[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.
____________________