having a high old time, the folks in the middle are 
struggling. They struggle to pay unexpected bills. It is harder for 
them to send their kids to college. It is harder for local communities 
to provide needed services. Law enforcement services are being cut 
back.
  The previous speaker mentioned what is happening to our antimeth 
programs around the country. I think it is important for the House to 
understand that, for instance, this bill has a substantial increase, 
over a billion dollars, for deep space programs, and yet since fiscal 
year 2001, local law enforcement programs have been cut by a billion 
dollars, and Economic Development Administration programs which are 
principally targeted to help small communities such as those I 
represent, that program has been cut by 50 percent since 2001.
  I do not think that reflects the priorities of the American people. 
It certainly does not reflect the priorities of most people on this 
side of the aisle. So I am going to be voting against the previous 
question on the rule and the rule itself if there is a rollcall to 
protest the fact while the Committee on Rules has been magnanimous in 
providing many waivers, it has not provided a waiver for the key 
amendment that would enable us to restore needed funding for local law 
enforcement.
  I do not believe the priorities represented by this committee's 
judgment represent the priorities of the American people. When the time 
comes, I will be offering whatever amendments I am allowed to offer 
under the rules to try to change those priorities.
  The subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), is 
a very able Member, but he cannot perform a miracle without resources, 
and the allocation he was given are totally inadequate to the task at 
hand. The quality of America's law enforcement at the local level will 
suffer because of it.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, of course we represent that the President's request for 
State and local law enforcement was not sufficient. That is why the 
committee took the necessary steps to restore funding in a responsible 
manner. As an example, the gentleman from Indiana was just talking 
about some of that restoration. The committee restored approximately a 
billion of the $1.4 billion reduction that the President requested.
  This bill provides $2.6 billion for crime-fighting initiatives, 
including the following restorations in funding: $355 million to 
reimburse States for criminal alien detention; $334 million for 
juvenile delinquency prevention and accountability programs; $387 
million for violence against women and prosecution programs; $348 
million for the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grants Program; $520 
million for Community Oriented Policing Service, the COPS Program; and 
yes, $60 million for meth hot spots.
  I would suggest to the gentleman in regard to his question about the 
point of order, the gentleman's amendment would not be subject to a 
point of order if the gentleman would alter his amendment to include 
offsets for his increase from within the programs under the 
jurisdiction of SSJC Appropriations Act. The amendment would then 
comply with the rules of the House and could be considered and voted 
upon by Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.

[[Page H4413]]

  Mr. Speaker, of late there has been much discussion on protecting 
Americans and what Congress can do to fund programs which prove 
effective and yield results. Yet here we are today cutting a program 
that our law enforcement officials rely upon to ensure the safety and 
security of our communities, the COPS Program. They are our first line 
of defense, and the COPS programs help States and localities put more 
police on our streets to keep our families safe.
  My hometown of Sacramento has seen the practical benefits of this 
program. The COPS Program has put an additional 569 law enforcement 
officers on the streets of Sacramento in the past decade. Without this 
program, I do not know that this would have been possible.
  I realize the cuts to the COPS Program could have been much more 
sizable. Congress did not go as far as President Bush recommended in 
downsizing this program. I am pleased at that, but I am truly 
disappointed that again for the fourth year in a row funding for this 
much-needed program is on the chopping block.
  The men and women in law enforcement make a real difference not only 
in our cities and towns, but in the bigger effort to safeguard our 
country from the threat of terrorists. I am frustrated because we had 
the opportunity to correct this funding cut for a worthwhile program.
  The Committee on Rules could have made in order under this rule an 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). It would 
have kept funding for the COPS programs at the previous year's level; 
no increase, but certainly no decrease. This would have been a smart 
amendment to make in order.
  I am pleased to note, however, that this bill makes a significant 
commitment to strengthen research and education through increased NASA 
funding. Technology developed by NASA has long served as the engine of 
innovation which has driven our Nation's economic growth. Advances made 
by this Agency in areas of science and technology have played an 
integral role in the defense of our Nation. And most importantly, we 
are educating our Nation's next generation of scientists and engineers. 
I applaud the committee for their long-term planning in this area.
  Although I would like to see a few changes to this bill, particularly 
a greater increase in law enforcement funding, I do support the 
underlying measure. I am pleased it was reported out in a bipartisan 
fashion. I commend the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work 
under such tough budgetary constraints.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I point out to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Matsui) that just recently in the homeland security funding bill that 
we passed last month, we provided for $3.7 billion for first 
responders. The House-passed bill included grants to high-threat areas, 
firefighters, and emergency management.
  Since September 11, 2001, the Congress has provided $32.4 billion to 
our first responders in funding their needs, such as terrorism 
prevention and preparedness, general law enforcement, firefighter 
responders, training 811,275 police, fire, and emergency medical 
personnel, and, yes, in this bill that we are talking about this 
morning, $520 million for the COPS Program.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a no vote on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule 
so we can consider the Obey amendment that was rejected in the 
Committee on Rules last night on a party-line vote.
  The Obey amendment would give additional badly needed funds for 
grants to State and local law enforcement assistance and to the 
Economic Development Administration Grant Program. Specifically, it 
would increase by $410 million funding for formula grants to State and 
local law enforcement agencies as well as for the COPS Program, one of 
the most effective programs in its history.
  It will also increase funding for Economic Development Assistance 
grants by $53 million, and restore this assistance to State and local 
governments to last year's level, money they badly need to create new 
jobs.
  I also want to assure my colleagues that the cost of this amendment 
will not add a single dime to the deficit. It is fully paid for by 
making a very slight reduction of less than 1\1/2\ percent to the tax 
break received by people of annual incomes of over a million dollars, 
tax benefits that these fortunate individuals received as a result of 
the 2001 and 2003 tax cut legislation and will lose only $2,000 on 
their tax refunds if the Obey amendment is accepted.
  I want to assure my colleagues that a no vote will not prevent us 
from considering the Science, State, Justice, Commerce appropriations 
bill under the open rule, but a no vote will allow Members to vote on 
the Obey amendment to help our State and local governments with law 
enforcement and economic development. A yes vote will cancel the 
consideration of this amendment. I urge a no vote on the previous 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in recognition 
of the importance of the underlying bill in funding and providing for 
the necessary tools for our law enforcement that defends the American 
people against crime and terror from sources both foreign and domestic.
  H.R. 2862 funds our law enforcement needs, and it funds them 
responsibly. While some on the other side have called out for more 
funding of this program or that program, they fail to realize the 
limited funds available in the Federal budget. Again, H.R. 2862 
supports and provides for the operations of the Department of Justice 
with $5.8 billion for the FBI, $1.7 billion for the DEA, and $800 
million for the United States Marshal Service. Without question, this 
bill funds those who put their lives on the line every day to make sure 
the American people are secure and safe as they go about their daily 
activities.
  Mr. Speaker, this appropriation also provides the necessary funding 
for the Department of Commerce to strengthen economic growth and 
protect the intellectual property rights so essential to technical and 
societal development, and because of the importance of technological 
strength, this bill also includes a responsible level of funding for 
NASA and the National Science Foundation.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2862 not only supports our law enforcement agencies 
here at home, but it also supports the State Department and our needs 
abroad. From funding to reinforce our vulnerable embassies to funding 
for improved training of State Department personnel, this legislation 
provides $9.5 billion to strengthen our relationships overseas and wage 
the diplomatic war on terror.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Wolf), the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan), and I would also like to thank the gentleman from 
California (Chairman Lewis) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), for all of their labor and time on this bill.

                              {time}  1100

  I want to encourage all of my colleagues to support both the rule and 
the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

   Previous Question on H. Res. 314, H.R. 2862, the Science, State, 
   Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY2006

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order and before 
     any other amendment if offered by Representative Obey of 
     Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to 
     amendment

[[Page H4414]]

     except for pro forma amendments to a demand for a division of 
     the question in the committee of the whole or in the House.
       Sec. 3 The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:

   Amendment to H.R. ____, as Reported (Science, State, Justice, and 
                     Commerce Appropriations, 2006)

                    Offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin

       In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of Justice 
     Programs--State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance'', after 
     the first and second dollar amounts, insert the following: 
     ``(increased by $270,000,000)''.
       In title I, in the item relating to ``Office of Justice 
     Programs--Community Oriented Policing Services'', after the 
     first dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $140,000,000)''.
       In title II, in the item relating to ``Economic Development 
     Administration--Economic Development Assistance Programs'', 
     after the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(increased 
     by $53,000,000)''.
       At the end of title VI, insert the following:
       Sec. __. In the case of taxpayers with adjusted gross 
     income in excess of $1,000,000, for the calendar year 
     beginning in 2006, the amount of tax reduction resulting from 
     enactment of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-16) and the Jobs and 
     Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-27) 
     shall be reduced by 1.466 percent.

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 190, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 243]

                               YEAS--222

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Boucher
     Buyer
     Cummings
     Everett
     Hinojosa
     Jones (OH)
     Knollenberg
     Larson (CT)
     Mack
     McCrery
     Oberstar
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Peterson (PA)
     Rothman
     Sessions
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Thomas
     Young (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1125

  Mr. BAIRD, Mrs. MALONEY, and Mrs. CAPPS changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I was unavoidably detained during rollcall 
vote No. 243, a motion ordering the previous question on H. Res. 314, a 
rule providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2862) making 
appropriations for Science, the Department of State, Justice, and 
Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2006, and for other purposes. Had I been present I would have voted 
``no'' on this motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________