[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 14, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4415-H4472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SCIENCE, STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 314 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2862.

                              {time}  1134


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Hastings of 
Washington in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 2862, 
making appropriations for fiscal year 2006 for Science, the Departments 
of State, Justice, Commerce, and related agencies. This bill provides 
funding for programs whose impact ranges from the safety of people in 
their homes and communities to the conduct of diplomacy around the 
world, to the farthest reaches of space exploration.
  The bill before the House today reflects a delicate balance of needs 
and requirements. We have drafted what I consider a responsible bill 
for fiscal year 2006 spending levels for the departments and agencies 
under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. We have had to carefully 
prioritize funding in the bill and make hard choices about how to spend 
scarce resources.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) for 
supporting us with a fair allocation and helping us to move the bill 
forward. I also would like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), who has been very effective and a 
valued partner and colleague on this bill. I appreciate his principled 
commitment and understanding of the programs in the bill.
  Also I wanted to thank all members of the subcommittee for their help 
and assistance: the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
LaHood), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Culberson), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Alexander), 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), who used to be the ranking 
member on the committee, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), and also the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want at the outset to thank the members of the 
staff who have worked incredibly hard, as I am sure all subcommittee 
staff on this committee do on appropriations, but particularly want to 
thank them publicly. Mike Ringler, the clerk of the subcommittee, who 
has led the subcommittee through the House appropriations process. Also 
I want to thank Christine Kojac, John Martens, Anne Marie Goldsmith, 
Joel Kaplan and Celia Aloavado for their tireless efforts. Their work 
is very much appreciated. They have done an outstanding job.
  In my personal office, I want to thank Dan Scandling, Janet Shaffron, 
J.T. Griffin, Samantha Stockman and Courtney Schlieter for their 
efforts and work with the subcommittee.
  From the minority staff, I want to thank David Pomerantz, Michelle 
Burkett, Rob Nabors, Sally Moorhead and Julie Aaronson for their 
insight and input on the bill.
  It has been a good bipartisan effort. Sometimes those things are 
said, but sometimes there is not a lot of reality to them. But this has 
been a good bipartisan effort. As in past years, we

[[Page H4416]]

have worked in a bipartisan manner to draft this legislation, and I 
look forward to continuing forward in that spirit.
  The bill contains $57.45 billion in discretionary spending. At a time 
of fiscal constraint, we have developed a bill that preserves critical 
domestic and international programs, while living within our 
allocation. Program increases are focused on the most critical areas, 
including counterterrorism, law enforcement, security of government 
employees overseas, as well as science and space programs.
  As we know, the budget resolution upon which our allocation is based 
actually reduces nondefense discretionary funding from last year's 
level by 0.8 percent. As a result, we have had to make some difficult 
choices to focus limited resources on programs that are most critical 
to the Nation.
  The bill continues the progress we have made in the fight against 
terrorism and crime. We have tried our best to establish strong funding 
levels for NASA and the National Service Foundation (NSF), the agencies 
that are new to our jurisdiction. At the same time, the bill also 
reflects our commitment to responsible stewardship of public funds.
  For the Department of Justice, the bill includes $21.45 billion, $1.1 
billion above the request, to restore needed funds for State and local 
crime-fighting to keep our streets safe. The bill also includes 
significant increases for Federal law enforcement for both terrorism 
prevention and traditional law enforcement and drug enforcement.
  The bill focuses funding on fighting the growth of gangs and reducing 
gang violence. We have continued and enhanced FBI and ATF antigang 
programs and restored funding to the gang resistance training programs. 
In addition, we have created a new $60 million gang program that will 
allow each U.S. Attorney's office, working with local officials, to 
fund antigang strategies in cooperation with those in State and local 
government.
  The bill also includes $5.76 billion for the FBI to provide enhanced 
training and information technology management, and to provide 
additional agents, analysts and translators to improve counterterrorism 
and counterintelligence capabilities, while continuing the fight on 
white-collar crime and gang violence.
  We maintained the commitment to fighting illegal drug activities with 
$1.7 billion for the DEA, slightly above the request, to restore 
proposed reductions in assistance to State and local law enforcement, 
Mobile Enforcement Teams and Demand Reduction, and to fully fund the 
effort to combat heroin production in Afghanistan.
  The bill also includes $2.59 billion for improving State and local 
law enforcement crime-fighting programs, restoring $1 billion above the 
request to the highest-priority programs. We have restored $1 billion.
  I heard the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) talking earlier 
during debate on the rule, and I agree with what the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder) said. Why would the administration have ever 
zeroed this out? But we have restored $1 billion above the request for 
the highest-priority programs, including SCAAP, Justice Assistance 
Grants and Juvenile Justice programs, all which the administration 
proposed to eliminate or drastically reduce.

  For the Department of Commerce and related trade agencies, the bill 
includes $5.83 billion, a decrease of $831 million below 2005. We have 
not adopted the President's proposal for a new consolidated community 
development program, which explains why we are so far below the request 
for Commerce.
  As we did last year, the overall funding levels for the trade 
agencies, USTR, ITA and ITC, is above the request; it is higher than 
the administration asked for.
  I just cannot understand why this administration is not bringing an 
intellectual property case with regard to China. We gave them all of 
the resources last year and are giving them all of the resources this 
year. If they do not move this year, I do not know what we can do. 
Hopefully, with Rob Portman down there, they will move.
  This will empower them to negotiate, verify and enforce trade 
agreements that are free and fair, and ensure an even playing field for 
American businesses.
  For NIST, we have provided $19 million above the current year level 
for the core science programs, focusing on national security standards 
and nanomanufacturing.
  To further bolster our manufacturing sector, the bill includes $106 
million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, an 
increase of $59 million. Members from both sides of the aisle spoke to 
us on numerous occasions about that.
  The bill makes some cuts for the NOAA budget, eliminating lower-
priority programs and projects. The critical function of the National 
Weather Service and NOAA's satellite programs are funded above the 
request, and funding is continued for critical ocean and fisheries 
programs.
  The bill includes $1.7 billion, a 10 percent increase, for the PTO, 
and equal to the amount they expect to collect in fees. A strong patent 
and trademark system is essential to protect our intellectual property 
and maintain innovation in the economy.
  Finally under Commerce, we provide an increase of $87 million to 
support the ramp-up to the 2010 decennial census, including full 
funding for the American Community Survey.
  For NASA, the bill ensures that the President's vision for space 
exploration is adequately funded at $3.1 billion, while at the same 
time restoring the aeronautics research program to the enacted level of 
$906 million, and providing $40 million over the request to partially 
restore NASA's science programs.
  The space shuttle program is funded at the request to ensure that all 
shuttle safety issues are being fully funded. In coordination with the 
Committee on Science and the gentleman from New York (Chairman 
Boehlert), new legislative language is included in the bill directing 
the President to develop a national aeronautics policy to be submitted 
with the fiscal year 2007 budget.
  Boeing is dropped in production and share of the market. Ten years 
ago they had 65 percent of the market, now they are down to 48 to 49. 
Frankly, without an aeronautical policy, that will continue to drop. 
That language, working with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), 
is in here.
  For the NSF, we are providing an increase of $171 million over last 
year, $38 million above the request. People say we are falling behind 
in math, science, physics, chemistry and biology, and we are trying to 
do everything we can to reverse that. Also I have sent a letter to the 
administration asking that they triple the funding next year, taking 
from other areas, but triple the funding on R&D so this country does 
not lose its competitive edge.
  This includes a 3.7 percent increase for basic research funding, $44 
million above the request. And for science education we have included 
$807 million, which is $70 million above the request. Science is the 
engine of our competitiveness, and I have encouraged the President to 
substantially increase our investment in basic research and science 
education in the 2007 budget.
  For the State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors, the 
bill includes $9.53 billion, a decrease of $1.1 billion below 2005, and 
$273 million below the request.
  Within this total we are providing $1.5 billion, the full request, 
for worldwide security improvements and replacement of vulnerable 
facilities and funding to support 55 new positions to support security 
readiness.
  Look at the security that this Capitol Building has. Look at the 
security that many other Federal buildings have. To say that we are 
going to send Federal employees abroad and not protect them, we 
remember the bombing in Tanzania and the bombing in Kenya, so we fully 
make sure that is funded.
  We are providing 100 new positions for high-priority diplomatic 
requirements, including in the areas of fighting terrorist financing, 
nonproliferation of WMD and for new critical language needs related to 
the Global War on Terror.
  We continue to strongly support public diplomacy improvements, 
including significant increases for information programs, international 
broadcasting and international exchange programs, particularly with the 
Arab and Muslim world.

                              {time}  1145

  We have included the requested funds for international peacekeeping 
to pay

[[Page H4417]]

the assessed costs for missions in Sudan. I think this administration 
has done a good job in Sudan. More should be done in Darfur, and Under 
Secretary Zoellick has been to Darfur now twice. But this money for 
peacekeeping in Sudan will have a major impact on what is taking place 
in Darfur; also, in Haiti, Liberia and elsewhere.
  We have attached to this funding new language requiring notification 
to the committee that prevention and prosecution measures are in place 
to ensure zero tolerance of sexual abuse in peacekeeping missions. If 
you read the report on the peacekeeping abuses, sexual abuse by U.N. 
peacekeepers in the Congo, it will make you sick. So this language 
deals with notification to the committee, and prevention and 
prosecution measures are in place for the zero, zero tolerance of 
sexual abuse in peacekeeping missions.
  We also include new language supporting the maintenance of a flat 
U.N. budget. We also require the State Department to keep the committee 
informed of any changes in the U.N. budget.
  There is a lot of interest, Mr. Chairman, in the U.N. and, as many of 
my colleagues know, last year in our bill, we created a United Nations 
Task Force to make recommendations for U.S. Government action to reform 
the U.N. and ensure the U.N. fulfills its charter purposes. The task 
force is cochaired by Senator Mitchell and Speaker Gingrich. Their 
recommendations are coming to the committee later this week, and we 
will look closely at their recommendations and do everything we can to 
advance them, and we would urge the administration and everyone in 
Congress to do everything that they can to advance their 
recommendations made by Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Mitchell.
  The bill again fully funds the Federal Trade Commission Do-Not-Call 
program, and fully funds the request for the SEC to protect American 
investors.
  For the SBA, the bill provides full requested funding for Small 
Business Development Centers. We restored $11 million for the Microloan 
program, which the President proposed to terminate. For business loan 
programs, the bill allows for $16.5 billion in general business loans, 
an unprecedented program level, while requiring no appropriation.
  In closing, this is a summary of the bill. It provides increases 
where needed to maintain and strengthen the operations of critical law 
enforcement and other agencies. It gives no ground in the fight against 
terrorism, crime, and drugs, and restores desperately needed resources 
for State and local law enforcement personnel.
  It represents our best take on matching needs with scarce resources. 
We have tried very hard to produce the best bill we could within the 
resources that we had to work with, and I urge all Members to support 
the bill.

[[Page H4418]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.001



[[Page H4419]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.002



[[Page H4420]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.003



[[Page H4421]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.004



[[Page H4422]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.005



[[Page H4423]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.006



[[Page H4424]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.007



[[Page H4425]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.008



[[Page H4426]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.009



[[Page H4427]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN05.010



[[Page H4428]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the chairman has put together a good bill for us this 
year in the face of some really large reductions and legislative 
proposals that were contained in the President's budget request. He has 
crafted a bipartisan bill, and, during the process, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Wolf) took into consideration all concerns that the 
minority expressed. He has been as accommodating in that process as he 
could be within the allocation that this committee was given, and the 
minority, Mr. Chairman, are really appreciative of that. He has done an 
excellent job, and his staff, likewise, has worked cooperatively with 
the minority genuinely to craft this bill.
  Our allocation for the Science, State, Justice and Commerce bill, as 
the chairman indicated, is $57.45 billion, an increase of 2.1 percent 
from the fiscal year 2005 enacted level, but a decrease from the 
President's fiscal year 2005 request. It certainly sounds like a lot of 
money, but this year's increase does not keep pace with inflation, and 
it is not adequate to meet the varied needs of the important Federal 
agencies contained in this bill.
  I am concerned that when we look at funding trends for these crucial 
programs over time, we are systematically reducing the Federal 
investments in our communities. For example, the chairman has restored 
about $1 billion over the President's cuts to the State and local law 
enforcement, but the bill is still about $400 million below last year's 
level. Now, that is a crucial fact. As we face terrorism, as we 
continue to fight crime, as we have been successful with it over the 
last 10 years in large part because of the Federal contribution to 
State and local levels, this is no time to back off of this support; 
but this bill is $400 million below last year's level for support to 
State and local law enforcement.
  Mr. Chairman, the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), went before the Committee on Rules. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) asked to be made in order an 
amendment to restore some of this funding and to have an offset, that 
would have been particularly appropriate, to offset just a small part 
of the tax cut that the most wealthy 1 percent in this country have 
received over the last 4 and 5 years, to support State and local law 
enforcement. I cannot think of a worthier program to support, a more 
important program to support in this time of national emergency and 
terrorist threats, and I cannot think of a more fair offset from a 
percentage of our population, the most wealthy, who have enjoyed the 
benefit of the tax cuts greater than anyone else in our country. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is going to offer an amendment on 
the floor to address this issue, and I would hope that there would not 
be an objection against it.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) has also 
restored $200 million to the Economic Development Administration's 
grant program. This was eliminated in the President's proposal. 
However, that restoration of $200 million is approximately two-thirds 
of last year's enacted amount for an extremely important program, the 
Economic Development Administration grants. They help the most needy 
communities in our Nation, and that is an area that did not need to be 
cut in the President's request, and we appreciate the chairman 
restoring it partially.
  Smaller programs that are important to our States and our local 
communities were also zeroed out in the President's budget and could 
not be restored. The Public Telecommunications Facilities and Planning 
Account, the Advanced Technology program, and the SBA Prime program 
were not funded.
  The President has also proposed zeroing out the Steel Loan Guarantee 
program. And I very much appreciate the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Wolf) restoring $15 million to the Steel Loan Guarantee 
program so that we can argue in conference for this valuable program, 
which has been so important to significant steel producers in the past.
  For some agencies, this bill is a mix of good news and bad news. In 
the Department of Commerce, the President's so-called Strengthening 
America's Communities proposal was rejected, and some funding was 
restored to EDA, but we were not able to include requested funding for 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology for construction of 
new facilities. In the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
funding was increased for the National Environmental Satellite Data and 
Information Service, but the National Marine Fisheries and the Pacific 
Coastal Salmon Recovery program are both reduced.
  The National Science Foundation overall fares well. The cuts this 
agency faced last year have been restored, and this bill provides $170 
million more than last year's enacted level. But within the Education 
and Human Resources Directorate, many of the education programs are 
flat-funded, including EPSCOR, Informal Science, Advanced Technology 
Education, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
  NASA, Mr. Chairman, is funded slightly above the President's request. 
The Space Shuttle's Return to Flight is fully funded, and the chairman 
has restored aeronautics funding to last year's level, and has 
increased the Science Accounts to $40 million. However, I am concerned 
that crucial science and aeronautics programs are being reduced, 
deferred, and ultimately will wither. The Science Account, including 
programs such as Solar System Exploration, Universe Exploration, and 
the Earth Sun System would receive less than a 1 percent increase over 
this budget proposal; yet the most recent successes have come from this 
program.
  The clear winner in this bill is Federal law enforcement. The FBI 
received $50 million above the President's request, including funding 
for drug agents that the President proposed to transfer into organized 
crime and drug enforcement task forces. DEA and the Marshal Service are 
both funded above the President's request.
  The bill rejects the President's proposal to tax the explosives 
industry by adding new fees, and rejects the proposal to transfer the 
High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, the HIDTA program, into the 
Department of Justice from ONDCP. We certainly can have a discussion on 
the merits of locating a program in one agency versus another, but, in 
this instance, when the HIDTA coordination efforts are going well, I 
think we can all agree that the program should be fully funded wherever 
it is located. I hope the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, 
HUD, The Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies is 
looking at this issue as they prepare their bill.
  The bill before us overcomes many deficits in the President's budget, 
but, over the long term, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the 
constraints placed on the Committee on Appropriations through the 
budget resolution are continuing the systemic reduction of domestic 
discretionary programs that are crucial to our State and local 
communities.
  I would, as the chairman did, like to recognize and thank our staffs 
for doing such an outstanding job. They are dedicated, and they have 
been very dedicated to efforts on this bill. To Mike Ringler, Christine 
Kojac, John Martens, Anne Marie Goldsmith, Joel Kaplan, and Clelia 
Alvarado with the majority, I express thanks; and to David Pomerantz 
and Michelle Burkett, Dana Polk with the minority staff, and Sally 
Moorehead and Julie Aaronson on my personal staff, have put in a great 
deal of time, a great deal of hard work into the bill, and I know that 
the chairman and I share his deep sense of appreciation for their 
efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman and ranking 
member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for bringing this bill to the floor, 
and I also want to commend the full Committee on Appropriations for 
doing outstanding work in bringing all of these bills to the floor in a 
timely manner.
  Mr. Chairman, I am here to talk about a potential amendment that may

[[Page H4429]]

come to this bill, and I ask the question: How much is life worth? This 
may seem to be a more philosophical question than one normally hears in 
a debate about an amendment to an appropriations bill, but I do not 
mean it philosophically; I mean it literally.
  Later today the gentleman from Wisconsin will offer an amendment that 
would take $200 million away from NASA and spend it instead on the 
undeniable, useful purpose of local law enforcement. Yet, Mr. Chairman, 
the amendment in no way alters the fundamental mission or programmatic 
activities at NASA. That is, under the Obey amendment, the United 
States would still order our best scientists and engineers to send our 
bravest astronauts back into space; we just demand that they cut a few 
corners along the way.
  This is scientifically and morally unacceptable, Mr. Chairman. If the 
gentleman from Wisconsin or anyone else wants to have a debate about 
the wisdom of the American people's investment in space exploration, we 
can have that debate.

                              {time}  1200

  You can bring out a bunch of flow charts about the deficit and all 
the noble government aspirations that are currently underfunded. And I 
could read a list of people around the world whose lives have been 
saved and whose livelihoods depend on technologies developed over the 
last 4 decades by America's space program: the MRI machine, the 
portable x-ray, the automatic insulin pump, rocketry, satellite 
technology, touch tone phones, cellular telephony.
  Which of these innovations, all directly attributable to our decades-
long commitment to space exploration, might our society have missed out 
on over the last 40 years if along the way we asked NASA to cut a few 
corners here and there?
  What future technological breakthroughs will we miss out on in the 
next 40 years if we start cutting back on NASA now?
  That is an important debate, Mr. Chairman, and one that I relish the 
opportunity to have. But that is not what this amendment is about. This 
is not about scaling back our space program, but scaling back our 
commitment to the men and women who risk their lives for it.
  If the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) wants us to turn our backs 
on space and surrender mankind's ancient struggle against ignorance, so 
be it. But as long as we are sending American citizens into space, we 
have a moral obligation to provide NASA's engineers every resource they 
require to bring our astronauts home safe.
  If Members do not want our astronauts to return to flight, return to 
the Moon, complete the international space station or go to Mars, let 
them say so.
  But if we do support our space program, if we do support our NASA 
community, and if we do support our astronauts and we risk their lives 
by sending them into the unknown on the cheap, Mr. Chairman, we will 
never be forgiven.
  I would ask Members to pay attention to the amendments that are 
offered to this bill and most importantly, vote ``no'' on the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The distinguished majority leader must know that the ranking member 
of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), went to the Rules Committee to ask for a rule to allow him to 
offer an amendment to increase the funding for State and local law 
enforcement, which was dramatically reduced in this bill. It only 
exists in the bill because the chairman has restored several hundred 
million dollars to States and locals which the President asked to cut.
  So the distinguished majority leader must know that the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) went to the Rules Committee and that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is trying to get at the inadequacy 
of the funding for State and local law enforcement levels from the 
Federal Government, and the gentleman is not at all interested in 
cutting NASA.
  But the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is left in a position now 
that his amendment, which proposes to offset the high income tax cut in 
order to fund additional State and local law enforcement, was denied. 
The gentleman was not able to offer that amendment, so he is getting at 
the issue of the inadequacy of the funding of State and local law 
enforcement by having, in a tight bill where we do not have many 
offsets, offsets against NASA. That is difficult. That is tough. But it 
does get at the issue of the inadequacy of State and local law 
enforcement, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) really has no 
choice if he wants to raise the issue, but to take a route like this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished minority ranking 
member on the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I note the majority leader's reference to 
morality. It is really interesting indeed to be lectured on morality by 
the majority leader, almost makes me laugh. But let me simply say one 
thing. We are here today with a bill brought by a fine Member of 
Congress, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who does his dead 
level best to provide a fair allocation of money within the amount 
assigned to his subcommittee.
  The problem is that because the majority party has already made its 
basic budget decisions, and it has made as its number one priority 
providing tax cuts including $140,000-a-year tax cuts for people making 
more than a million bucks, because of that, there is very little left 
on the table for any of the domestic programs. And so the majority is 
now bringing to the floor bills which are inadequate for education, 
inadequate for science, inadequate for health, inadequate for law 
enforcement.
  Now, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority 
leader, objects to the amendment that I intend to offer. Let me tell 
you how we got here. Last year, the gentleman was unhappy because the 
funding for NASA was scaled back by the VA HUD subcommittee in order to 
provide more room, in order to provide more money for housing, and to 
provide more money for veterans care. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) did not like that arrangement, so he abolished that subcommittee 
because the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is from Houston and he 
wanted an exception to the rule that required everybody else to have 
their pet programs squeezed except him. So he abolished the 
subcommittee.
  Instead, he rearranged the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. So now, 
NASA is in competition, not with housing, not with veterans health 
care. Now NASA is in competition with local law enforcement. So you 
have got a $500 million increase in this account for NASA, and it is 
paid for by a $400 million cut in local law enforcement.
  My first choice was to go to the Rules Committee and ask them to 
allow me to offer an amendment to scale back the size of the tax cut 
for those making a million dollars or more a year by $2,000. That means 
those poor devils are going to have to get by with a $138,000 tax cut 
next year. The majority party denied that. They force me now to look 
for other sources within the bill. So what I have done is to look at 
the places where this bill has increased over last year, because local 
law enforcement, since 2001, has been cut by a billion dollars. And so 
what the amendment does, it says let us scale back our plans to go to 
Mars by 2030 and instead make as a higher priority providing better law 
enforcement for grandma and grandpa back home. That is what we are 
trying to do. I make no apology for it.
  If the majority leader does not like the fact that we had to go to 
NASA to take the money out in order to fund local law enforcement, he 
has only himself to blame because he reorganized the subcommittees in 
the first place to create this jurisdictional trade-off. If the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) does not like the result, he ought to 
look in the mirror.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
bill. As we all know, this is a difficult budget year. The American 
people have expressed, both Democrats and Republicans, strong concern 
about the budget deficits and are asking Congress to

[[Page H4430]]

move in a direction of a balanced budget. That is what this bill does, 
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) needs to be commended. It 
has a slight decrease in the State Department and Commerce Department 
funding, a slight increase in Justice Department funding, and as has 
been pointed out an increase in the science account.
  I specifically rise to speak in support of the NASA accounts. We, in 
the congressional district that I have the privilege of representing, 
launch the space shuttle into space, and that space shuttle is 
America's space shuttle. It is not a Republican or a Democrat space 
shuttle, and it is poised to return to flight soon. We need to make 
sure that it completes the remainder of its assigned mission safely and 
safely brings the crew back to Earth. And this bill funds the shuttle 
at the needed level. It also has adequate funding for the space 
station. We have not completed the construction of the space station, 
and we have engaged in partnerships with European countries and with 
the Japanese and the Russians; and once the space shuttle is flying 
again and with the funding level the chairman and the ranking member 
have put in this bill, we should be well on track to complete 
construction of the space station.
  I would like to also rise and speak in support of the initiative in 
this bill to increase aeronautics funding. And my colleagues, the 
United States has dominated the world in aeronautics. We are the home 
to the Wright brothers. And today we are being eclipsed. Today, Airbus 
has a greater global market share than Boeing, our sole remaining 
commercial airline manufacturing company. And this is critical seed 
corn if we, as a Nation, are going to be able to continue to have our 
edge in commercial aviation and in the whole field of civil aviation 
and aeronautics.
  I would like to specifically address the issue of the President's 
space initiative. And one of the things that I have been increasingly 
concerned about in my position as a legislator is the fact that people 
in education tell me we just do not have enough American kids going 
into science, mathematics, and engineering. And those same educators 
tell me over and over again the thing that motivates kids more than 
anything else to go into those fields is the space program. And for 
years, NASA languished because many people criticized it for not having 
a clear vision. President John Kennedy gave it a clear vision in the 
1960s; and, finally, today, we have that vision again. We are talking 
about going back to the Moon and on to Mars. President Bush gave us 
that vision, and now is not the time to cut back.
  We have a critical situation where, in many of our colleges and 
universities, the majority of people pursuing graduate degrees in 
science and engineering fields are foreigners. They are not Americans. 
We are not graduating enough American citizens in these fields, and 
there is no better way to motivate our young people, young kids in 
grammar school, in secondary school.
  Let me just say one other thing to close out. A lot of this space 
exploration is about the spirit of being an American citizen. We are a 
Nation of explorers, and if we are going to turn our back, or if we are 
going to delay, and I am very sympathetic to what the ranking member is 
trying to do with more funding for police, and I would certainly hope 
we may be able to do that in conference. But if we are going to remain 
a Nation that is always on the cutting edge of science and exploration, 
we desperately need NASA and what this bill is about.
  I would strongly encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to oppose any initiative to reduce the NASA accounts, to reduce 
the science accounts, to support the underlying bill. It is the right 
thing for our kids. It is the right thing for our competitiveness in 
the future. And it is the right thing to make sure that our space 
program stays on track.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill providing 
appropriations for the science agencies, the Department of State, 
Justice and Commerce and several related agencies for fiscal year 2006.
  As in past years, I wish our 302(b) allocation could have been more 
generous, but that is not the fault of this committee. However, I am 
impressed with how much the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) was 
able to accomplish with the allocation he was given.
  I would also like to say what a pleasure it has been to work with the 
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the outstanding majority and minority staff 
on this bill. On this subcommittee, there is an excellent working 
relationship among all of the members, and I credit the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for that.
  Many important priorities were funded in this bill, and some of the 
highlights include increases for counterterrorism and 
counterintelligence activities at the FBI, restored funding for DEA's 
mobile enforcement teams, and the demand reduction assistance, much 
more than requested for the MEP program, funding levels for NOAA that I 
hope we can continue to increase as we move through the process, 
significant increases for NASA and the National Science Foundation, 
full funding at the requested level of $1.3 billion for international 
peacekeeping activities, a wonderful way, in my opinion, for us to use 
our military and our resources, contributions to international 
organizations that I hope can be increased to the requested level 
before the final bill is completed.
  I would be remiss, however, if I did not express concern about the 
burdens on the Legal Services Corporation from restrictions on their 
use of non-Federal funds. But I am pleased that funding was provided at 
last year's level and above the administration's request.
  Some needs will go unfunded at SBA, and the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member, will speak to that in a short 
time. But fortunately, the committee was able to provide funding for 
the microloan program.

                              {time}  1215

  Again, Mr. Chairman, I congratulate both the ranking member and the 
chairman for a good bill, and I will support it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Wolf) for the time.
  I want to, at this time, personally thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) of the 
House Committee on Appropriations for saving VOCA, the Victims of Crime 
Act funding, by not removing these funds and giving them to other 
projects.
  This was a novel brainchild of the Reagan administration. VOCA 
constitutes the United States Government's vision to make criminals 
literally pay for the crimes they have committed. Since the beginning 
of VOCA in 1984, fees and fines and forfeitures that are collected from 
criminals in any given year go to VOCA's Crime Victims Fund. The 
following year, these grants are then issued to States for services 
that go directly to victims of crime. The money does not come from 
taxpayers, but criminals pay for the system they have created.
  So I want to praise the effort of the gentleman from California 
(Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) because 
they are not only saving VOCA, they have also affirmed that victims of 
crime should have a high priority, more of a priority than building 
another bridge someplace or expanding the bloated bureaucracy. Saving 
these funds is a statement that we as a Congress will not forget the 
plight of American crime victims.
  I also want to thank the effort of fellow members of the Victims 
Rights Caucus that we have cofounded, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Harris) and my good friend across the aisle, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  More importantly, there are numerous victims of crimes organizations 
in the United States that fought to save these funds. They include 
Justice Solutions, the National Association of VOCA Assistance 
Administrators, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the National Alliance to 
End Sexual Violence, the National Association of

[[Page H4431]]

Crime Victim Compensation Boards, the National Children's Alliance, the 
National Center for Victims of Crime, and the National Coalition 
Against Domestic Violence, and many others.
  So I want to commend these organizations for coming on board to make 
the statement basically: Do not mess with crime victims.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Cramer), a distinguished member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for the time.
  I rise in strong support of this subcommittee bill. I am privileged 
to be a member of this subcommittee, and I think the chairman, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), and his staff have crafted an 
unbelievably good bill under very difficult circumstances.
  I particularly, on behalf of the National Children's Alliance, want 
to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their commitment to 
funding for this remarkable national network of children's advocacy 
centers which have been a part of this bill for many years now.
  As my colleague from Texas just remarked about the crime victims 
trust fund funding, my local nonprofits there in north Alabama and 
around this country are pleased that that trust fund was not rescinded, 
that money was restored in there. Again, I thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for those plus-ups.
  This is a good bill. It should be supported by the Members.
  On the NASA side, on the NASA account, we are fully funding the 
Shuttle Return to Flight, and the President's space exploration program 
on behalf of the Marshall Space Flight Center, also there in north 
Alabama. This is a good bill for NASA, and, again, it is under 
difficult circumstances.
  In my area of the country, we have a problem with the crystal meth 
issue. There is money available under this bill for the meth hotspots 
at the level of $60 million. My community sorely needs that kind of 
funding available for them to attempt to combat this raging and very 
difficult problem.
  The bill restores $40 million for the drug courts. In my opinion, 
that is related to the crystal meth issues, at least in my area anyway, 
and we need those moneys restored. I might remind my colleagues that 
that program, the drug court program, was zeroed out in the President's 
budget.
  This bill fully restores funding for the NEP program, and that is 
important.
  So, all in all, as I have rambled through the various provisions in 
this bill, this is a good bill, and on behalf of the citizens of the 
Fifth Congressional District of Alabama, I urge my Members to support 
this bill.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for the purpose of a 
colloquy.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
gentleman's willingness to engage in a colloquy, and I thank him very 
much for yielding time to me.
  I wish to express the concern of many of my constituents regarding 
potential threats to the integrity of the Small Business 
Administration's loan program.
  Under current law, no funding for the Small Business Administration 
funds may be used to assist individuals who are in the United States 
illegally. Actually, to date, the best information we have is that SBA 
has never guaranteed a loan to an individual living illegally in the 
United States. However, SBA only guarantees the loans, while banks 
actually provide the funds to applicants. Thus, the burden of ensuring 
the legal status of loan applicants is actually placed on the financial 
institutions.
  While banks have internal measures designed to specifically prevent 
fraud, the success of SBA's policy hinges on prompt notification, 
rather than upfront security.
  Unfortunately, the post-9/11 world has highlighted the consequences 
of fraud. My constituents and those around the United States demand 
that Congress act aggressively to strengthen and protect the integrity 
of the SBA loan system rather than passively waiting for the worst.
  Can the distinguished gentleman describe what steps have been taken 
to combat this sort of fraud and to protect America?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from 
Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to do so for the 
gentlewoman.
  I share her concerns about waste, fraud and abuse, and have also 
expressed my concerns to the SBA about this issue. In fact, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger) had expressed the same concern, 
too.
  I understand that the SBA is now collecting the information on, and 
essentially tracking, loan agents. Any potential fraud cases are 
immediately referred to the Inspector General, and perhaps we ought to 
put some language in saying they should be referred to the FBI for 
prosecution.
  I will assure the gentlewoman I will work with the SBA Administrator 
and the Inspector General, and also, if the gentlewoman would agree, 
the FBI, to assure that no fraud occurs in the small business loan 
program.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for his time and consideration and certainly look forward to working 
with the Chairman on this important matter in the future.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, HUD, the Judiciary, District 
of Columbia, and Independent Agencies.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking Member Mollohan) for all their 
work on this bill.
  I particularly commend them for rejecting the administration's 
proposal to create an umbrella community development program in 
Commerce, which would have greatly reduced the breadth and creativity 
of the community development programs as they currently operate.
  I appreciate my colleagues' efforts to restore funding for other 
vital programs within their wholly inadequate allocation. I especially 
thank them for restoring partial funding for the SBA's microloan 
program, which the President's budget eliminated.
  Through the microloan program, 170 intermediary lenders nationwide 
provide loans and technical assistance to our smallest businesses, many 
of which could not secure loans from more restrictive SBA programs or 
conventional banks. Since its creation 13 years ago, the microloan 
program has provided over 21,000 microloans totaling $250 million, 
which averages to fewer than $12,000 per loan. Yet, 60,000 jobs have 
been created at roughly $3,500 per job.
  One microlender in my district, the Western Massachusetts Enterprise 
Fund, has made 138 loans totaling $2.25 million. One hundred percent of 
the microloans were made to locally owned businesses, half of which 
were start-ups, and all received watchful technical assistance, which 
is why so few of these loans default.
  As we all know, small businesses are the backbone of the American 
economy, and I thank my colleagues for their support and urge them to 
work toward restoring the microloan program to last year's funding 
level.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking 
Member Mollohan) for putting together a very balanced bill within the 
available allocation.
  As the new chairman of the House Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics, we are in the process of drafting a NASA authorization. 
Our authorization will be the first opportunity for the House of 
Representatives to endorse a Vision for Space Exploration, a bold 
initiative that is the cornerstone for investment in both human and 
robotic exploration.
  Space exploration is a technology engine for this country. We need 
this vision to encourage the next generation

[[Page H4432]]

of skilled workers and to drive innovation. Telling kids that they need 
to study math and science rings hollow unless there is a real reason to 
do so, like space exploration.
  I certainly support State and local law enforcement assistance; 
however, Congress has a long track record of providing law enforcement 
with ample resources. Since September 11, 2001, Congress has provided 
more than $15 million to assist State and local law enforcement, and, 
in this bill, has generally funded law enforcement above the 
President's request. Funding to these State and local agencies is also 
provided through a number of other agencies, such as Homeland Security, 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and others.
  NASA has a new Administrator, Mike Griffin, who is getting the Agency 
moving in the right direction to carry out this Vision for Space 
Exploration most effectively. These cutting-edge technologies will 
ensure our global technological leadership, our Nation's security and 
our competitiveness worldwide.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Obey amendment and support 
the committee bill that we have before us today later in this debate.
  I thank the gentleman for his time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Virginia.
  I would like to thank the gentleman because he has done the Nation a 
great service by authoring the section of this bill's committee report 
that deals with aeronautics at NASA. I also note that the report 
singles out the important role of the individual NASA centers. Again, I 
applaud the gentleman for his insight and action because I, too, am an 
advocate of the centers. I am fortunate to have NASA Glenn in my 
district, which is one of the most decorated centers in the Agency.
  I would like to ask the gentleman for a point of clarification. In 
the committee report for this bill, there is a requirement that NASA 
provides a plan for how it will allocate aeronautics funds for fiscal 
year 2006. Would the gentleman agree that the plan should include a 
definition of work that leads to additional breakthroughs, including 
rotorcraft, hypersonics, propulsion and vehicle systems?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would, definitely.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Again, I would like to thank the gentleman for his staunch advocacy 
of such a worthy issue. I know thousands of constituents in Cleveland 
are equally grateful for his work and his vision.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I especially thank the chairman of the committee for his wonderful 
work, with a very tight budget this year and insufficient allocation. 
Nothing in my comments is to be interpreted as a criticism of the 
committee or its work.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in order to engage in a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, the Departments 
of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies.
  Within the Education and Human Resources Directorate of the National 
Science Foundation, better known as NSF, I am especially concerned 
about the Math and Science Partnership program. This program connects 
States and local school districts together with higher education 
institutions to strengthen pre-K-12 math and science education. The 
partnerships also aim to increase the number, quality and diversity of 
math and science teachers.
  The Math and Science Partnership program budget has been greatly 
diminished since 2002, when it was funded at $160 million. This year 
the committee was able to fund the program at $60 million, which will 
prevent NSF from starting any new partnerships.
  This spring, 76 Members of Congress signed a letter supporting the 
funding of this program at $200 million for fiscal year 2006. In 
addition, the National Science Board, the guiding body of the National 
Science Foundation, has publicly stated, and I quote from a letter I 
recently received, ``Should funding become available to restore some of 
the cut programs, clearly, retaining the MSP program in NSF is the 
highest priority.''

                              {time}  1230

  ``Large-scale, sustained experiments like the math and science 
programs are crucial for developing models of excellence in science, 
technology and math education, linking precollege and college education 
and providing other links to the community and the workforce.''
  And, Mr. Chairman, I will include this entire document for the 
Record.
  We know our students need to improve in math and science education. 
We know that other countries are investing in these areas and that 
their students are succeeding where ours are not. We know that the 
United States will not be able to compete with the rest of the world 
indefinitely if our workforce is not on the cutting edge of these 
fields.
  I would appreciate Chairman Wolf's willingness to consider, in the 
event that any additional funds may become available in the future, 
that his committee examine the possibility of devoting such funds to 
the Math and Science Partnership program. I believe this program must 
be able to fund some new starts and target the partnerships in this 
most needed of areas. I recognize that the gentleman's committee has 
taken steps to help address the educational areas of greatest need to 
improve in math and science education, and I look forward to working 
with him on this endeavor.
  Mr. Chairman, the document from the National Science Board, which I 
referred to earlier, is herewith submitted in its entirety for the 
Record:

                                       National Science Board,

                                      Arlington, VA, May 26, 2005.
     Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Ehlers: Thank you for your letter of March 29, 
     2005 in which you requested that the National Science Board 
     (NSB, the Board) delineate the priority of programs within 
     the Education and Human Resources portion of the National 
     Science Foundation (NSF) Budget, to help Congress to focus 
     any additional funds for NSF back to education, should they 
     become available. The Board appreciates your continuing 
     strong support for the NSF's role in Science, Technology, 
     Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education. The Board is, 
     like you, concerned by the decline in funding for education 
     in the NSF budget. We agree with you that such cuts would 
     undermine the NSF's role in education in STEM fields at a 
     time when STEM skills are becoming increasingly vital to the 
     continued security and prosperity of our Nation.
       NSF is unique as the only Federal agency with both science 
     research and science education in its charter. The programs 
     in the NSF Education and Human Resources directorate are 
     designed to support and improve U.S. STEM education at all 
     levels and in all settings (both formal and informal). These 
     programs are unique in their capacity to identify and study 
     the most promising ideas for math and science education, to 
     develop new and improve materials and assessments, to explore 
     new uses of technology to enhance K-12 instruction, and to 
     create better teacher training techniques. The results of NSF 
     supported research can then be transferred into practice. 
     NSF's highly-regarded peer review system that enlists leading 
     scientists, mathematicians, engineers,and academicians to 
     improve K-12 STEM education programs is at the center of this 
     education improvement infrastructure.
       The proposed NSF FY 2006 budget begins an end to the 
     commitment for large experimental programs in the Math and 
     Science Partnership (MSP) program, which builds on NSF 
     experience in large-scale precollege and preservice 
     experiments. The proposed budget also reduces critical areas 
     of education research and undergraduate education. You have 
     asked for the Board's priorities for education, should 
     funding become available to restore some of the cut programs. 
     Of the three major areas, all of which contain experimental 
     programs to advance STEM learning, clearly, retaining the MSP 
     program in NSF is the highest priority. Large scale, 
     sustained experiments like the MSPs are crucial for 
     developing models of excellence in STEM education, linking 
     precollege and college, and providing other links to the 
     community and the workforce.
       NSF has the mandate, depth of experience under its Systemic 
     Initiatives and other large-scale multifaceted education 
     activities, and well-established relationships to build such 
     partnerships for excellence in K-12 STEM education.

[[Page H4433]]

       In 1983, the NSB Commission on Precollege Education in 
     Science, Mathematics and Technology published its 
     recommendations for U.S. students to become first in the 
     world in science, mathematics and technology. Most of the 
     recommendations of this report are still relevant today. Some 
     progress has been made in precollege STEM education through 
     research and implementation of model programs, but much more 
     is needed. As a workforce with basic STEM skill has become 
     ever more essential to American economic prosperity and 
     national security, it is now critical to our future that our 
     precollege education system is prepared to perform its 
     essential role in U.S. STEM education. Today it clearly is 
     not.
       Certainly, world class STEM education is a moving target, 
     as science and technology advances and as other nations raise 
     the bar for STEM education in their own precollege systems. 
     The Board therefore has determined, in response to requests 
     from the Congress and other stakeholders, to undertake an 
     update of the 1983 Commission report.
       The Board is hopeful that our Nation is ready to implement 
     an aggressive, research-based program in precollege STEM 
     education. Within the framework of No Child Left Behind 
     legislation, it is critical that U.S. education systems 
     implement research-based strategies to improve STEM learning, 
     with the goal of international leadership in precollege STEM 
     education. It is also critical that we build on and continue 
     the long-term research in K-12 education sponsored by NSF.
       We thank you for your efforts on behalf of NSF, and we 
     offer our further assistance in any way that would be 
     helpful.
           Sincerely,
     Warren M.Washington,
       Chairman, National Science Board.
     Elizabeth Hoffman,
       Chair, EHR Committee, NSB.

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank Chairman Wolf and 
Ranking Member Mollohan for their hard work on this bill. I believe 
they have done everything within their power to support the National 
Science Foundation, given the funds available. To that end, I would 
like to work with the chairman and his subcommittee to bolster the 
future allocation for fundamental science. We cannot let our investment 
stagnate or slip.
  I know they understand, and we all need to appreciate, the impact 
innovation has on jobs in our economy. We need to remain dedicated to 
investing in innovation; and I want to stand by Chairman Wolf, and once 
again let me express my deep appreciation and to stand by the chairman 
and to offer to help in this very important process.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) 
for their comments. Frankly, I have learned a lot from them on this 
issue, and a lot of what they have been pushing for, I now see, if you 
will. So I want to thank them.
  I understand their concerns, and I will be pleased to work with them 
to explore what might be done to address these concerns in conference. 
I support the MSP program at the NSF and look forward to working with 
the gentleman from Michigan and also the gentleman from New York to see 
if we can address the legitimate concerns they raise.
  Furthermore, I am committed to ensuring that our investment in future 
innovation does not waiver; and I look forward to working with both my 
colleagues and, hopefully, the President of the United States with 
additional resources as the budget comes up next year on improving the 
allocation for science in future budgets.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises Members that the time for general 
debate for the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has expired. The 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has 8 minutes remaining, 
and the gentleman from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the gentleman from 
Virginia in a colloquy regarding the American Corners Program.
  Mr. Chairman, the American Corners Program are partnerships between 
the Public Affairs sections of U.S. Embassies and host institutions. 
They provide access to current and reliable information about the U.S. 
via book collections, the Internet, and through local programming to 
the general public.
  Sponsored jointly by a U.S. Embassy and a host country organization, 
an American Corner serves as an information outpost, similar to a 
public library reference service. The multi-media book and periodical 
collections are open and accessible. Associated reading or meeting 
rooms are made available to host program events and activities, like 
author readings, films, speaker programs, workshops, meetings, and 
exhibits.
  Recently, a Pakistani official, Hussain Hakanni, told me about his 
experience at an American library in Pakistan as a young boy. One day 
he met the U.S. Ambassador and he beat the Ambassador in a game of 
Trivial Pursuit. When the Ambassador asked him how long he had been in 
the United States, he responded, I have never been to your country. I 
have visited your libraries. Today, he is a strong ally for the United 
States in a region where we need strong allies.
  This program was his first contact with America, and it succeeded in 
doing what we are today struggling to do with youth in that corner of 
the world, winning hearts and minds. That is why I support the American 
Corners program, and I hope to work with Chairman Wolf as this bill 
progresses to ensure strong support for this important international 
program.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from New York that 
the State Department's American Corners Program is important for 
several reasons. It encourages the opening flow of ideas, which we 
desperately need at this time. It teaches people about America, which 
we also desperately need. And it increases global literacy.
  The fundamental function of the American Corners Program is to make 
information about our country available to foreign publics at large. 
Access to the American Corners collection is free and open to all 
interested citizens of the host country, and I think it is particularly 
important to countries that are closed.
  I am happy to work with the gentleman from New York to ensure strong 
support for this program going forward.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wolf for his 
bipartisanship.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a 
colloquy with my friend, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, 
the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  First I want to thank Chairman Wolf as well as Ranking Member 
Mollohan and the other members of the subcommittee for their hard work 
in putting together this appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, last year, 
the Department of Commerce notified the NOAA and NIST and NTIA research 
laboratories in Boulder, Colorado, that it had decided to build a 
security fence around the campus where the labs are located. This has 
been a matter of concern to Boulder, local residents, and the people 
who work in the labs. They raised questions about the nature of the 
unspecified threats that the fence is intended to address and about the 
effectiveness of a fence.
  At my urging, the Department of Commerce and NIST worked with Boulder 
residents and city officials to determine the most acceptable placement 
of the fence. However, the Department still has not made clear the 
nature of the security threat, the proposed timetable for building the 
fence, or how they propose to pay for it. I understand no funding has 
been requested for the project.
  In my view, it would not be right to reduce funding to research 
operations or other needed construction work in NIST and NOAA in 
Boulder in order to pay for the fence. So I would like to ask the 
chairman whether he agrees that if this fence is to be built, it

[[Page H4434]]

should not be done at the expense of ongoing research or capital 
improvements to these laboratories.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Yes, I do agree with the gentleman that this funding for 
ongoing research and capital improvements to these laboratories is 
important. To date, no new funding has been requested by the 
administration, and plans for such a fence have not been finalized. The 
committee understands this project may be considered for future budget 
requests to the Congress.
  Also, I tell the gentleman that I would be glad to set up a meeting 
with the new director of NIST and others to kind of meet in our offices 
and see how we can resolve this to the gentleman's satisfaction.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for his willingness to work with me, and I thank the ranking 
member for his help as well; and I look forward to holding that meeting 
with the gentleman.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) for the purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage Chairman Wolf in a 
colloquy with me.
  I thank the chairman for agreeing to engage in this important 
discussion with me. As you know, I represent Laredo, Texas, along the 
U.S.-Mexican border. There has been much violence along the border, 
including 31 Americans that have been kidnapped on the Mexican side. 
That is 31 Americans. Twelve of them have been returned, two were 
killed, and the remaining are unaccounted for.
  I have been working to increase cooperation with the law enforcement 
agencies policing the border. In May, I brought together officials from 
agencies ranging from the FBI to the State Department along with the 
local law enforcement to help formulate a plan.
  The Mexican Government on the other side has increased police and 
federal presence along the border, which is good news, but 
unfortunately they haven't done enough. We need to respond with strong, 
decisive efforts of our own to help forge a lasting resolution.
  I am excited to know, Mr. Chairman, that this bill increases by $23 
million the Violent Crime Impact Teams assigned to cities in the United 
States, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), and the members of the 
subcommittee for the leadership that you have shown. I am also 
currently working with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and 
the Attorney General, Mr. Albert Gonzales, to get a team permanently 
assigned to the Laredo area; but unfortunately at this time we need 
some funding.
  I hope the chairman and I can work together to try to get a Violent 
Crime Impact Team assigned to Laredo. The violence spilling over across 
the border is great, and I believe this effort can go a long way 
towards addressing this problem, and so I ask for your assistance in 
this matter.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUELLAR. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we will be glad to work with the gentleman 
from Texas and Ranking Member Mollohan to see what we can do to help. 
That sounds like a horrible situation: 31 Americans kidnapped. So if we 
can help, we will do whatever we can to help you.
  Mr. CUELLAR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank both Chairman 
Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan for their help, and I thank the 
chairman for his bipartisan approach to address this very, very 
important approach to a violent situation.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to the time 
remaining for our side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for the purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise to ask the chairman to engage in a colloquy.
  While I applaud the appropriation subcommittee's overall efforts to 
contain the Federal budget, I have some concerns about ocean issues. 
And when we talk about ocean issues, these are critical issues crucial 
to the survival of humans on the planet when we consider the extent and 
the complexity of the oceans and life on the planet.
  The over-500-page report of the U.S. Ocean Commission emphasized the 
need to take action now to invest in ocean and coastal programs to 
ensure conservation and the sustainable use of resources for future 
generations. The Ocean Commission report called for doubling the 
investment in the coastal and ocean science and to provide an 
additional $500 million to $1 billion in assistance over the next 
several years to support ocean programs and fisheries management.
  In April of this year, I joined over 100 House Members deeply 
concerned about the health of our oceans and coastal areas to request 
support for additional funding for key National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration programs, or NOAA. After considering other competing 
priorities, the subcommittee approved the NOAA budget of $3.43 billion, 
almost $500 million below last year's level.
  Now, I understand the Federal budget constraints, and I understand 
the constraint of the subcommittee and the appropriations process; but 
I would ask the chairman to consider looking at these issues as we move 
this bill through to the conference.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman for bringing this issue to our 
attention, Mr. Chairman. As the gentleman said, the budget is very 
tight this year and difficult decisions had to be made. While I believe 
that all the programs in the bill are worthy of funding, we had to keep 
the bill within the subcommittee 302(b) allocation.
  I agree with the gentleman that the functions of NOAA are very 
important and will work to see that the conference funding levels are 
adequate.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman 
for his consideration; I thank the chairman for his effort to balance 
the budget and to allocate the funds equitably to all the various 
programs. I look forward to working with the chairman in the future on 
this issue.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on H.R. 2862, the Science, 
State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 
2006. This bill provides funding for a variety of agencies and 
programs, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, the U.S. 
Marshals Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, State and 
local law enforcement grants, the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, NASA, and the diplomatic and consular programs at the 
Department of State to name a few.
  This bill marks the halfway point for the House in completing work on 
Appropriations for fiscal year 2006. I want to commend Chairman Lewis 
and my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their aggressive 
pace in bringing these bills to the floor for debate and wish them well 
as we continue on in this process.
  As Chairman of the Budget Committee, I am pleased to note that this 
bill complies with the budget resolution for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. 
Res. 95), specifically section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which 
prohibits consideration of bills in excess of an Appropriations 
subcommittee's 302(b) allocation of budget authority in the budget 
resolution.
  H.R. 2862 provides $57.5 billion in appropriations for fiscal year 
2006. This is an increase of $76 million in BA and $1.3 billion in 
outlays over the fiscal year 2005 level, and $3.2 billion in BA, and 
$615 million in outlays below the President's request.
  I should point out that in order to stay within the 302(b) allocation 
the bill derives savings from adjustments to various mandatory accounts 
and requiring the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to accrue certain 
retirement benefits. The largest savings results from the annual 
capping of the Crime Victim's Fund, which is set at $625 million for 
fiscal year 2006, and delaying the obligation of the remaining $1.2 
billion until fiscal year 2007. Additionally, $62 million in savings is 
derived from a permanent and indefinite appropriation for the expenses 
of the management and disposal of assets from the Assets Forfeiture

[[Page H4435]]

Fund. The accrual provision would technically result in $39 million in 
savings.
  The bill also shifts resources from some lower-priority programs at 
the Department of Commerce toward more important and higher-priority 
public safety and crime prevention programs like the FBI and DEA at the 
Department of Justice.
  Personally, looking to the needs of Iowa, I support increased funding 
for the Byrne Assistance Grants financed through offsetting reductions 
in other accounts within the bill. As reported by the full Committee, 
the bill sharply reduces funding for this program below last year's 
level. These funds are critical to ongoing efforts to fight illegal 
methamphetamine use in many States across the country.
  In conclusion, I express my support for H.R. 2862 and again commend 
Chairman Lewis and the Appropriations Committee on their steady work in 
bringing bills to the floor that comply with H. Con. Res. 95.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
overall measure, H.R. 2862, which appropriates funds for the Department 
of Commerce, State, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies in FY 2006. 
I am encouraged that the overall measure provides $57.8 billion or 2% 
more than the 2005 level of funding.
  I am very encouraged by the fact that the Appropriations Committee 
gives $21.7 billion for Justice Department programs which is 4% more 
than the current level of funding and 5% more than the administration's 
request. I also applaud the Committee for providing $334 million for 
juvenile justice programs which is 44% more than requested by this 
administration but is still 12% less than the current level.
  I am disappointed however, that this bill provides only $520 million 
for the Community Oriented Policing Services--COPS--program which is a 
startling 13% less than the current level. This total includes $120 
million for COPS technology, and $60 million for a new anti-gang 
initiative. We are sworn to serve the people of this Nation, and I can 
not see how reducing spending on such a vital community safety program 
can serve that honorable goal.
  The Committee denied the president's request for $3.7 billion for a 
new community development block grant, and instead provided $228 
million for the existing Economic Development Administration, and I 
understand that the administration plans to phase this initiative out.
  For the first time this Subcommittee's appropriation's bill includes 
funding for NASA and the National Science Foundation. Until this year, 
NASA had to compete for funds with veterans and housing programs when 
it was part of the old VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. 
Many believe that pairing NASA with the State and Commerce departments 
has made it much easier to provide increases for the space agency 
without offending powerful domestic constituencies.
  As a member of the Science Committee's Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics, the provision of $16.5 billion for NASA, or 2% over the 
current level represents a positive step toward reaching our goals in 
space technology and exploration. In addition, the NASA total includes 
$9.7 billion for science, aeronautics and exploration, which amounts to 
4% more than the current level and about 1% more than the President's 
request. In this instance I appreciate that the committee did not agree 
to the administration's request to cut the Aeronautics Research program 
by $54 million.

  This appropriation also provides $5.6 billion for the NSF making it 
$171 million more than the FY 2005 level and $38 million more than the 
President's request. This funding provides money for vital research and 
research equipment that can make the difference between achieving a 
great discovery and falling short. As well this Appropriation provides 
funding for education and human resources, which are designed to 
encourage the entrance of talented students into science and technology 
careers, to improve the undergraduate science and engineering education 
environment, to assist in providing all pre-college students with a 
high level of math and science education, and to extend greater 
research opportunities, to underrepresented segments of the scientific 
and engineering communities.
  I also want to applaud the Appropriations Committee for directing 
NASA to include in its FY 2007 budget request detailed information on 
the prior year, current year, and requested funding levels for each 
program, project or activity, and on all proposed changes being 
requested. Clearly, the committee was disappointed with the lack of 
detail provided in NASA's FY 2006 funding request. In this vein I have 
asked that language be included that would direct NASA to report the 
amount of money spent in its budget for safety overall as well as for 
each major program and initiative for its FY 2007 budget request and 
for all following years. The need for this information is clear, since 
the Colombia Space Shuttle safety must be our number one priority. Yet, 
NASA has no exact figures for safety spending either in the overall 
spending or for each individual program or initiative. This language 
about NASA safety will help determine if enough funds are being 
dispersed for safety procedures. In addition, it will allow 
Appropriators to determine from year to year whether there has been an 
increase or decrease in safety spending. I have been assured by the 
majority staff of the Appropriations Committee that they will work to 
have this language added to the Conference Report.
  However, my only concern with this portion of the legislation is that 
NASA Exploration Capabilities were funded at $50.1 less than the 
President's request. This funding would be provided for the Space 
Operations Missions Directorate, including the International Space 
Station, the Space Shuttle program, and Space and Flight Support. The 
funds for NASA Exploration Capabilities are essential to the 
President's vision for space exploration. This appropriation comes at a 
watershed moment for NASA and the future of America's space exploration 
mission. After the tragic Colombia Space Shuttle accident we had to 
step back and reassess our space shuttle program. Today, NASA is 
preparing to return to flight, but safety is still at the forefront of 
our concerns. The funds being addressed here are applicable to safety 
as well and we must ensure that everything is done to keep our NASA 
astronauts from possible harm.

  I applaud the Subcommittee's prohibition of the funding of measures 
that implement torture. This is quite important given the recent report 
by organizations such as Amnesty International and the work that the 
Democrats of the Committee on the Judiciary have done to bring this 
issue to light. I wrote a letter to both U.S. Attorney General Gonzales 
and Secretary Chertoff requesting a full report on the conduct of the 
detention facilities located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and I hope that 
the Committee on the Judiciary will hold at least one hearing on this 
important matter.
  This measure provides $1 million for eight additional criminal 
division positions to assist U.S. attorney's offices and to coordinate 
investigations across judicial districts; and $60 million for a new 
anti-gang state and local law enforcement grant program. However, it is 
quite troubling to me that it does not provide any dollars for 
treatment programs to help these troubled juveniles.
  As Founder and Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, I 
undoubtedly recognize the need for us to legislate to create 
protections from the danger and violence produced by gangs. However, 
before we haphazardly amend the law to add excessive and egregious 
mandatory minimums and other penalties that apply to groups of people 
or young groups of people, we just clearly define the acts that we seek 
to penalize. That is the essence of crafting law that is ``narrowly 
tailored'' and that does not suffer from over breadth.
  In addition, this measure provides funding for Byrne Grant 
applications from state and local law enforcement agencies. Grants to 
fund state and local anti-drug task forces come from the ``Edward Byrne 
Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs,'' in 
Title 42 U.S.C., Subchapter V. As a member of the House Law Enforcement 
Caucus, I am an ardent proponent of initiatives that strengthen and 
support our law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, as a member of the 
Committee on Homeland Security, I make it a goal whenever possible to 
advocate for increased funding, better facilities, training, an 
equipment, and for improved interoperable communications for these 
first responders. However, with my amendment, I seek to restore the 
integrity, honesty , evenhandedness, and judiciousness of our law 
enforcement agencies.
  Similarly, I will offer an amendment that states the following: No 
funds made available in this Act shall be used to facilitate the 
issuance of affirmances by single members of the Board of Immigration 
Appeals (BIA) without an opinion. An affirmance without opinion just 
says:
  The Board affirms, without opinion, the result of the decision below. 
The decision below is, therefore, the final agency determination. See 8 
CFR 3.1(e)(4).
  The reason for this provision in the Regulations is to move 
apparently meritless cases quickly through the appellate process. I 
pasted the authorizing regulations to the bottom of this note.
  Cases coming to the Board that appear to be easy are separated out 
and sent to the streamlining panel. These cases are then assigned more 
or less randomly to staff attorneys without directions or supervision. 
If the staff attorney who reviews the case decides that affirmance 
without opinion is appropriate, he will print out a firm decision, and 
then give the file to a single Board member with a cover sheet that 
will have an explanation for why such disposition is appropriate. The 
explanations typically are a few lines.
  My amendment would permit this practice but only with cases that more 
than one Board member has reviewed and that result in the issuance of 
an opinion with the affirmance.

[[Page H4436]]

  The proportion of ``affirmances without opinion'' decided by a single 
Board member had increased from 10% to over 50% of all Board decisions, 
beginning immediately after the new rules were proposed. At the same 
time, the proportion of cases that are favorable to the alien 
decreased. Prior to proposing the ``Procedural Reforms'', one in four 
cases was decided in favor of the alien. Since then, only one appeal in 
ten is decided in favor of the alien.
  Single-member review creates an incentive to rubber stamp immigration 
judges' decisions. Affirmance without written decision is much faster 
and easier than writing a decision and creates an incentive (whether 
conscious or unconscious) for Board members to meet case processing 
guidelines by affirming removal orders notwithstanding the merits of 
the appeal. Moreover, intellectual rigor in decision-making may be 
diminished because Board members no longer need to articulate the basis 
for their decisions. They need only decide whether they agree with the 
result ultimately reached by the immigration judge.
  A panel of three Board members is far more likely to catch an error 
below than a single Board member. In the immigration context, there is 
only one administrative hearing before the case reaches the Board. 
Other administrative agencies that employ single-Member review have 
several layers of administrative process (i.e., interview, hearing, and 
reconsideration) prior to reaching the administrative appeals level as 
well as the option of a later de novo hearing in federal district court 
and court of appeals review.
  Single-member review makes it difficult for the Board itself to 
determine whether its members are making errors. The courts of appeal, 
when such review is available, similarly lack guidance in reviewing the 
decisions of the immigration judges and the Board. This issue must be 
addressed in order to save the federal district court dockets.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, my home state of Utah is particularly 
fortunate to have a number of dedicated individuals working in law 
enforcement to protect our citizens.
  These days, we all tend to focus on the armed forces, which are 
obviously a critical element of national defense. But it is also 
important to remember those on the front lines here at home. Local law 
enforcement officers need Congress' help to ensure that our streets 
stay safe for law-abiding citizens.
  I'm very disappointed that this bill cuts funding for Byrne Grants, 
COPS grants, Juvenile Justice programs, and Drug Courts.
  During my time in Congress, every single person involved with law 
enforcement has made it a point to share with me exactly how these 
grants help protect Utah citizens. I don't think we can say enough 
about the men and women who use this funding to better patrol our 
streets, decrease the availability of drugs in our schools, and ensure 
that each and every citizen is safe and protected.
  Officer safety and the ability to investigate major crimes are often 
compromised by a lack of resources. One of the local police chiefs in a 
small town in my district said to me last year: Jim, I'm not worried 
about Al Qaeda attacking our little town. I'm worried about dealing 
with drugs in our middle school down the street.
  Every single day, acts of heroism and valor are performed by police 
officers across our nation. We have made tremendous progress in terms 
of crime prevention and crime solving, but we need to remember that 
there are only so many available law enforcement officers at a given 
time. As our society grows, the demands placed on these individuals 
have also increased tremendously.
  The best way that the federal government can serve local law 
enforcement is to actually provide the grant money that is best 
utilized by people on the beat. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support the amendments that will be offered later today to increase 
funding for Byrne grants and COPS grants.
  I truly thank the members of law enforcement across this nation for 
their service and I commit to working in support of both homeland 
security and domestic security.
  Before I close, I also want to add that there are some good things 
about this bill too. I'm very pleased to see that the bill does not 
transfer responsibility or reduce funding for the High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program. This program is very important to 
police chiefs and sheriffs in Utah and in other western states.
  This bill also fully funds the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
program, which is another great program that does exactly what we all 
say federal dollars should do. MEP helps small businesses avail 
themselves of technological improvements and best practices that allow 
them to grow. Members of Congress tend to agree that growth in our 
manufacturing sector is critical and it seems to me that we should 
support that goal by supporting the MEP program.
  In closing, I recognize that we're facing an extremely tight budget. 
That's exactly why we should prioritize law enforcement and other 
aspects of our government that best help our citizens and make good use 
of limited federal dollars.
  Mr. FARR. I would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member 
for their efforts to put together a balanced Science, State, Justice, 
Commerce bill; especially working with such limited resources. However, 
I would like to point out the shortfall in funding to the ocean, or 
wet, side of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 
in this bill.
  It is distressing to see NOAA, our primary domestic ocean agency, 
take a $500 million cut from FY 05 levels less than a year after the 
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy issued its final report calling for an 
increase of $1.5 billion in ocean funding during the first year after 
the report. The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy was established by the 
Oceans Act of 2000 and appointed by President Bush to study our oceans 
and make recommendations for a coordinated and comprehensive national 
ocean policy. The Oceans Commission spent four years studying our 
oceans and made over 200 recommendations, and it spent $9.5 million 
figuring out how to better manage our oceans. We are now ignoring the 
clear, loud message that we need to invest more in our oceans. To put 
it another way, we are cutting more than a million dollars in ocean 
programs in our primary ocean agency for each page in the U.S. 
Commission on Ocean Policy final report.
  With the atmospheric, or dry, side of NOAA seeing a 9% increase for 
the National Weather Service and a 7% increase for the National 
Environmental Satellite, Data and Information Service, the cuts to the 
wet side of NOAA are even deeper than they first appear. The National 
Ocean Service will receive a 40% cut and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service will receive a 20% cut.
  To no one's surprise, Americans love the oceans, but what many 
Americans probably do not know is how much our economy relies on the 
oceans. The ocean economy--the portion of the economy that relies 
directly on ocean attributes--contributes well over $100 billion to 
American prosperity. About one tenth of the nation's annual gross 
domestic product (GDP) is generated in nearshore areas, the relatively 
narrow strip of land immediately adjacent to the coast. Coastal 
watershed counties, representing about one quarter of the nation's land 
area, contribute about half of the nation's GDP. NOAA funding is not 
only an investment in the protection, wise management, and productivity 
of our oceans and coasts; it is an investment in the well being of our 
coastal cities and communities.
  Cuts to NOAA threaten the wise management of our oceans and will have 
far reaching ramifications such as on the tourism industry in my 
district and tourism in coastal districts around the nation. Tourism is 
one of the largest economic drivers of coastal areas, and my district 
is no exception. Tourists flock to my district for the same reason 
people want to live there, because of its natural wonders. Not only are 
the rocky shores dramatic, but people can watch sea otters paddle in 
the kelp, sea lions lounge on the docks, and whales breach in the bay. 
The more adventurous dive in the lush fish filled kelp beds, and the 
less adventurous--well, they go to the Monterey Bay Aquarium.
  The Marine Sanctuaries program has been cut by 40% and the Coastal 
Nonpoint and Community Resource Improvement Grants program has been cut 
out completely. These two NOAA programs have been instrumental in 
keeping the coastal waters of my district unpolluted, allowing the 
waters to teem with life. The Monterey Bay Sanctuary office has been 
working with farmers in the productive valleys that drain into the 
Monterey Bay to reduce pollution from pesticides and nutrients. The 
farmers were skeptical until they realized they were saving money by 
finding ways to keep their fertilizers and pesticides on the fields and 
out of our ocean waters. The farmers are now bigger proponents of the 
program than the Sanctuary office. I don't want the ocean waters off my 
district to end up as a dead-zone like the waters off Louisiana, where 
due to nutrient pollution, there is a dead zone the size of 
Massachusetts. Pollution kills more than marine life; it kills 
fisheries and it kills tourism--For some reason I just can't quite 
picture a tourism brochure that reads ``Come visit the country's 
biggest ocean dead-zone.''
  The State Coastal Zone Management Grants program was cut by $2 
million. The National Estuarine Research Reserves program was cut by 
$3.7 million, and the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation program 
was cut by a whopping $38.7 million. These programs have been 
instrumental in allowing my district and other districts around the 
country to grow wisely striking a balance between development and 
preservation. The natural areas, parks and public beach access--besides 
pleasing the environmentalists--have been a smart tourism investment. 
Without the

[[Page H4437]]

ability for people to access the beach and enjoy the wildlife in these 
natural areas, people will not bother coming to my district.
  When I think about the oceans, fishing is one of the first things 
that comes to mind. It is an economic and cultural backbone for many 
coastal communities, and with American consumers eating over 15 pounds 
of fish per person every year, it is an important food source for 
people across our nation. Recreational fishing is a boon to coastal 
tourism as well, with more than 17 million recreational fishers 
spending approximately $25 billion a year on fishing-related 
activities. At a time when we know the status of less than a third of 
our fish stocks and are overfishing or have overfished more than 30% of 
the stocks we know about, we should be investing heavily in the 
National Marine Fisheries Service instead of making deeper budget cuts.
  At a time when we know clearly from the U.S. Commission on Ocean 
Policy report that we need to be investing in our oceans, making 
drastic funding cuts to NOAA, the primary agency for managing our 
coasts and oceans, makes no sense.
  I, with my fellow co-chairs of the House Oceans Caucus, sent a letter 
to the Appropriations Committee asking for adequate funding of key 
nation wide NOAA programs. We had the support of 84 bipartisan members 
who felt strongly about these programs. Of the 13 different programs we 
highlighted in our letter, none of them was funded at our requested 
levels. Only one program received a small increase over FY 05 enacted 
levels and only one was level funded. This is especially disappointing 
given the support of so many members--nearly 20%--of the House.
  While I believe the Committee did a good job given the tight budget 
situation, it is disappointing to see NOAA receive such large cuts when 
they should be getting large increases. NOAA needs more money to do its 
job of protecting, managing and keeping our coasts and oceans healthy 
and productive.
  The CHAIRMAN. Time of the gentleman has expired. All time for general 
debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2862

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, namely:

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues may know, methamphetamine 
abuse has exploded across the U.S. over the last 15 years. Many States 
now break up between 500 and 2,500 meth labs per year. Meth is 
relatively cheap, tremendously addictive, and ofttimes addicts in one 
exposure. It is available nearly everywhere, particularly in rural 
areas.
  Even though local meth labs are a tremendous problem, most meth comes 
from the superlabs in Mexico. Mexican superlabs purchase the basic 
ingredient, either sudafedrine or ephedrine from China, often in 
amounts of one ton or more. Mexico is currently importing much more 
ephedrine and sudafedrine than it uses for medical purposes.
  The Office of Narcotics and Drug Control Policy released the National 
Synthetic Drug Action Plan. This plan specifically recommends that the 
Drug Enforcement Agency and other Federal agencies focus resources on 
stopping large shipments of sudafedrine from Asia to Mexico which are 
destined for meth labs.
  Law enforcement agencies need to identify and aggressively pursue 
those responsible for these superlabs, as they now account for more 
than two-thirds of the meth entering the United States.

                              {time}  1245

  I hope that the chairman agrees that Congress needs to work with the 
administration, Mexico and other countries to reduce pseudoephedrine 
shipments used to produce meth. I look forward to working with the 
chairman to address this critical issue.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and will work with the gentleman 
to address this issue. If the gentleman can come up with something 
creative, working with the authorizers, working with the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder), maybe there is something we could put in our bill at the end, 
assuming the authorizers agree, that does something special and more 
direct with regard to the meth issue. I am wide open. I know how meth 
has impacted the gentleman's State, and he has been a leader with the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) on this issue. I suggest you talk 
with the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and maybe we could do something dramatic 
to deal with this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         General Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration of the 
     Department of Justice, $126,956,000, of which not to exceed 
     $3,317,000 is for the Facilities Program 2000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed 45 
     permanent positions and 46 full-time equivalent workyears and 
     $11,821,000 shall be expended for the Department Leadership 
     Program exclusive of augmentation that occurred in these 
     offices in fiscal year 2005: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed 28 permanent positions, 23 full-time equivalent 
     workyears and $3,980,000 shall be expended for the Office of 
     Legislative Affairs: Provided further, That not to exceed 17 
     permanent positions, 22 full-time equivalent workyears and 
     $2,764,000 shall be expended for the Office of Public 
     Affairs: Provided further, That the latter two aforementioned 
     offices may utilize non-reimbursable details of career 
     employees within the caps described in the preceding two 
     provisos.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       Page 2, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1) (increased by $1)''
       Page 22, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $270,000,000)''
       Page 23, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $270,000,000)''
       Page 26, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $140,000,000)''
       Page 38, line 21, 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 (P.L. 107-16) and the Jobs and 
     Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-27) 
     shall be reduced by 1.466 percent.''

  Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the Obey 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved on the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I believe the House is familiar with this 
amendment. I have offered similar amendments a number of times. It does 
go straight to the question of our national priorities.
  Let me take a little broader view than just this year. If we look at 
some of the reductions in this bill, and just look at the 1-year 
reductions, such as we have here in EDA or such as we have in law 
enforcement, the 1-year reductions do not look too bad, but if we take 
a look at what happened to these programs since fiscal year 2001, we 
see that we still have a deep reduction in some of these activities. 
For example, the State and local law enforcement grants have been cut 
by $1 billion over that time. There is no way that we cannot have an 
effect on local law enforcement by having cuts of that magnitude over 
that period of time.
  The same is true with EDA. There are many urban districts who do not 
care much about EDA, but my district, I do not have a city over 37,000. 
Small cities like that cannot hire a bunch of

[[Page H4438]]

fancy grant writers. They need all of the help they can get to compete 
for Federal money for job creation, and the Economic Development 
Administration, EDA, tries to provide that.
  What this amendment would simply do is to try to restore the $410 
million cut by the committee for local law enforcement grants and 
increase funding for EDA by $53 million, restoring that cut, and it 
would simply pay for that cut by reducing the size of the tax cut this 
House has previously approved for persons who make over $1 million. It 
would simply reduce that tax cut by $2,000. So instead of getting on 
average a $140,000 tax cut, they would get a $138,000 tax cut. It is 
hardly draconian, but it would help take care of a significant national 
priority.
  I know that taxes are under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways 
and Means, but the fact is that because the Committee on Ways and Means 
jurisdiction was placed first in terms of a priority by the Committee 
on the Budget, that means every time we have a tax cut paid for with 
borrowed money, you wind up putting an additional squeeze on deserving 
appropriated programs, including local law enforcement.
  This amendment tries to correct that imbalance to a very small 
degree. I would urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Obey amendment 
to the fiscal year 2006 Science, State Justice, Commerce appropriations 
bill, and to voice my specific concerns about the funding level for the 
Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, program.
  I was deeply concerned when President Bush earlier this year proposed 
gutting State and local law enforcement assistance grants by $1.4 
billion in his fiscal year 2006 budget--a 46 percent cut from last 
year. While the Appropriations Committee restored $1 billion from those 
proposed cuts, the fiscal year 2006 Science, State Justice, Commerce 
appropriations bill before us today still cuts these grants by $400,000 
from last year's funding levels.
  That is why I support Ranking Member Obey's amendment. This amendment 
would provide an additional $410 million for State and local law 
enforcement, including COPS grants, and restore them to the fiscal year 
2005 enacted levels. To do this, Representative Obey reduces the size 
of the tax cut for millionaires by only $2,053. These millionaires will 
still get a $138,816 tax rebate. That is all we need to do to restore 
these cuts. That small tax cut repeal would fully fund these important 
programs at last year's levels and help keep our streets safe. That is 
a tradeoff that is worth making, and one, I would suggest, that even 
the top of all taxpayers would support.
  Concerning the COPS program, this bill allocates only $520 million 
for it. Again, I am glad that the Appropriations Committee has restored 
a part of the destructive cuts that the President originally proposed. 
But we should be doing more. The COPS program has been remarkably 
successful over the last 10 years. According to the Department of 
Justice, every $1 we spend on COPS grants contributes to a decline of 
10 violent crimes and 27 property crimes per 100,000 residents. Yet 
rather than increasing funding for this effective and important 
program, this bill actually would cut $80 million from the COPS 
program. This is the wrong thing to do. It is the additional police 
officers that the COPS program helps local towns and cities hire, who 
are on the front lines of reducing crime and also protecting our 
homeland.
  The COPS program has provided law enforcement agencies in my district 
and across the Nation with critical funding to fight and prevent crime. 
In my district, communities in Hunterdon, Monmouth, Mercer, Middlesex, 
and Somerset counties have received more millions of dollars in funding 
to help put additional police officers on the street. In 2004 alone, 
four towns in my district--Lawrence Township, Monroe Township, 
Spotswood Borough, and West Windsor Township--received almost $380,000 
to fund various law enforcement programs. This money helped Monroe 
Township hire three additional police officers, and helped upgrade the 
law enforcement technology of Spotswood and West Windsor. Overall in 
2004, New Jersey communities received COPS grants totaling $9.5 million 
and were able to hire 40 additional police officers. That is 40 cops on 
the beat who would not have been there without this important Federal 
program. Since 1994, the COPS program has helped fund 4,806 additional 
officers in New Jersey alone. This has made a big difference for the 
local towns and communities in New Jersey.
  The creation of the COPS program was a breakthrough in law 
enforcement. By funding additional officers, critical technologies, and 
valuable training, COPS has been a catalyst for the revolutionary shift 
to community policing. But too many police departments are experiencing 
increases in the troubling indicators of violent crimes.
  At a time when we are asking our cops to do more to reduce crime and 
protect our homeland from potential terrorist related threats, we are 
giving them less funding to do so. Just look at the largest 44 
metropolitan police departments. Of them 27, yes 27, have actually been 
forced to reduce the size of their police departments. That means that 
there are less police officers on the beat and more crime on the 
street.
  COPS and community policing have put us on the right track. Crime is 
at its lowest levels in more than a quarter of a century. The police 
chiefs and sheriffs in my district consistently tell me that we could 
have never achieved this much without the additional officers and 
technology funded under the COPS program. I just do not understand why 
we are not supporting this effective program appropriately.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to give up the progress we have 
achieved in crime reduction over the last 10 years. The COPS program 
has been vital to our local communities. Our police departments can 
only do so much with the resources they are given. We should do 
everything we can to increase, not cut, the funding of the COPS 
program. I urge my colleagues to support the Obey amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized on his point of order.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment 
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation 
in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, as I understand the rules under which this 
bill is brought to the floor, this amendment would be in order if no 
Member of the House chooses to lodge a point of order against it.
  My understanding of the rule that the committee reported is that it 
has waived the rules for numerous provisions that were placed in the 
bill by the majority party. It is hard for me to imagine that the House 
would feel comfortable in not providing that same courtesy to this 
amendment.
  I would also suggest that what I am trying to do by this amendment is 
to do a favor for the majority leader, because he does not want us to 
have to cut into NASA in order to fund this restoration for law 
enforcement grants. If he allows this amendment to go forward, if no 
Member of the majority party lodges a point of order against this 
amendment, then we can restore the badly needed funds for local law 
enforcement without having to go after some of the increases in the 
majority leader's favorite program.
  I would urge the House to do a favor for the majority leader by not 
lodging a point of order against this amendment. If they do that, we 
could proceed to restore badly needed funds.
  I would concede, Mr. Chairman, that if any individual Member does 
lodge a point of order, I would have to concede the point of order, but 
I would hope that a point of order would not be offered, or if it has 
already been offered, I would hope that it would be withdrawn as a 
special favor to the majority leader.
  Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) concedes the 
point of order. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The 
amendment is not in order.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       Page 2, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1) (increased by $1)''
       Page 22, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''
       Page 23, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''
       Page 26, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $100,000,000)''
       Page 53, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(decreased by $200,000,000)''


[[Page H4439]]


  Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes to be 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) for 10 minutes on his amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think my admiration for the subcommittee chairman is 
well known. I think he does a great job for his district and for this 
House, but we have been placed in a very tough position because of the 
priorities that were laid out by the budget resolution adopted by this 
House earlier this year.
  Because of those priorities, we are faced today with the necessity 
for a trade-off. What has happened in this bill over the last 4 years 
is that State and local law enforcement grants have been cut by almost 
a billion dollars. They are cut from last year to this year by $410 
million in this bill. I am simply trying by this amendment to restore 
half of that money, restore $200 million. Half would go into the COPS 
program, half into the Justice Assistance Grant program, and we would 
pay for that, in contrast to another amendment that I understand a 
Member may offer, which would pay for it by going after basic science 
programs in the National Science Foundation. This amendment would not 
do that. I think we need to put more money in science, not less.
  What this amendment would do, and I offer it reluctantly because I 
would have preferred the first amendment, but the action of the 
majority party requires me to go to this option.
  What this amendment does is to say we should scale back the $500 
million increase in the account that contains the Moon and Mars mission 
by $200 million in order to pay for this law enforcement assistance. Of 
that $200 million, $160 million would be taken from Project Prometheus. 
NASA, the agency in charge, still has not been able to identify a 
relevant mission for the funds in that account. The planning is 
certainly not ripe, and so what we are saying in essence is since this 
is a pilot mission which would take place roughly around the year 2020 
or 2030, what we are saying instead is for the moment we ought to put 
more money into law enforcement to help buttress law enforcement in our 
local communities, and we can on another day decide where we can get 
the money for Project Prometheus so that sometime 20 or 25 years from 
now, we can use nuclear-powered craft to go to Mars. I do not think it 
is even a close choice, and I would ask for an aye vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The amendment 
would reduce funding for one of the President's top priorities, science 
and space. This represents more than a 6-percent reduction in the 
President's new Vision for Space Exploration and would significantly 
jeopardize NASA's ability to implement its new mission.
  I would like to read a letter from the Administrator, Michael 
Griffin.
  ``Dear Mr. Chairman:
  ``It has come to my attention that, during House consideration of 
H.R. 2862, an amendment will be offered by Mr. Obey that proposes to 
reduce NASA Exploration Systems funding by $200 million, and redirect 
the NASA funds to State and local law enforcement assistance 
activities.
  ``I must respectfully oppose this amendment. I support full funding 
of the President's fiscal year 2006 request for NASA. Any reduction in 
NASA's fiscal year 2006 Exploration Systems funding would threaten the 
ability of this Nation to ensure U.S. human access to space, our 
efforts to accelerate the availability of the crew exploration vehicle 
to minimize the gap between the retirement of the space shuttle and the 
first operational flight of the CEV, and our efforts to maintain a 
robust civil service workforce at NASA's field centers in support of 
these efforts.''
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Obey 
amendment. This amendment would restore crucial funding for State and 
local law enforcement back to the fiscal year 2005 enacted level.
  This bill cuts the funding for these programs by $410 million from 
the fiscal year 2005 enacted levels, and the 2005 enacted level was 
already $226 million less than was provided the year before that. So in 
2 years, we have cut $636 million from law enforcement programs. How 
long are we going to continue on this downward slope of funding for our 
critical law enforcement programs?
  The Obey amendment would restore funding for the Byrne-JAG program 
and COPS, Community-Oriented Policing Services program. The COPS 
program has been highly successful and provides funding for our local 
and State agencies that they need to hire and train new police 
officers.
  According to the Department of Justice, every dollar we invest in the 
COPS program contributes to a decline in 10 violent crimes and 27 
property crimes per 100,000 residents. As a former city police officer 
and a Michigan State Trooper, as well as cochair of the Congressional 
Law Enforcement Caucus, I understand how much our local communities 
need and rely on the Byrne grants and COP grants to keep these 
successful programs going in their neighborhoods.
  The Byrne-JAG grants provide funding for 29 different and vital 
programs such as antidrug education programs, treatment programs, and 
alternative sentencing initiatives, giving the States the ability to 
choose which programs they find most beneficial in their State to do 
under this Federal funding.

                              {time}  1300

  As most of us know and we hear when we go back home to our local 
districts, the Byrne grants fund the local drug enforcement teams. We 
have to provide this funding so our drug enforcement officers can do 
their jobs. We must listen to what our drug enforcement officers are 
telling us and fully fund the Byrne grant program.
  Local drug enforcement teams are crucial to keeping our communities 
safe and drug free. If Byrne grants are funded at the level currently 
provided in this bill, our teams will be unable to hire the officers 
they need to sustain their drug enforcement teams. In my home State of 
Michigan, we would lose 11 of the 25 teams we have in Michigan. 
California would lose 26 teams. Texas would lose 21 drug enforcement 
teams. New York would lose 34 drug enforcement teams.
  Losing these drug enforcement teams would have a devastating and far-
reaching effect not only in Michigan but throughout this country, 
especially in our rural communities. Let me be really clear. When it 
comes to crime and drug abuse and drug dealers, no community, urban or 
rural, is immune to this problem.
  Congress needs to step up to the plate and show their strong 
commitment to law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Today we 
have a chance to do that by voting for the Obey amendment and showing 
our support for law enforcement officers who put their lives on the 
line each and every day to keep our communities safe and drug free. I 
urge support of the Obey amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Obey amendment. The $200 million 
funding cut to NASA's exploration program proposed in this amendment 
would jeopardize U.S. jobs and jeopardize space launch capability. 
These cuts would threaten personnel reductions in existing NASA 
exploration systems' workforce across the Nation and could impact more 
than 1,000 employees. This cut will take money directly from work on 
the new crew exploration vehicle, a much needed vehicle that will 
replace the space shuttle

[[Page H4440]]

in 2010 or after 2010. It contains very likely the most vital addition 
of a crew escape module making it a safer vehicle for our astronauts. 
It is a very important thrust.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment proposes to take funds out 
of NASA and put them toward justice assistance grants. While I am 
supportive of local law enforcement officials, it is important to point 
out that Congress has already appropriated billions for State and local 
law enforcement. On May 17, the House approved the fiscal year 2006 
homeland security appropriations bill which provides $3.7 billion for 
first responders, including grants to State and local law enforcement 
agencies. Since September 11, $15 billion has been provided to assist 
State and local officials. Indeed, the bill on the floor today provides 
$2.6 billion for crime-fighting initiatives, $1 billion more than the 
President requested.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress has and will continue to support our men and 
women who fight crime in our communities. Of course we are going to do 
that. The issue today is not whether Congress supports law enforcement. 
It is whether Congress supports the economic and national security that 
our space program provides. Since 1969, America has led the world into 
space, and it is time to renew that vision. Our ventures into space not 
only keep America at the forefront of exploration and innovation, but 
they also are vital to our economy and our national security. This new 
national vision sets America on a course toward the Moon and Mars, and 
we should embrace this dream and work to make it a reality.
  As the preeminent leader in human space flight, we cannot afford to 
sit idle and let other nations reap the rewards of our hard work, 
research and sacrifice. We know that the People's Republic of China has 
developed a human space flight program that encompasses everything from 
low-Earth orbit to exploring the Moon and Mars. As the new NASA 
administrator said recently and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) 
just pointed out, we need to retire the shuttle as quickly as possible 
and begin flying the new crew exploration vehicle to the international 
space station and the Moon. These requirements and these funding cuts 
that the gentleman from Wisconsin proposes will have a direct impact on 
that momentum and the President's vision for space exploration, a 
vision that will advance our national economy and prestige 
internationally.
  America's space program continues to be an engine for our national 
economy. Exploration brings jobs and technological growth to America. 
Nearly every State in the Union benefits from the development of 
technologies needed to propel our space mission. At a time when we are 
all concerned about jobs leaving the United States, supporting NASA 
makes sense because we are providing good jobs for Americans. We owe it 
to future generations of Americans and the men and women who have kept 
the space program alive to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey 
amendment. This is a delicately balanced bill and the Obey amendment 
would destroy that balance. The account that the gentleman from 
Wisconsin is reducing funds the President's space exploration 
initiative, and also NASA's Earth science, space science, and 
aeronautics programs. All of these programs are at a critical point and 
are struggling for funds. At a time when we are trying to keep 
important Earth science missions on the drawing board, at a time when 
we face increased costs for both the Hubble space telescope and its 
planned successor, the James Webb space telescope, at a time when we 
are contemplating significant changes in our aeronautics program, at a 
time when we are trying to create new technologies to return to the 
Moon, this arbitrary cut proposed in this amendment is simply not 
appropriate.
  I urge opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a shame that we are debating this Obey amendment. 
I just want to reemphasize that we should be debating the Obey 
amendment that was denied by the Rules Committee, because that would be 
the amendment with the appropriate offset. Everybody understands, I 
think, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree that 
this cut that we are experiencing to State and local law enforcement, 
the cuts that we are experiencing in the COPS program, and the cuts 
that we are experiencing in juvenile justice programs, are lamentable. 
They are cuts from last year, and they are serious.
  State and local law enforcement is funded at 22 percent less than the 
current level. At a time when State and local law enforcement need 
resources, we are cutting resources. The COPS program, a tremendous 
program, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) pointed out, is 
provided 13 percent less than the current level funding in this bill. 
Juvenile justice programs, those programs that are in the forefront of 
helping our youth, and addressing at-risk youth issues experience a 12 
percent cut from the current level.
  There is no question that the restoration side of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin's amendment needs to be addressed. He went to the Rules 
Committee and tried to get it addressed in an appropriate way by having 
the perfect offset. The offset is a small cut to those who have earned 
income of over $1 million, who currently enjoy a tax cut of 
approximately $140,000. The Obey amendment just reduces that tax cut a 
little bit, by $2,000. That would have been the appropriate offset. The 
offset that the ranking member is using in this second amendment, which 
he is forced to do because the Rules Committee did not give him a rule 
for the high-income offset, is a lamentable offset.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
Americans take great pride in the accomplishments of the manned space 
flight program and NASA going all the way back to its earliest days, 
Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and beyond. And there always were people who 
came to the floor of this body proposing cuts to those programs, to 
NASA, and always shifting dollars to very, very worthwhile, or 
seemingly very, very worthwhile, entities.
  I would just like to point out to my colleagues, do not be misled 
into believing that local law enforcement is going to be in a crisis if 
they do not get these additional funds. Better than 99 percent of 
funding to local law enforcement comes from State and local funding 
sources, and this amount of money is literally a drop in the bucket.
  I would just like to also add that the Bush tax cuts that we passed 
out of this body and became law are causing a tremendous amount of 
economic growth and job creation, and there has been actually a surge 
of revenue into the State and local treasuries. Indeed, I am even told 
that chronically underfinanced New York City has a $2 billion surplus. 
My State that I come from in Florida, we are experiencing a surplus 
because of the robust growth caused by this tax cut package. Those 
local and State agencies can put more funding into COPS programs and 
fighting meth labs. They actually have much more resources to take care 
of the job.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Feeney).
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia 
has done a marvelous job in balancing a lot of important competing 
priorities. I will tell you that Americans need to be aware of this. We 
have been the only leader in manned space flight ever since Apollo 
XIII. But this amendment guts America's future manned space flight 
program.
  In the year 2010, we are due to retire the shuttle. Unless we move 
forward with a new vehicle, which is what this amendment guts, the 
funding to do the exploration, the design and the research for, we will 
have a huge gap. There are nine other countries waiting to watch what 
we do. The Chinese, for example, are going to have a manned space 
flight program any day now. Yes, it is important to have local law 
enforcement; and, yes, we support that;

[[Page H4441]]

and, yes, there is great funding in this bill that Chairman Wolf put 
together; and, yes, 99 percent of those moneys come from local and 
State government.
  But nothing is more important to the long-term security of the United 
States than space intelligence, space communications, space capability, 
including manned space flight. What this program does is to take $200 
million out of the proposal that the President has to have a continual 
manned space flight program after the shuttle is retired. We basically 
are going to say, we are going to have huge personnel reductions, 
including some of the most talented engineers and scientists in the 
world that will go do other things.
  We are going to basically lay off up to 1,000 people, talking about 
the next generation of human space flight, all so that we can give out 
local good-feeling grants to local law enforcement agencies on top of 
what they already have. The vehicle the President is talking about will 
be more flexible, will have more capabilities, will take us ultimately 
not just back to the Moon but on to Mars and beyond unless we gut it 
here today.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think I am hearing a different amendment 
being debated. The fact is this amendment does not cut our core 
sciences. The President's budget is the one that squeezed those 
programs. This amendment does nothing of the kind. This amendment is 
very simple. This bill before us has increased the account that 
contains the Moon to Mars mission which is a mission that is going to 
occur 25 years in the future. This bill raises that account by half a 
billion dollars, $500 million. It is paid for by cutting $400 million 
out of local law enforcement. All I am suggesting is that we take $200 
million of that back and give it to the local law enforcement agencies 
so we have a better balance between the two programs.
  I do not like the fact that we have to cut these programs. I would 
have preferred to do it the other way. But the majority party blocked 
me from doing that. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) took the floor 
a while earlier crying about the fact that we were trying to cut the 
NASA budget. We are not trying to cut the NASA budget. The committee 
has cut the law enforcement budget. It has increased the NASA budget. 
We are simply trying to modify the increase to some degree in order to 
save local law enforcement.

                              {time}  1315

  If the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) does not like the trade-off, 
then he ought to look in the mirror because he is the fellow who 
required it.
  Earlier we had a different jurisdiction of this subcommittee, but the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) did not like the fact that last year 
the subcommittee took money out of NASA in order to fund other programs 
including housing and veterans' health care. So he rearranged the 
jurisdiction of the committees; so now it means that NASA is in 
competition with local law enforcement. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) has given us no place to go.
  So the choice is simple. If Members want to pay for a $500 million 
increase in a mission to Mars that is going to take place 25 years from 
now, if they want to pay for that by cutting back local law 
enforcement, then vote against the amendment. If they do not, then vote 
for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. I would point out to the Members of the House that this 
subcommittee has restored more than $1 billion in proposed cuts to 
State and local law enforcement. There is a total of $2.6 billion 
provided for crime-fighting initiatives, and the bill restores programs 
like the SCAAP program, $355 million to reimburse States for housing 
and detaining criminal aliens; $334 million for juvenile delinquency 
prevention; $387 million for Violence against Women.
  This bill does a good job of restoring proposed cuts in law 
enforcement, and the amendment, if it were adopted, would be 
devastating to our Nation's space program.
  America's space program today is still in the age of sailboats. We 
are using chemical rocket technology that was originally developed by 
Robert Goddard in the 1920s, and the only research program out there 
that is developing the next generation of rocket propulsion that will 
allow us to explore the outer solar system, that will allow us to go on 
to explore other solar systems around other stars, is Project 
Prometheus. It is the only research program out there to develop ion or 
thermal emission propulsion systems. The new Administrator at NASA has 
directed it to allow us to do research to develop nuclear surface power 
for our lunar missions.
  If this amendment were adopted, it would devastate and damage 
severely NASA's ability to protect our astronauts from radiation 
hazards that they are all exposed to in outer space. The majority 
leader is right about that.
  The People's Republic of China, Mr. Chairman, recognizes the 
importance of investing in outer space. If we adopt this amendment, we 
are allowing the Chinese to continue to move rapidly ahead in space 
exploration. The Chinese are not slowing down. They are going to be 
launching a lunar rover. They are going to be launching a lunar 
orbiter.
  I urge Members to oppose this amendment so we can continue to invest 
in the future of manned and unmanned space exploration.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Terry

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Terry:
       Page 2, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $568,763)''.
       Page 3, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $604,800)''.
       Page 3, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $492,800)''.
       Page 3, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $966,269)''.
       Page 3, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,474,560)''.
       Page 4, line 7, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $299,268)''.
       Page 4, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $50,176)''.
       Page 4, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,982,878)''.
       Page 5, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $28,372)''.
       Page 5, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $647,140)''.
       Page 6, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $7,285,134)''.
       Page 6, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $960,521)''.
       Page 7, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,466)''.
       Page 7, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,585,142)''.
       Page 8, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $43,272)''.
       Page 9, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $96,177)''.
       Page 10, line 1, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,271,091)''.
       Page 10, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $25,720,271)''.
       Page 11, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $90,070)''.
       Page 12, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $7,643,655)''.
       Page 13, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,137,786)''.
       Page 16, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $21,932,508)''.
       Page 17, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $314,102)''.
       Page 18, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $15,075)''.
       Page 19, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,735,987)''.
       Page 22, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,019,048)''.
       Page 22, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,485,806)''.
       Page 22, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $285,168,840)''.

[[Page H4442]]

       Page 23, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $285,168,840)''.
       Page 25, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $224,000)''.
       Page 26, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,329,855)''.
       Page 28, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,495,030)''.
       Page 30, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $21,880)''.
       Page 30, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $18,207)''.
       Page 34, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $200,610)''.
       Page 35, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $281,129)''.
       Page 36, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,823,024)''.
       Page 38, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $344,960)''.
       Page 38, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $900,413)''.
       Page 38, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $119,096)''.
       Page 39, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $134,508)''.
       Page 39, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $359,762)''.
       Page 39, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $931,970)''.
       Page 39, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,076,910)''.
       Page 40, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $719,542)''.
       Page 41, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $79,368)''.
       Page 42, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $8,960)''.
       Page 42, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $7,630,784)''.
       Page 44, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $28,941)''.
       Page 44, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,781,893)''.
       Page 45, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $474,880)''.
       Page 45, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $201,600)''.
       Page 45, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,949,120)''.
       Page 47, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,193,280)''.
       Page 48, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $224,000)''.
       Page 50, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $212,648)''.
       Page 50, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $101,956)''.
       Page 53, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $24,927)''.
       Page 53, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $43,571,360)''.
       Page 55, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $30,073,792)''.
       Page 55, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $145,152)''.
       Page 57, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $19,611,290)''.
       Page 58, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $866,208)''.
       Page 58, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,615,360)''.
       Page 59, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,120,000)''.
       Page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $17,920)''.
       Page 60, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $51,520)''.
       Page 60, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $16,787,089)''.
       Page 62, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,089,063)''.
       Page 62, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $574,618)''.
       Page 63, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $134,324)''.
       Page 63, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,838,592)''.
       Page 63, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $37,099)''.
       Page 63, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $42,067)''.
       Page 64, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,703,725)''.
       Page 64, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,077,696)''.
       Page 64, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $44,800)''.
       Page 64, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,190)''.
       Page 65, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,719)''.
       Page 65, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $88,484)''.
       Page 65, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,224,630)''.
       Page 66, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,639,040)''.
       Page 68, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $120,960)''.
       Page 69, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $23,744)''.
       Page 69, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $42,560)''.
       Page 69, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $98,560)''.
       Page 69, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $44,800)''.
       Page 71, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $26,880)''.
       Page 71, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $224,000)''.
       Page 71, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,777,600)''.
       Page 72, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $48,801)''.
       Page 76, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,251)''.
       Page 76, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,236)''.
       Page 76, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $40,750)''.
       Page 77, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $14,336)''.
       Page 77, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $9,094)''.
       Page 77, line 20, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $8,512)''.
       Page 78, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,483,901)''.
       Page 79, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,298,174)''.
       Page 80, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $945,280)''.
       Page 81, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,480)''.
       Page 81, line 19, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,481,997)''.
       Page 82, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $8,355)''.
       Page 82, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,978,764)''.
       Page 84, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,424,770)''.
       Page 85, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $60,480)''.
       Page 85, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $12,817)''.
       Page 85, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $4,480)''.
       Page 86, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $559,825)''.
       Page 86, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $356,330)''.
       Page 86, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $222,728)''.
       Page 88, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $8,960)''.
       Page 88, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $17,920)''.
       Page 88, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $102,368)''.

  Mr. TERRY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Nebraska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment, and any amendments thereto, conclude by 15 minutes, and that 
the time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, 
the opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I am honored today to offer this amendment to now fully 
fund Byrne-JAG grants with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Kennedy), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Larsen), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), 
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). And I also want to thank the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and others for their help in this.
  I also want to congratulate or show my appreciation to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), who certainly has been an advocate in 
the fight against drugs and methamphetamines in our communities and, 
from the President's budget that zeroed out the Byrne-JAG grants, was 
able in his subcommittee to put back $300 million. I am here, with my 
colleagues that I just read off, to take that back to the $600 million 
that was in there before.
  Let us put this in context. This amendment, unlike the last amendment 
that went after just one or two areas, this is an across-the-board 
reduction of .448. So as the subcommittee's report, the bill that comes 
out, the funding remains at 99.55 percent, in essence, of what the 
committee has asked.

[[Page H4443]]

  Just to show that there has been incredible impact in our communities 
from methamphetamines, and the Byrne-JAG grants go directly to our 
police departments, our sheriff departments to fight the drug dealers 
on the ground, they are our front line in the war on drugs, and it just 
makes no sense to me that we are moving towards a policy of 
nationalizing our drug crime fight at a time when it is our police 
officers on the streets that are fighting meth and other drugs.
  At least in the Midwest it started off as a drug that was easy and 
cheap to make. They just needed ammonia, Sudafed, other chemicals to 
make this. It is highly addictive, and it is highly destructive to our 
communities and to our families, and I would encourage support for this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  This amendment takes the worst possible approach to finding offsets 
with an across-the-board cut. It is a blunt instrument and does 
tremendous damage. Indiscriminate cuts in this amendment would be 
irresponsible. Hundreds of people, perhaps thousands, would lose their 
jobs, and many other negative consequences would occur in virtually 
every agency in the bill.
  For every Federal law enforcement agency in the bill this is a cut. 
The FBI, working around the clock to protect the country from the next 
terrorist attack is cut by $26 million. If adopted, a reduction of 161 
FBI agents, gone; 45 DEA agents gone, 35 deputy U.S. marshals gone; 22 
ATF agents gone; 65 U.S. attorneys gone. In addition, the Bureau of 
Prisons, $22 million out; State and local law enforcement programs are 
reduced including a $2 million reduction in COPS and $1.5 million from 
Juvenile Justice.
  This amendment, not that the gentleman meant it to be that way, even 
cuts education benefits for the survivors of public safety officers 
killed in the line of duty, as well as disability benefits for officers 
while injured on duty.
  Lastly, NASA is cut by $70 million. Science goes down the tubes and 
is cut with regard to that. Embassy security, $6.8 million, and 
remember Americans killed in Tanzania, Americans killed in Nairobi. A 
$4 million is cut from SEC. Remember Enron, and we would take money 
from the SEC. Nineteen million dollars cut from the National Science 
Foundation. At the very time we are falling behind and everyone here is 
saying put more money into NSF, this takes money out of NSF, as we are 
falling down behind in engineers and math and science and physics and 
chemistry, and we just had the colloquy with the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
  Lastly, there have been a number of groups opposed to this: the 
National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, American 
Conservative Union, Americans for Tax Reform. If Members find 
something, if they need something, look at a bill and go through it. To 
have it equally across the board is the wrong way to go.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for yielding me this time.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Wolf) for doing an almost impossible job and doing it very well.
  Methamphetamine use has increased at an alarming rate in the last 15 
years, and these charts illustrate this. This is what meth abuse looked 
like in 1990. Two States had 20 or more meth labs. In 1998, this is 
what it looked like, about two-thirds of the country. And this is what 
it looks like today. Almost the whole country has been inundated by 
meth.
  I would also like to point out what meth does to a human being. It is 
the most addictive substance known to man. This is a 10-year snapshot 
of one life. It started out when this young lady was about 30 and ended 
when she was 40, in the morgue.
  We are being inundated by this problem, and we think that we need to 
reintroduce the Byrne funding and sustain it at $634 million, which was 
what it was last year. Otherwise, our local law enforcement people will 
simply be overwhelmed by this problem. We hate to do it in this way. We 
respect the chairman, but this is about the only course of action that 
we were given in order to make this in order.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Nebraska and the other 
supporters of this amendment should be appreciative of the chairman's 
efforts with regard to law enforcement. They have a focus on 
methamphetamine and the plague that it represents across our country. 
They should know that there is hardly a hearing that goes by that the 
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) does not bemoan the condition 
that the country and the challenge that the Nation faces with regard to 
methamphetamine and illegal drug use. He is totally supportive of their 
efforts in principle.
  The problem is we have a tough bill, and when they go to an across-
the-board cut, that is an expression of extreme desperation with regard 
to the appropriation process. When they offer an across-the-board cut 
as an offset, what they are really saying is that this bill is so 
incredibly tight that we cannot find offsets anywhere else. It is 
absolutely the wrong place to go.
  I would suggest to the gentlemen that are down to offering across-
the-board cuts to reassess their vote on the budget resolution. We need 
more money in these bills for law enforcement, to provide funds to 
State and localities which are being cut from last year.
  I oppose the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry) for his leadership on this. I also want to thank 
the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for the great work he has 
done with the very difficult challenge of funding very important 
programs.
  But I just cannot help but continue to think about a young girl named 
Megan in a beautiful town in Minnesota that started using meth in 
seventh grade at age 13, and when she first took it, which she got from 
a friend, she said, This is something I am going to do over and over 
again. She did. But when she could not afford it, her addiction, she, 
like too many other female addicts, was exploited into becoming a 
prostitute to pay for the meth she craved every day. After hitting 
bottom at age 18, she is now pulling her life back together. But she 
has too many in her company. One out of five people that are meth 
addicts in recovery are 17 years or younger in the State of Minnesota.
  We need to make sure that we have the resources at the local level to 
address this. We need to send a signal that this is important to 
Congress, that we stand with our law enforcement agents as they are 
trying to rid this country of this scourge. We need to make sure that 
those that are trying to sell this poison know that we are out to stop 
them.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert).

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. An 
appropriations bill is all about balance. All of us have programs in 
this bill we would like to see funded a little more or a little less. 
But the question before us is whether the bill strikes the overall 
balance among programs, given the fiscal constraints that we all face. 
And I think that with this bill, the appropriators did an outstanding 
job with their balancing act. We should be very cautious about throwing 
off that balance.
  Let me give you an example from a program under the jurisdiction of 
the Committee on Science. Is the National Science Foundation lavishly 
funded? Hardly. The appropriation for NSF, for example, is not even 
enough to bring the agency back to its 2004 funding level. The 
committee recognized the importance to our Nation's future of funding 
long-range basic research at our Nation's universities, but the 
committee could not find the money to

[[Page H4444]]

provide anything like the authorized level of funding. That is the kind 
of balancing act the committee had to pull off throughout the bill.
  Now this arbitrary across-the-board amendment comes along that would 
unravel all of this, and I oppose it.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my 
support for the Byrne-JAG restoration amendment. Byrne and Justice 
Assistance Grants are critical to our local law enforcement and in the 
fight against methamphetamine. As cochair of the Congressional Meth 
Caucus, I know firsthand the importance of these funds to our local 
drug task forces as they work to bust meth labs.
  I want to thank and recognize the subcommittee chair and ranking 
member for their great efforts in drafting this bill. Despite those 
efforts, the level of Byrne grant funding in this bill would cause harm 
to Washington State's drug task forces. These cuts would eliminate at 
least three task forces and potentially six others, and small police 
departments in my district rely on Byrne grants to make communities 
safer.
  This past week there were two clear examples in my district of why 
Byrne grants are needed. One of those is in Whatcom County, where close 
to 40 arrests were made of Bandidos motorcycle gang members and their 
associates in Operation Roadhouse. This effort was a culmination of a 
2-year investigation by Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
agents. The entire Northwest Regional Drug Task Force was closely 
involved in this investigation, expending literally thousands of 
dollars in resources and man hours to ensure the success of this 
operation.
  As one sheriff from my district told me, these cuts cannot come at a 
worse time. So we need to be sure to fund Byrne grants.
  I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for his hard work and urge a 
``yes'' vote on the Byrne-JAG restoration amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Feeney).
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, all of us understand the intent of this amendment. We 
would like to stop the use and abuse and the sale of methamphetamine 
and other dangerous drugs. As a matter of fact, this bill does a great 
deal towards that end. But the problem with the amendment is that it 
robs Peter to pay Paul because you are gutting other long-standing law 
enforcement programs to start up new programs that traditionally have 
been established and protected at the local and State levels.
  In addition, as I mentioned before, one of the things that we are 
trying to do is not to lose the next space race. In the year 2010, the 
United States will, by plan, be out of the manned flight business 
because we will retire the shuttle. The President has proposed making 
sure we have a replacement vehicle more flexible and capable for the 
future.
  This has huge ramifications for American security, American 
intelligence, American communications capabilities. The President's 
proposal and that of Michael Griffin, the new NASA Administrator, is to 
move up our manned capabilities to the year 2010 so we will have no gap 
where we have to rely on the Russians or other foreign powers to get us 
in a manned way into space. By the way, the Chinese are coming. In 
2012, they expect to have a vehicle on the Moon. They will have manned 
flights after that.
  Please, do not gut America's predominance in space when it comes to 
manned space flight and undermine law enforcement across America.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, Edmund Burke put it best when he said the 
main reason we have government is to keep people safe. That is why the 
cut made by the committee is extremely disappointing. We need to 
restore the funding for the important Byrne grant program.
  In my home State of Minnesota, I have seen firsthand the importance 
of Byrne grants to local police in reducing crime and drugs and 
improving public safety. Byrne grants fund critical overtime pay, task 
forces, equipment and ``buy'' money. How else are you going to 
prosecute drug cases if you do not have Byrne grants to provide ``buy'' 
money? Without this money, Minnesota would lose nearly half of its 20 
multijurisdictional drug task forces.
  We all know in this body that violent crime is at a 30 year low. Why 
go backwards? We must never forget our cops are on the front lines in 
the war on crime, fighting drug dealers and protecting our homeland. I 
encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to restore funding 
for the important Byrne grants. Let us restore this program to the 2005 
levels.
  It is time to honor the sacrifices made each and every day by our 
Nation's law enforcement community and give our finest the support they 
deserve.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I serve on this subcommittee, and in 
every single hearing the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) 
brought up the problem of fighting meth labs. In fact, this committee 
has tripled the request the President made for fighting meth abuse from 
$20 million to $60 million.
  There is $348 million in this bill for the Byrne-Justice Assistance 
Grant programs. We cannot through the National Science Foundation even 
fund two out of five of the many grant requests that NSF receives. We 
are not making the investment necessary for a great country like the 
United States to protect our technological edge for the future.
  The Chinese recognize the importance of investing in scientific 
research and in their space program. The Chinese will launch a lunar 
science orbiter in 2007. They will launch a lunar sample return mission 
in 2015. They will launch a lunar rover in about 2012. The chief 
scientist for the Chinese lunar program pointed out that the lunar 
exploration project will spur high-tech development in China, and I 
cannot calculate how much return there will be on that investment for 
the Chinese people.
  I urge Members to vote against this amendment and support the bill 
laid out by the chairman as a wise investment in the future prosperity 
of the United States in science.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska 
for yielding me time and for bringing this amendment.
  There has been a lot of good work done on this bill overall, but I 
have heard said on this floor that this bill strikes the right balance. 
If it does, then the bill last year and the year before and the year 
before did not strike the right balance, because we are seeing a 
reduction in these funds that go into the JAG grant.
  We have an intense amount of methamphetamine abuse across this 
country, and particularly in the Midwest. That is why you see 
Midwesterners down here on this floor. I will see 1,119 fewer adults 
and juveniles be offered up for treatment or be adjudicated due to 
violations of methamphetamine if we do not get this amendment passed 
today.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I too commend the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) on his efforts to help local law enforcement. I commend the 
gentleman from Nebraska for his leadership in supporting the Byrne-JAG 
program. It is an important issue, and I am pleased to see it 
addressed.
  I was the King County sheriff and worked for the sheriff's office for 
33 years and spent my life in law enforcement. During my time in law 
enforcement, I have seen how Byrne and JAG grants have helped local law 
enforcement fight the war on drugs.
  Washington received $9.6 million under the Byrne grant formulas. 
Without this funding, our State would not have been able to effectively 
work to reduce violent drug-related crimes.

[[Page H4445]]

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, my father was a policeman for 20 years, so I am not 
going to take any back seat to anybody else.
  If you really want to do something, stand up to the drug industry, 
which this Congress will not do, and do what the State of Oklahoma did: 
pass the law that makes you go up to the counter and ask for it. If you 
really want to do something, do that and stand up to the drug industry 
and deal with it.
  This amendment cuts COPS $2 million; U.S. Attorneys, $7 million; 
Marshals Service, $4 million; the Do Not Call, FEC, $4 million; Small 
Business Administration, $3 million; NSF, $19 million; NASA, $72 
million; DEA, $7 million; public safety officer benefits. Why? If we 
were looking to have an amendment, we would sort of exempt that out.
  That is why these across-the-boards are a bad thing. We would exempt 
that out. Oceans. We just had a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) on oceans. We go down on oceans.
  I understand. Meth is coming to my area. We do not want to take away 
from embassy security so Federal employees get blown up, or reduce the 
FBI that is fighting that, or DEA. There are other ways to deal with 
this.
  I care about the meth issue as much as anybody else. This is not the 
way to do it. You cannot go out and explain why we make all these cuts. 
There must be some focus. If you think this is so important, find out 
that area, offer an amendment to cut it, and put it back in this. But 
across the board, this is a bad amendment.
  I urge Members to vote ``no.''
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Terry for his 
leadership on this issue. I am pleased to be able to join my 
colleagues, as a co-sponsor and advocate of our amendment to restore 
funding to the Byrne-Justice Assistance Grant, JAG, program in the 
Science-State appropriations bill. If, we, as the House, do not pass 
the Obey amendment, then we must pass the Terry amendment--even though 
it may hurt some programs, we all support.
  Unfortunately, this program is grossly underfunded in the bill--
cutting funding from the $634 million that was provided in fiscal year 
2005 to only $348 million in fiscal year 2006--a 45-percent cut. Our 
amendment restores $286 million to Byrne, which will put the funding 
back to last year's level.
  If we do not restore this funding now, it will only be a matter of 
time before this program is completely wiped out.
  As a former Escanaba city police officer and Michigan State trooper 
as well as co-chair of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, I 
understand how much our local communities need and rely on the Byrne 
grants program monies.
  Byrne grants provide funding for 29 vital programs such as anti-drug 
education programs, treatment programs and alternative 
sentencing initiatives, giving the States the ability to choose the 
programs where this Federal funding would be most beneficial to law 
enforcement issues faced in their State.

  Local drug enforcement teams are crucial to keeping our communities 
drug free. Without our amendment, our teams will not have the funding 
to hire the officers they need to sustain their drug enforcement teams. 
In my home State of Michigan, we would lose 11 of our 25 task forces. 
California will lose 26 of 58, Texas will lose 21 of 46 and New York 
will lose 34 of 76.
  Fighting the war on drugs must be an inter-jurisdictional, unified 
effort between local, county, and State police working together. 
Without the necessary Federal funding, this coordination will not be 
possible because our local task forces will no longer be in existence.
  Losing these task forces is a frightening thought considering that 90 
percent of drug arrests nationwide are made by State and local law 
enforcement agencies.
  This would have a devastating and far reaching effect in Michigan--
especially on our rural communities. Let me be clear--when it comes to 
drug abuse, no community--urban or rural--is immune to this problem.
  Congress needs to step up to the plate and show their strong 
commitment to law enforcement and the criminal justice system. They 
have that chance today by voting for our amendment and showing their 
support for law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line to 
keep our communities safe and drug free.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Boswell

  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boswell:
       Page 2, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 26, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 28, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,500,000)''.

  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan) for their great work on this important piece of legislation. 
They both have done a fine job faced with very, very difficult budget 
realities. We recognize that. However, we hope that this might be 
considered.
  Mr. Chairman, during the Memorial Day district work period, I 
traveled my district to announce the introduction of H.R. 2659, the 
Safe Children Safe Communities Act which we introduced on May 26. This 
legislation seeks to provide $300 million in grants to States based on 
their population to implement better and more comprehensive sex 
offender registries and tracking systems. Now, the amendment I have 
offered today does not seek $300 million, but I believe it will help 
provide the States with needed resources to update their records.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to increase funding for the Criminal 
Records Update Program by $2.5 million. My amendment offsets this 
increase in funding by reducing the Department of Justice general 
administration salaries and expense account by $2.5 million.
  The subcommittee has funded the Criminal Records Update Program at 
$25 million for FY 2006, which is an increase of $334,000 over the 
previous year. However, this falls drastically short of the 
administration's request by some $33 million.
  Mr. Chairman, the goal of this program is to ensure accurate records 
are available for use in law enforcement, including sex offender 
registry requirements. The program helps States build their 
infrastructure to connect to a national record check system both to 
supply information and to conduct checks.
  Mr. Chairman, during my time traveling my district, I have spoken to 
countless law enforcement officials; and during our conversations we 
have agreed on many issues. This is not a Republican issue; this is not 
a Democratic issue, national, State or local. It is all of it together. 
It is all of it together to protect our children.
  We are in 100 percent agreement: we must work together at the 
Federal, State, and local levels to ensure the safety of our children.

                              {time}  1345

  I realize times are tight when it comes to spending, but if we can 
spare any additional dollars to ensure communities and our children are 
safe, then we absolutely must do it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I think it is a good amendment, and I have no 
objection. I think it should pass.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Ms. Boswell).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Issa

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Issa:
       Page 2, line 7, insert ``(reduced by $5,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 6, line 12, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) is recognized for 5 minutes 
on his amendment.

[[Page H4446]]

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise with this amendment today in order to 
increase the funding to the attorneys general for trafficking in humans 
that is going on rapidly throughout the country. I want to thank the 
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and his committee for working 
to bring this legislation to the floor and to highlight these problems 
here today.
  Illegal immigration is the number one issue in my district and in the 
State of California. One of the greatest reasons that Members of 
Congress oppose illegal immigration is the dangerous practice of 
smuggling human beings into the United States by practitioners known as 
``coyotes.'' Coyotes care little for the welfare of their cargo, only 
about the fee they will have, and have killed countless aliens in the 
process.
  Over the past few years, the U.S. Attorney's Office has not 
prosecuted coyotes by any means to the fullest extent possible. As a 
matter of fact, in November of 2004, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern 
District of California, Carol Lamb, set up new guidelines. Under these 
guidelines, the only prosecution of a coyote for bringing somebody into 
the United States would include that they would be prosecuted only if 
they committed three felonies, and two of these crimes occurred in the 
district in the past 5 years. At least one of these offenses should 
have had the result of a prison sentence of at least 13 months, and it 
goes on. Essentially, you have to be a three-time criminal felon who 
endangered either the Border Patrol or directly the lives of 
individuals involved in order to even be eligible for prosecution. As a 
result, people who have been caught and released 20 or more times 
continue to not be prosecuted in the San Diego district. Throughout the 
district and throughout the country, the Office of the U.S. Attorney 
claims that they have to prioritize prosecution of human smugglers 
because there are insufficient funds. We aim to deal with that here 
today.
  We should not allow smugglers to go free due to the lack of 
resources. There is no question that we have over 11 million, by the 
U.S. Census, over 11 million illegals in this country. I, for one, make 
no claim that tomorrow we could remove them all, but certainly, while 
we are trying to figure out how to grapple with this vexing problem, we 
should have a zero tolerance for people who traffic in human beings.
  My amendment is intended to begin that process. It is my sincere hope 
that I can work with the Committee on Appropriations in order to put an 
emphasis on this area of trafficking.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Virginia Chairman Wolf.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISSA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, this is subject to a point of order, and it 
is unfortunate that it is. I would pledge to the gentleman that we will 
do everything we can to deal with this problem.
  Several weeks ago several of us were down in El Salvador where they 
made the very case of the people who were involved in violent gangs had 
gone to coyotes who would take them up. I think the gentleman is right 
on target, so we will work with him, and I appreciate him bringing this 
to our attention, so that we can see what we can do.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's assurances.
  I will at this time insert in the Record all of my statement and 
additional relevant materials.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to amend H.R. 2862 in order to increase 
funding for the prosecution of human smugglers, known as ``coyotes.'' I 
thank Chairman Wolf for his Committee's work in bringing this 
legislation before us.
  Illegal immigration is the number one issue I hear about from my 
constituents in California. Illegal immigration not only endangers our 
nation's security but in many cases the security of those individuals 
illegally immigrating. Aliens who allow themselves to be smuggled into 
the United States are at the greatest risk, and it is their smugglers 
who need to be prosecuted most expeditiously.
  The U.S. Attorney's Office has stated in the past that it does not 
have the resources needed to fully prosecute arrested coyotes. Border 
Patrol agents who arrest many of the coyotes have compared their 
detention and prosecution to a catch-and-release program, stating that 
many are released within hours of arrest and caught again the next day. 
For example, the Border Patrol was instructed to release known coyote, 
Antonio Amparo-Lopez, an individual with 21 aliases and 20 arrests. 
Releasing a criminal such as this due to lack of funds is completely 
unacceptable, and is demoralizing to the Border Patrol agents who work 
so hard to make the arrests in the first place.
  For this reason I am proposing this amendment to increase the funding 
for the United States Attorneys by $5,000,000. The amendment redirects 
funds from the General Administration account of the Department of 
Justice into the Salaries and Expenses account of the United States 
Attorneys. I truly hope the U.S. Attorney's Office takes to heart the 
seriousness of this Congress' commitment to coyote prosecution.
  I look forward to working with the Appropriations Committee further 
in efforts tied to the prosecution of alien smugglers. I also look 
forward to working with Chairman Sensenbrenner as we continue to 
address this issue within the Judiciary Committee during the Department 
of Justice Reauthorization process.

     [From the Associated Press State & Local Wire, Nov. 2, 2004.]

     Federal Prosecutors To Be More Selective on Immigration Cases

                           (By Elliot Spagat)

       Federal prosecutors in San Diego said a burgeoning caseload 
     was forcing them to be more selective about charging illegal 
     immigrants who have committed crimes.
       Under proposed guidelines, the government would focus on 
     prosecuting immigrants whose previous crimes occurred only a 
     short time ago and happened nearby, making it easier to get 
     police and court records.
       Illegal immigrants with criminal records are often charged 
     with re-entry after deportation, a felony offense. Federal 
     prosecutors in San Diego file more than 2,000 re-entry cases 
     a year.
       The guidelines would also be more selective about 
     prosecuting immigrant smugglers, concentrating on cases in 
     which migrants are led through dangerous terrain.
       Carol Lam, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of 
     California, asked the Border Patrol to 'comment on the 
     proposals, and hasn't set a date for them to take effect, 
     said Steve Clark, first assistant U.S. attorney. The changes 
     would apply only to the Southern California district--which 
     encompasses San Diego and Imperial counties.
       Clark on Monday declined to discuss specifics, saying that 
     might encourage criminals to alter their behavior in an 
     effort to escape prosecution. But, he said, the changes are a 
     response to ``finite resources'' and a growing caseload.
       ``(The) number of alien smuggling cases presented to our 
     office has increased significantly over the last year,'' 
     Steven Peak, an assistant U.S. attorney, wrote Paul Blocker 
     Jr., the Border Patrol's acting San Diego sector chief. 
     ``Alien smuggling cases are manpower-intensive and often 
     difficult to prosecute successfully.''
       Peak's Aug. 24 letter--first reported by KGTV--TV of San 
     Diego--said many illegal immigrants with criminal histories 
     committed their offenses outside Southern California or 
     haven't been arrested for 10 years, making it difficult to 
     get police and court documents.
       Under the new guidelines, offenders with three felony 
     convictions would be prosecuted only if two of those crimes 
     occurred within the district in the last five years. At least 
     one of those offenses should have resulted in a prison 
     sentence of at least 13 months.
       The new guidelines for prosecuting immigrant smugglers 
     would require that the suspect ``intentionally or recklessly 
     created a substantial risk of death or serious bodily 
     injury,'' Peak wrote. Examples include guiding migrants 
     through remote areas in extreme weather.
       A spokesman for the Border Patrol, Sean Isham, said the 
     agency was working closely with prosecutors on the revisions 
     and emphasized that they are still only proposals.
       Shawn Moran, a spokesman for National Border Patrol Council 
     Local 1613, which represents Border Patrol agents in San 
     Diego, was more critical.
       ``We're not happy about it,'' he said. ``It pretty much 
     just raises the bar on the threshold for prosecution.''
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, June 8, 2005.]

                          Illegals and Murder

       Even hardened cops found it difficult to comprehend the 
     carnage they found at 7000 Park Heights Ave. in Northwest 
     Baltimore on May 27,2004. There lay the bodies of Ricardo 
     Solis Quezada Jr. and his sister, Lucero Solis Quezada, both 
     9 years old, and their cousin, Alexis Espejo Quezada, 10, 
     illegal aliens from Mexico. One of the children

[[Page H4447]]

     was decapitated, and the other two were all but beheaded with 
     a fillet knife. The trial of the alleged ``Baltimore 
     Butchers'' begins today.
       Two relatives of the children--Adan Espinoza Canela, 17, 
     who worked at a Baltimore slaughterhouse, and Policarpio 
     Espinoza, 22, who sold food from a truck--were arrested and 
     charged with the slayings. Both suspects are illegal aliens. 
     Police suspect that the killings were in retaliation for the 
     failure of the children's parents to pay off their debts to 
     ``coyotes'' who smuggled the family into the country. Family 
     members claim the defendants are innocent, and have refused 
     to cooperate with prosecutors and police.
       There are two separate issues here. The first is that three 
     innocent children were brutally murdered. Whoever committed 
     this crime must be severely punished. The second is the 
     matter of illegal immigration and crime--a subject that has 
     serious implications for people across the United States and 
     Marylanders in particular.
       To begin with, anyone who crosses the border illegally, as 
     the defendants did, has committed a crime by doing so. But a 
     significant minority of illegal aliens go on to perpetrate 
     more disturbing crimes after arriving in the United States. 
     They include such persons as Angel Maturino Resendiz, the so-
     called Railroad Killer, who murdered at least nine people as 
     he traveled the country by train, and the Mexican drug 
     dealers who killed ranger Kris Eggle, 28, at Organ Pipe 
     National Monument in Arizona on Aug. 9, 2002. In 2003, the 
     Federal Bureau of Prisons estimated that criminal aliens--
     noncitizens who commit crimes--comprise more than 29 percent 
     of federal prison inmates.
       One of the first people to arrive at the murder scene on 
     that horrible afternoon last May was Baltimore Mayor Martin 
     O'Malley, who denounced the crimes and vowed to bring those 
     responsible to justice. But there is no getting around the 
     fact that politicians like Mr. O'Malley, a Democrat, bear a 
     measure of responsibility for the fact that illegal aliens 
     are finding Maryland an increasingly attractive place to 
     reside. Their number has more than doubled since 2000, a 
     period during which the mayor, Montgomery County Executive 
     Doug Duncan and other Democrats have fought to ensure that 
     illegals will not be barred from obtaining driver's licenses 
     and immigration status. Mr. O'Malley also has lobbied 
     aggressively against legislation that would encourage better 
     federal-state cooperation to apprehend illegal aliens. If Mr. 
     O'Malley and the Democratic establishment get their way, 
     Maryland will continue to be an attractive place to people 
     like the Baltimore Butchers and the Railroad Killer.
                                  ____


           [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Nov. 25, 2003]

                Three Men Found Slain in Arizona Desert

                    (By New York Times News Service)

       Three men, believed to have been illegal immigrants from 
     Mexico, were found slain execution-style in the Arizona 
     desert over the weekend, the Maricopa County sheriff said 
     yesterday.
       Sheriff Joe Arpaio said the men had been kidnapped, tied up 
     and shot. There have been nine similar killings in the county 
     since March 2002.
       All 12 bodies were found within 25 to 30 miles of remote, 
     rural desert areas surrounding Phoenix.
       Authorities blame the killings on organized gangs of 
     ``coyotes,'' who smuggle people across the border.
       Sheriff's detectives believe the smuggling gangs are trying 
     to cut into their competitors' business and send a message to 
     those who can't pay their smuggling fees of about $1,000.
       ``We think they throw them right off the roadway to send a 
     message,'' Arpaio said.
       In the latest killings, the three bodies were found Sunday 
     morning by a bicyclist along a dirt road on the Gila Indian 
     Reservation.
       Two of the victims appeared to have been in their 20s and 
     the third in his 40s. Autopsies are being conducted.
       There are no suspects. The earlier nine victims were 
     immigrants from Mexico.
       Local authorities and a federal task force are 
     investigating the killings.
                                  ____


               [From the Los Angeles Times, May 5, 2005]

            148 Immigrants Found Captive in South L.A. Homes


 Two alleged smugglers are arrested after police find 58 people in one 
             house. Ninety are later found in second home.

       (By Claudia Zequeira and Jill Leovy, Times Staff Writers)

       Los Angeles police found 148 immigrants held captive in two 
     South Los Angeles houses Wednesday and arrested two suspected 
     smugglers who were allegedly demanding payment for their 
     release.
       The discoveries are just the latest in a string of safe 
     houses authorities have uncovered over the last two years. 
     Officials say Los Angeles has emerged as a center of the 
     human-smuggling business, with immigrants shipped from Latin 
     America, across the border and to houses in Los Angeles. 
     Often, they are eventually put on airplanes to other parts of 
     the country.
       Fifty-eight immigrants were discovered about 1 p.m. in the 
     800 block of West 80th Street. Ninety were discovered six 
     hours later, about 20 blocks away in a house in the 100 block 
     of West 59th Place.
       Police discovered the first group after one of the 
     prisoners escaped and called 911 from a nearby pay phone, 
     said Los Angeles Police Det. Javier Lozano of LAPD's 77th 
     Street Division.
       The caller told authorities people were being held in the 
     house and then fled. Officers arriving at the house found 
     bars on the rear windows and a large awning or canopy 
     screening the back.
       Police said they noticed a powerful odor when they entered 
     the house and discovered men and women shoulder to shoulder 
     in two locked bedrooms. The immigrants were from Ecuador and 
     Mexico, officials said.
       The house ``was a hot oven, and these people were just 
     crowded in,'' Lozano said.
       Two men, including one inside the house, were arrested.
       The immigrants described being held for as long as a month 
     as smugglers, called coyotes, demanded payments of $3,000 for 
     their release. Police loaded the immigrants onto a bus for 
     transfer into federal custody. Federal immigration officials 
     have taken over the case, Lozano said. The house was rented.
       Authorities declined to say how the second house was 
     discovered, except to say that the circumstances were 
     similar. Immigrants taken into custody at that house were 
     from Guatemala, El Salvador and Mexico.
       At the first house, a single-story stucco home, police 
     spent much of Wednesday questioning neighbors and the 
     landlord. Residents said they had noticed nothing unusual at 
     the property and were surprised to learn that so many people 
     had been found inside.
       ``We thought the house was for rent. We never saw people 
     there,'' said Tyrine Soil, 19. ``We're shocked to hear that 
     there were 60 people living in there.''
       Other residents said that they saw only one man entering 
     the house, and said that he sometimes carried bags of 
     groceries.
       Landlord Matthew Lux of Downey said he also had no idea 
     that there were so many people in the house. ``There was no 
     noise, no smell,'' Lux said. ``I never saw 50 people until 
     they brought them out.''
       Lux said he rented the three-bedroom house in January to a 
     couple with two children. The man and woman told Lux that 
     they worked for a church. They did not have credit but they 
     gave the name of a friend who backed their $1,300-a-month 
     lease.
       ``They were great tenants,'' Lux said. ``They always paid 
     in cash. They were always on time. I wish I had more tenants 
     like them.''
       Federal authorities have struggled to combat human 
     smuggling. They have made arrests but they have found it hard 
     to find those who run the operations. Federal agents have 
     begun patrolling Los Angeles International Airport as part of 
     a crackdown launched last year.

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of illinois

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois:
       Page 2, line 7, insert ``(reduced by $5,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 26, line 25, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.
       Page 28, line 6, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me commend the 
gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Ranking Member Mollohan) for the outstanding work that they 
have done in crafting this appropriation.
  My amendment is designed, and I actually plan to withdraw it, but my 
amendment is designed to raise the issue and highlight the fact that 
630,000 individuals, roughly 1,700 a day, will be released from prisons 
to return to their communities. We can expect on an annual basis that 
this large number of released inmates from prison will continue for the 
next 5 years. Also, we must be mindful of the fact that local jails are 
releasing 7 million people each year. Many of these individuals are 
never able to find a decent place to live, cannot access various 
entitlement programs such as public housing, financial assistance for 
college, and, in some instances, food stamps, and are oftentimes denied 
employment because of their past criminal convictions. Statistics show 
that nearly 52 percent of these individuals end up back in jail within 
3 years.
  As these men and women transition from incarceration to freedom, what 
they need most are comprehensive reentry solutions. Prevention, 
treatment, and rehabilitation are just as important as incarceration. 
These men and women and children still have to

[[Page H4448]]

live in our communities. Therefore, increasing public safety is a 
primary concern of communities and neighborhoods all across the 
country.
  Successful reentry is difficult to obtain because of the vast and 
extreme barriers that ex-offenders encounter every day of their lives. 
In Illinois, just a year ago, ex-offenders were prohibited from working 
in 57 occupational categories without some form of waiver. For example, 
ex-offenders were not allowed to be barbers, nail technicians; they 
could not be a custodian in a hospital or school. Many of these 
individuals were convicted of nonviolent offenses, mainly drug 
convictions. So it is extremely difficult for ex-offenders to find 
housing and get a job after they have paid their debt to society.
  I would hope that as we continue to explore budgetary preparations 
and appropriations, that we would recognize that if we are to seriously 
deal with the issue of recidivism reduction, the issue of public 
safety, the issue of helping individuals become contributing members of 
society, we must put adequate funding into reentry.
  Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) 
for his support of these kinds of programs. I would like to extend a 
little dialogue, engage in a colloquy with him, and then I would 
withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, would the chairman explain the kind of resources that 
we are putting into reentry programs this year for next year's budget?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman raising this 
issue. This is really an important issue. Before I came to Congress, I 
was involved in a reentry program at Lorton Reformatory, so I think 
what the gentleman is trying to do is a good idea.
  Reentry programs are critical to rehabilitating prisoners. I support 
the programs and will continue to work with the gentleman. The bill 
includes a $6 million increase in the Bureau of Prisons and $10 million 
in OJP for reentry programs. You really cannot put a man or a woman in 
jail for 15 years and then, at the end, just open up the cell and let 
them out without having any reentry programs. So what the gentleman is 
trying to do is exactly right. But that is the status of funding, a $6 
million increase within the Bureau of Prisons and $10 million in OJP 
for reentry programs.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Again, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Ranking 
Member Mollohan) for their sensitivity to these issues, and I look 
forward to working with them throughout the year as we continue to try 
and strengthen the possibility of reducing recidivism and helping 
people maintain quality life in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 2, line 7, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $50,100,000)''.
       Page 55, line 5, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $50,100,000)''.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank 
the chairman of this subcommittee and the subcommittee ranking member 
for their hard work on a hard task. This bill, that includes funding 
for NASA, the Department of Justice, the Department of State, a number 
of science programs, the Equal Opportunity Commission, is a tough 
legislative agenda, but certainly the hard work has been evidenced.
  I rise today to offer an amendment that would have added $50.1 
million to the NASA Exploration Capabilities provision, and to note to 
my colleagues when I arrived here in this body and was assigned to the 
Committee on Science, one of the comments I used to make is that 
science would be the work of the 21st century.
  Mr. Chairman, I still maintain that, that out of science will come 
the opportunities for this country to boost its economic engine. The 
sad part about it is we find ourselves in 2005 having the least number 
of young people going into math and sciences, the least number of 
graduates out of chemistry and physics. So the vision of this Congress 
and the President and the American people coming together and talking 
about space exploration is so very important. This bill allows for $9 
million to be added to this vision, and I think it is crucial that we 
stay focused, stay consistent, and stay determined and committed.
  I support the Vision of Space Exploration, because I have seen the 
results on humankind and what it has done in health care in America. In 
fact, space exploration has generated research and results on HIV/AIDS 
treatment, stroke, heart attack, and cancer. It has also had the 
potential to detect tsunamis, as we saw the tragedy that occurred in 
the winter of 2004 that saw hundreds of thousands of people lose their 
lives.
  Space exploration is real, and it means a lot to America. It is sad 
to note that America's young people do not find hopes and dreams in the 
study of science and technology and space exploration. What is known is 
that they want to see that there is a future, that there is hope, and 
out of this vision to go to Mars gives us hope. There is nothing more 
exciting than to see our early astronauts like former Senator John 
Glenn land or to travel into space, nothing more exciting to be able to 
note that we can achieve.
  So my amendment was to provide extra resources so that we could stay 
steady on the course. I believe, however, it is important to maintain 
the already existing funding. I expect to offer an amendment to provide 
greater funding for training legal officers dealing with child abuse 
under the Violence Against Women Act, or trained legal professionals 
such as counselors and lawyers. I would like to see more dollars for 
the Equal Opportunity Commission for the job that they need to do, and 
certainly I hope that as we look toward the Vision of Space 
Exploration, we will focus on safety. I want to thank this subcommittee 
for focusing with language in their legislation on safety and ensuring 
that those skilled workers who are trained in safety are not let go.
  I conclude by saying there are a number of good points in this bill, 
and I want to thank both the chairman and the ranking member for their 
language on torture to ensure that we do not adhere to that, and I 
would be offering an amendment to suggest that the terrorism dollars 
that are in this bill not be used to single out one religion over 
another.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will support this legislation, and 
particularly the appropriations on the space exploration.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support my Amendment which would fund 
NASA Exploration Capabilities for an additional $50.1 million, with the 
funds to be taken from the Department of Justice General Administration 
funds. This funding would restore the President's full request for NASA 
Exploration Capabilities. This funding would be provided for the Space 
Operations Missions Directorate, including the International Space 
Station, the Space Shuttle program, and Space and Flight Support.
  The funds for NASA Exploration Capabilities are essential to the 
President's vision for space exploration. This appropriation comes at a 
watershed moment for NASA and the future of America's space exploration 
mission. After the tragic Columbia Space Shuttle accident we had to 
step back and reassess our space shuttle program. Today, NASA is 
preparing to return to flight, but safety is still at the forefront of 
our concerns. The funds being addressed here are applicable to safety 
as well and we must ensure that everything is done to keep our NASA 
astronauts from possible harm.
  Under this Amendment, funding for NASA Exploration Capabilities are 
to be taken from Department of Justice General Administration funds. 
The reason funds are being taken from this specific department is 
because they have received a very large increase of 14 percent or $250 
million more than they did last year.

[[Page H4449]]

Clearly, the Appropriations Committee has worked to make this a tight 
bill without much excessive spending. Most Departments are funding 
right at the President's request or even below last year's funding 
level. While I am in favor of many of the funding initiatives at the 
Department of Justice, I also feel strongly that NASA needs to be fully 
funded for space exploration. In addition, this Amendment would take 
money from General Administration funds instead of taking money from 
any specific program.
  This Amendment has been scored by the CBO, which has stated that my 
Amendment does not increase the budgetary authority and in fact 
decreases the outlays by $9 million. This Amendment is important 
because it strengthens our Nation in ways that will pay large dividends 
in the future. NASA exploration missions have taught us so much about 
our world and it would be a shame if we no longer led the world in this 
great field. I will withdraw this amendment at this time and work 
towards keeping NASA from being cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1400

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Thornberry). If there are no further 
amendments at this point, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                 Justice Information Sharing Technology

       For necessary expenses for information sharing technology, 
     including planning, development, deployment and Departmental 
     direction, $135,000,000, to remain available until expended.


         narrowband communications/integrated wireless network

       For the costs of conversion to narrowband communications, 
     including the cost for operation and maintenance of Land 
     Mobile Radio legacy systems, $110,000,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That the 
     Attorney General shall transfer to the ``Narrowband 
     Communications'' account all funds made available to the 
     Department of Justice for the purchase of portable and mobile 
     radios: Provided further, That any transfer made under the 
     preceding proviso shall be subject to section 605 of this 
     Act.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Velazquez:
       Page 3, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $39,126,000)''.
       Page 62, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $59,142,000)''.
       Page 84, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $13,441,000)''.
       Page 86, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $79,132,000)''.

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on 
this amendment and any amendments thereto, conclude by 15 minutes, and 
that the time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
myself, the opponent.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that and would insert 20 rather 
than 15.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. As the Chair understands, the unanimous consent 
request is to limit debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto 
to a total of 20 minutes equally divided between the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) is 
recognized for 10 minutes on her amendment.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, today's small businesses are having a difficult time in 
accessing affordable capital due to recent changes to the 7(a) program. 
This amendment will change that by restoring funding to its fiscal year 
2004 level.
  As you can see from this chart, the cost of the 7(a) program on small 
business has doubled, translating into an additional $1,500 to $3,000 
in upfront costs. And for larger loans, fees are now more than $50,000.
  In addition, SBA has proposed even more fees on top of those that 
were implemented last year, and projections are that these fees will 
only continue to increase year after year.
  Clearly, these actions are having a negative effect. Since the fee 
increase, the total dollars going into the economy has dropped, small 
businesses are receiving less capital, and the number of active lenders 
making a loan has declined by 50 percent. These actions have resulted 
in a highly unstable program, as you can see from this chart.
  History has shown that operating loan programs without a government 
commitment is a recipe for failure. For proof, look at the SBA venture 
capital program which has been credited with investing billions of 
dollars in small businesses. Four years ago, it was taken to a zero 
subsidy rate. The argument is that it would make the program more 
stable. Well, today that program is shut down because it simply became 
too costly. By voting for this amendment, you are ensuring that the 
7(a) program does not suffer the same fate.
  The offsets for this amendment can come from the IT accounts of the 
State Department, Justice Department, and SBA. This is a small price to 
pay for job creation. The 7(a) program is a proven job creator. For 
every $33,000 in loans, one job is created. With just a minor 
investment from our government, we can empower this Nation's 
entrepreneurs to do what they do best, create jobs and build this 
economy.
  This is the same amendment that was offered last year that passed 
with overwhelming bipartisan support. The only thing that has changed 
since then is that our Nation's small businesses have now had to endure 
a year of increased costs, and they have told us that these costs are 
hurting them. We cannot let this happen again.
  Fifteen trade associations, including the National Small Business 
Association; the Independent Community Bankers of America; the Credit 
Union National Association; the American Hotel and Lodging Association; 
and the U.S. Black Chamber of Commerce, representing businesses and 
lenders from across the country, are supporting this amendment and 
calling on Congress to restore this funding.
  By voting ``yes'' to restore the appropriations to the 7(a) loan 
program, you are voting to relieve our Nation's 23 million small 
businesses of these additional costs. This is a vote for continued job 
creation and economic development, two things, small businesses and our 
Nation's economy need now more than ever.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) will 
control the time in opposition to the amendment. The gentleman is 
recognized.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. If we 
were to pass this amendment, then you can never write to your 
constituents and say you really care about the deficit. And I know the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) is going to speak about this. We 
dealt with this program last year. We are now at a record level of 
loans. So if you vote for this, you will never be able to write and say 
that I am concerned about the deficit.
  The 7(a) program has been operating at record levels without subsidy 
appropriations since the beginning of fiscal year 2005 when the fees on 
lenders and borrowers reverted to the pre-2003 level. The SBA 
administrator continues to assure us the program is running strong, 
does not require a subsidy. Since lending levels are no longer tied to 
appropriation, the program has been able to meet the demand.
  The program is on track, Mr. Chairman, to far exceed the previous 
lending levels and in fact may come close to the $16 billion authorized 
level.
  Media reports all over the country have touted the recent success of 
the 7(a) lending. To highlight this, I have articles which we will put 
in the Record, if it is appropriate at this time, from the Chicago 
Tribune, Cincinnati Press Courier. Here are some of the headlines: 
``SBA programs looks

[[Page H4450]]

sound.'' ``Stable funding turns banks on to SBA lending.'' In fact, 
lending to every segment of the population, including women and 
minorities is up from last year's level.

               [From the Chicago Tribune, Dec. 27, 2004]

                        SBA Program Looks Sound

                            (By Rob Kaiser)

       Holiday magic isn't the likely reason the U.S. Small 
     Business Administration and its numerous critics appear in 
     harmony for the first time in years.
       A more likely explanation is the $16 billion stocking 
     stuffer for the SBA's flagship 7(a) loan program, which will 
     likely keep it from suffering short-falls in 2005 that drew 
     the ire of banks and small-business owners this year.
       ``The risk of a cap or a shutdown is basically nil,'' said 
     Tony Wilkinson, president of the National Association of 
     Government Guaranteed Lenders and a frequent SBA critic.
       Such an outlook is a vast improvement from recent years, 
     when frequent loan limits and speculation about shutdowns 
     sent bankers scurrying to submit loan applications and left 
     many business owners in limbo--often with unpaid bills--when 
     expected loans suddenly evaporated.
       To achieve the peace, bankers grudgingly accepted a return 
     to paying higher fees as the Bush administration got its wish 
     to wipe away a nearly $80 million subsidy that had been 
     supporting the 7(a) program. In return, the bankers expect to 
     inherit a more stable program.
       Such stability would have saved Julie Valenza a lot of time 
     and money.
       Valenza was close to purchasing her second Jimmy John's 
     sandwich franchise in January when the $250,000 loan she 
     expected to secure through the 7(a) program was suddenly 
     stalled when SBA stopped accepting new applications due to a 
     funding short-fall.
       To salvage the deal to purchase an existing store in 
     Westmont, Valenza recruited her sister as a investor.
       ``At least I didn't have to bring in a stranger off the 
     street,'' she said.
       Still, the setback delayed the purchase by two months and 
     means Valenza now has to split the store's profits.
       Paul Andreotti, an executive vice president at National 
     City Bank in Chicago, said SBA loans exist so such situations 
     are avoided.
       Without 7(a) loans, many business owners would have to 
     finance growth on their credit cards or through other 
     expensive means.
       ``If the SBA wasn't guaranteeing loans, banks couldn't be 
     as aggressive and provide as much capital,'' said Andreotti, 
     whose bank is putting together a 7(a) loan so Valenza can 
     open a third Jimmy John's location in Oak Lawn.
       While he's not happy to see the fees climbing, Andreotti 
     said, ``In the long run I think it will positively impact 
     small businesses.''
       Fees for the 7(a) program are now 2 percent on loans up to 
     $150,000, up from 1 percent. Loans between $150,001 and 
     $700,000 carry a 3 percent fee, up from 2.5 percent. Loans 
     for more than $700,000 still carry a 3.5 percent fee.
       The loan applicant usually pays these fees. Banks have to 
     pay another fee, which has also increased recently.
       The SBA guarantees 85 percent of 7(a) loans up to $150,000 
     and 75 percent of loans for more than $150,000.
       Previously, the highest loan guarantee was $1 million, but 
     under the new legislation that figure was raised to $1.5 
     million. This means the program will now guarantee 75 percent 
     of a $2 million loan, the largest 7(a) loan available.
       Still, not everyone in the SBA universe is sold that the 
     recent compromise was the best solution.
       ``Clearly there were members of Congress that felt this 
     program was worthy of receiving an appropriation,'' said 
     James Ballentine, director of community and economic 
     development at the American Bankers Association.
       Balentine said some business owners as well as leaders may 
     be dissuaded from taking part in the program because of the 
     fees.
       Early indications, though, are that participation in the 
     7(a) program is at record levels.
       From Oct. 1, the beginning of the fiscal year, through Dec. 
     10, the program has done more than 18,000 loans, worth nearly 
     $2.8 billion. During the same period last year, the program 
     did fewer than 15,000 loans, worth $2.4 billion.
       In all of the last fiscal year, the 7(a) program did nearly 
     75,000 loans, worth $12.6 billion. The program has $16 
     billion in loans available for the current fiscal year.
       ``We think that should be sufficient,'' said Jodi Polonet, 
     senior vice president of Business Loan Express LLC in New 
     York. ``We are satisfied.''

  Mr. WOLF. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the chairman of 
the Small Business Committee who last year supported this amendment, is 
now supportive of the program continuing to operate without a subsidy 
appropriation. He has written a Dear Colleague letter, and I hope every 
Member has read that Dear Colleague letter in support of the status 
quo. This would really hit Justice Department programs and State 
Department programs.
  So in summary, Mr. Chairman, it is not necessary to provide a subsidy 
appropriation for 7(a) loan programs. With the legislative and 
appropriation changes made last year, the program is running strong. 
The offsets are not a good idea.
  I urge Members to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, when SBA claims that the program is doing record levels 
I have to say that they said that they would do $16 billion. Today they 
are $2 billion behind, and they are clearly not going to achieve a 
record level.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette).
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment offered by our colleague, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business 
Committee.
  In my district in northeastern Ohio, locally owned small businesses 
are the foundation of our communities, from tool and die makers to 
landscapers to mom and pop corner hardware stores. The Small Business 
Administration 7(a) program has a proud history of ensuring that these 
small businesses will continue to have access to affordable financing.
  As the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) has noted, changes 
were made to the 7(a) program last year that dramatically altered its 
funding structure by eliminating the Federal Government's contribution 
and making the entire program self-sustaining. I have seen the data 
from my district on the amount of funding provided to small businesses 
since the program was altered, and I have heard the arguments that the 
program is actually more stable and that lending has not dropped off.
  And while I have nothing but respect for not only the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) but also the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman 
Manzullo), I have to ask myself what could have been. If a furniture 
maker in Middlefield, Ohio, wanted access to capital to expand his 
facilities but decided against it because the fees on the 7(a) loan 
would have been too much of a burden for his business, how many more 
jobs could we have created if we had continued the Federal 
participation in the 7(a) program?
  And I listened intently and I have the greatest respect for the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) when he spoke against the last 
amendment, the last couple of amendments on the Byrne issue when 
across-the-board amendment cuts are not a good idea. And I agree with 
that. But I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez) for where we found the offsets. They come from the IT 
accounts at the Justice Department, the State Department, and the Small 
Business Administration.
  It is my understanding, and if I am wrong in this regard I am sure 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) can correct me, that relative to 
the Justice Department, it comes from a proposal to sell off and 
replace computer broadband and replace with narrow band, allowing them 
to sell the broadband, and money will actually be recouped to finance 
that.
  Secondly, in the State Department they are charging fees on visas 
which would also allow those upgrades. And relative to the IT account 
in the Small Business Administration, the upgrade that needs to take 
place in the country is the small business community. And I would just 
indicate that, you know, on this side of the aisle we champion all the 
time that small businesses in this country are the backbone, the 
drivers of this economy. The 7(a) program needs Federal participation 
to not only be as good as it is today but to be better tomorrow.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Manzullo), the chairman of the SBA committee, such time as he may use.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I would note that as to the gentleman 
from Ohio's (Mr. LaTourette) district, in all of 2004, he had 185 7(a) 
loans totaling about $30,400,000. For 2005, year

[[Page H4451]]

to date, it is 319 loans totaling nearly $29 million in loans. So it 
just amazes me that the gentleman from Ohio would say that we need to 
spend $79 million worth of taxpayers' money.
  Last year, I led the fight to add in $79 million for the 7(a) 
program. I was under the assumption that it was absolutely necessary to 
have the Federal Government subsidize small business people who wanted 
to get a loan. And I took a look at this, and I said what kind of a 
message does this send? There is no legal or constitutional right to 
have loans subsidized by the taxpayers of this country for people to 
get involved in businesses. And, in fact, that sends the wrong 
messages. People getting involved in business should realize that it is 
a free enterprise system that works.
  And what we did last year was something epochal; 7(a) loan program 
last year for the first time did not depend upon a government handout. 
Small business people do not need government handouts to start 
businesses.
  My dad was in the grocery store business. He was in the restaurant 
business. He would have never thought about applying for a loan that 
was subsidized by taxpayers.
  And so what happened last year, the subsidy was taken away. Taxpayers 
saved $80 million that was spent in areas, other areas, as important as 
it is. And the problem that I have is whenever you have the government 
subsidy, then the program is subject to shut down. That is what 
happened 2 years ago when the SBA 7(a) program in December ran out of 
money. The 7(a) program shut down. Small business people could not 
plan. The lenders had no idea what was going on and chaos broke loose 
in the 7(a) industry. We do not need the 7(a) subsidy.
  As the chairman of the Small Business Committee, I have spoken to 
people all over the country thanking me saying, you know, we are paying 
a little bit more for our loan, but we realize that by the small 
business people paying a little bit more for their loan and the amount 
up front gets rolled over to the eventual length of the term of the 
loan, that makes not only more money available, but it makes the 
program predictable.
  So I would encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Velazquez 
amendment. Vote ``no'' to spending $80 million in taxpayers' funds.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much 
time is left on each side.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York has 4 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 5 minutes remaining.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Bean).
  Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, as a small business owner and a member of the 
Small Business Committee, I appreciate the need for entrepreneurs and 
small business owners to have access to affordable capital. That is why 
I speak today in support of the Velazquez amendment to restore funding 
for the SBA 7(a) small business loan program.

                              {time}  1415

  Small businesses are the growth engine for our Nation's economy, and 
it is important for the Federal Government to encourage domestic hiring 
and expansion. This amendment will help achieve that goal by returning 
7(a) loan fees to their previous affordable level.
  Access to affordable capital is an important alternative to higher-
interest personal credit cards, which, while helpful, have become the 
number one source of financing for U.S. entrepreneurs for lack of 
options.
  Since October 2004, loan costs have increased by up to $3,000, and 
program utilization and loan capital have dropped drastically by almost 
half a million dollars. We have been told today that the SBA is 
processing more loans than ever before, that is true, but the loans 
being processed are significantly smaller. After the new fees were put 
in place, the average amount received by individual small businesses 
has dropped by approximately $75,000.
  The small business community creates up to 80 percent of the new jobs 
in this country. The SBA estimates that a new job is created for every 
$33,000 in small business loans. Thus, $79 million in Federal 
investment has the potential to create 500,000 jobs in this country.
  First, let us correct the rhetoric. These are not subsidies or 
handouts that we are talking about. These are loans at affordable 
interest rates, and if one is for deficit reduction, then they should 
support this amendment, which reduces the overall cost to the bill by 
$32 million per the Congressional Budget Office.
  It is time that Congress steps forward to support the small business 
community through access to affordable capital. The Velazquez amendment 
will reduce fees to small business owners and lenders and create an 
environment which will foster critical domestic job growth and the 
local economic expansion so vital to the Eighth District of Illinois 
and to communities across the Nation.
  I urge my colleagues' support of this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, in looking at the figures for the 
gentlewoman from Illinois' (Ms. Bean) district, my colleague, for 
fiscal year 2004, there were 193 loans, that is 7(a) loans, totaling 
$31 million. So far, to date, in fiscal year 2005, 7 months, there are 
177 loans at $26 million. That is almost there.
  At this rate, the number of loans in 2005 will greatly exceed the 
number of loans in 2004, showing that when the subsidy was cut and the 
taxpayers saved $79 million, more loans were given in the gentlewoman 
from Illinois' (Ms. Bean) district than when the subsidy was in effect.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much 
time I have left?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Thornberry). The gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Velazquez) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have two additional speakers, and I 
ask unanimous consent for 2 more additional minutes on each side.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) 
has 4 minutes remaining.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price).
  (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, the Small Business 
Administration 7(a) loan program is a proven success. In past years it 
has provided 30 percent of all long-term small business loans in this 
country, making it the largest source of public or private financing. 
So one would assume that such a proven program would be supported by 
everyone.
  However, last year we found out that when there was a choice between 
more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans or helping our small 
businesses, the administration and the Republican leadership were all 
too willing to change that 7(a) program in conference, so that all 
expenses and risks would be borne by the small businesses themselves.
  The result of this change is exactly what we predicted. Fees for 
loans of less than $150,000 have nearly doubled. Fees for larger loans 
have risen by $3,000 to $5,000. Fifty lenders have dropped out of the 
program. It is much harder for small businesses in rural areas and 
small towns to get loans. Most significantly, 7(a) lending has 
decreased every quarter since the new fees were added, and the amount 
of the average 7(a) loan has dropped by $75,000 since the changes have 
been put in place.
  So we have a problem, and the Velazquez amendment would solve that 
problem, restoring funding for the 7(a) program, $79 million for loan-
loss reserves, which will leverage $18 billion in new loans. Vote for 
the Velazquez amendment.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Guam (Ms. Bordallo).
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the 
Velazquez amendment to H.R. 2862. This amendment would restore funding 
for the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan guarantee program at 
fiscal year 2004 levels.

[[Page H4452]]

  Small businesses are the driving force behind job creation and 
productivity-enhancing technology. The 7(a) loan program has been a 
worthwhile investment for taxpayers, as statistics demonstrate 
impressive returns insofar as business growth and job creation, 
especially, Mr. Chairman, in economically disadvantaged areas like the 
territory of Guam that I represent.
  Perhaps for this reason a similar amendment introduced last year 
garnered strong support from both sides of the aisle, and therefore, I 
urge my colleagues to send a strong message that the House continues to 
value the importance of this program by again voting to restore funding 
for the 7(a) loan program.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez) for a unanimous consent request.
  (Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to 
express my firm support for the amendment offered by my colleague Ms. 
Velazquez and for continuous and increased funding for the Small 
Business Administration 7(a) loans programs.

  Designed as a public-private partnership, the 7(a) program helps 
small businesses that otherwise could not obtain a commercial bank 
loan.
  By minimizing the risk to lenders, the SBA's 7(a) loans program 
secures access for small businesses to the affordable capital they need 
to start, develop and flourish.
  7(a) loans are the most widely used SBA program. These loans provide 
critical funding for start-ups, real estate acquisition, business 
expansion, recapitalization, working capital, and machinery and 
equipment purchase.
  The 7(a) loan program has proved to be an insightful and successful 
initiative.
  Just in 2003, these loans benefited more than 70,000 small 
businesses. And over the last decade, they provided resources for over 
424,000 small businesses.
  Today, 7(a) loans provide 30 percent of all long-term loans for small 
business lending.
  Unfortunately, the budget under consideration today, fails to provide 
the resources that small businesses in this country require to continue 
flourishing.
  It fails to restore funding for the SBA's 7(a) loan program and to 
decrease the harsh conditions that small businesses confront to access 
affordable capital.
  I would remind my colleagues of the critical importance and 
contribution that small businesses represent for our country.
  Small businesses are the most important driving force of our economy. 
But they require access to capital in order to continue as the catalyst 
for the U.S. economy.
  The rationale behind the 7(a) program is that of investment, 
cooperation and success.
  It is a national partnership for growth, productivity and welfare.
  For all these reasons, I encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment, which will benefit all Americans.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I am ready to close if the gentleman 
does not have any other speakers.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would close when it is appropriate under 
the rules.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a vote for helping small businesses. Today the 
program is more costly, $3,000 more, and half a billion dollars less is 
going into the economy. We have also seen a 50 percent drop in lenders, 
which has a particularly negative impact on rural communities. This is 
not a picture of stability, but the good news is that we can fix this. 
By voting ``yes'' on the Velazquez amendment, we can return the 7(a) 
program to a source of affordable capital for our Nation's small 
business owners.
  Almost 20 national groups, from the National Small Business 
Association and the Hotel and Motel Association to the Independent 
Community Bankers and the Credit Unions, say that this is a problem, 
and they want us to fix it.
  For the small commitment on the government's part, we can create jobs 
and create economic growth, two of the most important things we can do 
right now. That is why I encourage my colleagues to support my 
amendment, the same amendment that was voted last year overwhelmingly.
  Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that when SBA claims that they are 
doing record levels, what they do not say is that they are comparing 
the program's performance to a time last year when it was shut down and 
operating under a $750,000 cap. When compared to the last quarter 
before fees were raised, the program actually shows a decline of over 
$500.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask for a vote for the Velazquez amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 6\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The numbers cited by the proponents of this amendment say that SBA's 
numbers are deceiving. I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to 
do.
  I have information here on the gentlewoman's district, showing that 
7(a) demand is up. Last year in the gentlewoman's district, for the 
entire year, there were 7,849 loans. This year, for the year to date, 
meaning there are still 3\1/2\ months left to the end of the fiscal 
year, the figure is 9,267 loans, if that trend continues, the number of 
loans will, almost double. It is one of the few times we have actually 
made a difference and rolled something back in this body.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct the record.
  Mr. Chairman, yes, it might be true they are doing more loans, but 
they do not say that they are rationing capital in its loan program. 
The average loan size for the 7(a) loan program today is $170,000. The 
average for an African American is only $86,000. The average loan for 
an Hispanic is $128,000, and this is happening because the restrictions 
that they have imposed on the 7(a) loan program.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments as 
well.
  Hector Barreto, the SBA Administrator, in a letter dated June 3, 
2005, that he sent in opposition to the amendment says: ``Through May 
20, 2005, SBA guaranteed 60,266 small business loans, a 24 percent 
increase over the number of loans approved at the same time in 2004.''
  That is dramatic, and the cost of this amendment will be upwards of 
$70-plus million.
  I continue to read the letter, ``At this time last year, SBA had 
guaranteed more than $7 billion in 7(a) loans which was a record-
setting figure.''
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, well, the numbers that Mr. Barreto is 
giving my colleague is when the program was shut down, and he does not 
say to my colleague that they are doing $2 billion below what they said 
they would be doing at this time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman.
  He goes on to say: ``I am proud to report that as of May 20, 2005, 
SBA has shattered that record by guaranteeing more than $9.2 billion in 
loans to America's entrepreneurs.''
  Then he goes on to say: ``If you go deeper into these statistics, you 
can see that 7(a) loan volume has increased for women and minority 
entrepreneurs in fiscal year 2005, up 52 percent to African Americans, 
up 49 percent to women, up 15 percent to Hispanics, and up 16 percent 
to Asian Americans.
  ``At this pace,'' Mr. Barreto goes on to say, ``SBA will likely 
surpass the fiscal year 2004 figures for both dollars guaranteed and 
the number of loans approved; especially if you consider that the 
fourth quarter of the fiscal year traditionally witnesses the highest 
volume of loans.''
  He closes by saying, ``Mr. Chairman, I believe these number speak for 
themselves,'' and they do speak for themselves, ``and should serve to 
reassure supporters that the 7(a) program is running strong without 
need of a subsidy or a reduction in fees.''
  I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo). He was on 
the other side last year. Not many people in this institution do that. 
I mean, he got up and said, yes, this is right, and I commend him for 
that. I think it is the right thing to do.
  The thing that I worry about, if anyone is listening to this, is if 
we roll this

[[Page H4453]]

back in this tight budget, where do we find the money? I mean, if there 
was really a crisis with regard to small business, I would be for this 
amendment, but the loans are up, and if they are up, and to take all 
this, if I can just ask the staff how much would this amendment take, 
$79 million? We just had a debate on meth. If we are going to do 
anything, let us put $79 million in meth. If we are going to do 
anything, let us put $79 million in fighting the drug trade.
  But we are going to take $79 million when we do not have a problem. 
Let us give it to the war on terrorism. Let us give it to the first 
responders, but not to a program that does not even need it, does not 
even want it, does not even ask for it.
  I understand what they are saying, but if this amendment passes, I am 
going to go home very discouraged tonight. I think the passage of this 
amendment, in my own mind, if this amendment is passed, it will tell 
me, and it should be telling the American people, that we will never, 
ever be able to deal with the deficit again. There is no need for this, 
they are not asking for it, and the figures show that loans are up by 
24 percent. The chairman for the committee who was for this amendment 
last year is now against it, and there is just no hope. It is a Katie-
bar-the-door, we are going to spend whatever we need to spend.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  If my colleague is for deficit reduction, with this amendment we will 
reduce the deficit by $32 million. Then, if we pass this amendment, $78 
million we leverage, $15 billion in loans, and create half a million 
jobs at a time when the economy is struggling to replace the jobs that 
we have lost.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I just do not think the 
American people could ever understand that by spending $79 million of 
additional money that we will help the deficit. I urge a ``no'' vote on 
the amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Velazquez 
amendment amendment and thank the gentlewoman from New York on all her 
efforts to help small busineses. I am pleased that this amendment will 
reinstate funding for the 7(a) loan program and ensure that small 
businesses will once again be able to benefit from its lending power.
  As a former small business owner, I know the frustrations and worries 
small business owners have had as this program has been repeatedly 
targeted by the Bush administration. Small businesses are one of our 
Nation's leading employment opportunities but few businesses can afford 
to startup or expand without the help of loans.
  The president likes to talk about an ``ownership society,'' but his 
budget hurts middle class Americans by denying funding for this 
program. How can we have a strong middle class if we don't extend 
opportunities for people to start their own businesses? This just 
doesn't make sense.
  Renewing our commitment to the small business administration 7(a) 
loan program will not only bolster our Nation's workforce but also the 
economy as a whole. This program gives people a chance to start a 
business of their own and make a positive impact on their lives and 
their communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to urge all of my colleagues to join me in 
supporting this important amendment and our small business owners.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Velazquez 
amendment to the Science-State-Justice Appropriations bill. I thank the 
gentle1ady from New York for her leadership and the opportunity to 
speak in favor of the Section 7(a) Small Business Loan Program. The 3rd 
Congressional District of Colorado is a large rural district with many 
small businesses that have benefited from the SBA's lending programs.
  In 2004, the Section 7(a) provided 25.4 million dollars in loans to 
small businesses within my congressional district. As you know, this 
program helps provide capital to small business owners who are unable 
to access traditional financing alternatives. These small businesses 
provide critical jobs and are the economic engine that help drive the 
economy in my congressional district.
  Small businesses able to take advantage of this program have added 
new jobs to the economy. The Section 7(a) program has created 
approximately 742 jobs in my district alone. It is vital that these 
small businesses have the resources and capital necessary to operate, 
otherwise rural communities will continue to fall further behind the 
rest of the country in ecomomic growth.
  The Section 7(a) loan program is a proven success; it provides 
critical assistance to small busineses and I urge all of my colleagues 
to vote in favor of this amendment. I thank the gentlelady for the 
opportunity to speak on behalf of this important amendment.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Velazquez Amendment and in support of America's small businesses. It is 
vital that we as the United States Government do all we can to foster 
the growth of jobs in our economy. To accomplish this we must provide 
the businesses with enough affordable capital to start and grow. Mr. 
Chairman, this will create those jobs. I am sad to say that we have not 
done enough to help out the small businesses that need it most.
  Over the last decade we have drastically reduced the appropriated 
amount for the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program, in 
1995 it was funded at nearly $200 million but last year a mere $79 
million.
  Mr. Chairman, I am from Cleveland, Ohio, which at the moment is the 
most impoverished city in the Nation. Ninety-five percent of the 
private sector jobs are provided by small businesses, therefore the 
creation of jobs and the growth of our small businesses is vital to our 
economic recovery.
  The Small Business Administration's 7(a) lending program is essential 
for small business owners who cannot access capital through 
conventional markets. However, the program has been and is being 
underfunded and the burden has been shifting increasingly onto small 
business owners. Recent changes in the program have increased the fees 
to access the 7(a) program, which diminishes access of small business 
owners.
  The 7(a) program was created to provide capital to those businesses 
that need it most. By making the program more expensive, we are 
defeating its original purpose.
  I stand in support of restoring the FY 2004 appropriated level of $79 
million. It is the least we can do to help small businesses grow in our 
country.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend Ranking 
Member Velazquez for her continued commitment to working on behalf of 
small businesses and once again bringing legislation to the House floor 
to save the 7(a) loan program.
   Mr. Chairman, this year as in last year, the administration has 
requested zero funding for the premier lending program for the Small 
Business Administration. The 7(a) loan program has been systematically 
dismantled by the Administration. By eliminating funding, the program 
now runs only on the fees. charged to small businesses and lenders--
which make the program inherently unstable. The recent changes have 
created a less stable program and increased its lending fees. Since the 
fee increase, small business lending declined every quarter for a total 
of more than half a billion dollars so far this year.
  The 7(a) loan program has been a worthwhile program, particularly to 
women-owned business. Women-owned businesses are just as financially 
strong and creditworthy as the average US firm and deserve more options 
to raise capital. These companies have similar performance on bill 
payment and several levels of credit risk, and are just as likely to 
remain in business--yet they still fail to receive the capital needed 
to grow. In FY 2004, the 7(a) loan program provided more than 15,000 
loans to women-owned businesses totaling nearly $2 billion.
  A vote for Velazquez amendment would help guarantee that the 7(a) 
loan program would remain affordable for small businesses. Last year, 
the House overwhelmingly voted on a similar amendment to provide 
funding for this program. I urge my colleagues to once again support 
this amendment to rectify a wrong, and ensure that small businesses can 
still benefit from the program.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the reinstatement of 
funding for the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program. The 
7(a) program provides crucial support for small businesses around the 
country, and funding should be restored immediately.
  Central New Jersey has always worked hard to strengthen its position 
as a national leader in technological and economic innovation. For 
decades, the state's small businesses have led this charge, escorting 
communities toward independence and inspiration.
  Without consistent governmental support, though, small businesses 
will falter and stagnate. And without consistent small business 
support, local communities and economies will suffer. We owe it to the 
state's small businesses to restore funding to the SBA's exceptional 
7(a) program.
  Consider that one new job is created for every $33,000 that SBA's 
7(a) program guarantees. And consider that in just the past decade, SBA 
has approved over four hundred thousand loans, for more than $90 
billion. You

[[Page H4454]]

can do the math: that's a total of 2.7 million new jobs in just the 
last ten years. But with the lack of appropriations in FY2005, the 
average origination fees on small business loans doubled, creating 
between $1,500 and $3,000 in new costs for the average small business 
owner. The inevitable result is less small business access to capital, 
less expansion, less hiring, and less economic development.
  In the past decades, we've all seen that many of the country's 
strongest local economies are sprouting in areas famous worldwide for 
their technological prowess: California's Silicon Valley; North 
Carolina's Research Triangle; Boston's Route 128 Corridor. Central New 
Jersey's growing high-technology community--Einstein's Alley--belongs 
squarely on that list. Establishing a center of technological 
innovation in central New Jersey will guarantee New Jersey's continued 
future as one of the greatest states in the Union. Without support from 
the state's small businesses, though, such a technological center could 
never evolve.
  Strengthening New Jersey's economy and reinforcing its role as an 
innovation leader will benefit all New Jersey residents. A research-
based economy will require regional improvements in transportation and 
telecommunications infrastructure, which will help reduce traffic and 
produce more efficient transportation options for us all. A research-
based economy will require a larger tax base, which will drive down 
individual tax rates. And a research-based economy will demand quality 
schools and livable communities, in order to attract the best and the 
brightest entrepreneurs and employees to our region.
  Central New Jersey has long lived and thrived on the frontier of 
scientific and technological innovation. Einstein's Alley will be home 
to vibrant communities, cutting-edge companies, and productive workers 
whose unique assets and shared vision attract new, innovative 
industries and create many more good jobs to add to what we already 
have. None of that will be possible, however, without extensive small 
business support. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge every 
Member of this body to vote to restore the SBA's 7(a) program to its 
FY2004 funding level.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Thornberry). The time of the gentleman has 
expired. All time for debate on this amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Velazquez) will be postponed.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. Chairman, I know where I can spend 29 million of those dollars 
real quick.
  I regret today, and I say this because I really truly regret, because 
I have great respect for the chairman of the subcommittee, but I have 
to oppose this legislation because it fails to include the funds 
necessary to implement the Pribilof Islands' environmental cleanup 
agreement between the State of Alaska and NOAA.
  The Pribilof Islands lay in the middle of the Bering Sea. Two of the 
islands are inhabited today, St. Paul and St. George. Neither was 
inhabited until the 1780s, when the Russians forcibly relocated 
residents of the Aleutian Islands to the Pribs to harvest the then-
valuable pelts of the North Pacific fur seal and the stellar sea lion.
  The Russians retained ownership of the land and the profits from the 
harvest. After the United States purchased Alaska, the Federal 
Government treated the Pribilof residents no better. Like the Russians 
before us, we retained ownership of all the island property and the fur 
seal profits. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and its successors 
were the employer, municipal government, overseer, and landlord of the 
islands' residents.
  The profits from the fur seal trade offset the entire purchase price 
of Alaska, $7.5 million, in less than 20 years. However, by 1983, 
profits from the fur seal trade no longer offset the expense of 
managing the islands, when the decision was made to transfer ownership 
and responsibility for the islands to the residents.
  This was not a humanitarian undertaking. The profits were gone, so 
the Office of Management and Budget saw no need to continue to own the 
islands. The framework for this transfer process was laid out in the 
1983 amendments to the Fur Seal Act.
  Unfortunately, the transition plans have not gone smoothly, quickly, 
or efficiently. In 2000, Congress adopted further amendments to the Fur 
Seal Act that were designed to get the process back on track. Since 
then, significant progress has been made. However, additional 
environmental cleanup work remains to be done.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us provides no meaningful funds for 
the cleanup, not even the insufficient $7.3 million requested by the 
President. It includes $3.5 million to be divided between three 
environmental cleanup projects, one of which is the Pribs. It also 
allows the agency to reprogram unobligated balances for the project, 
something NOAA can already do.
  I cannot deny that, prior to the year 2000, NOAA's project management 
was terrible. Right now, though, it has improved. In the year 2000, the 
agency brought in new project managers; and these managers, especially 
Dave Kennedy and John Lindsay, have defined the scope of the project, 
established meaningful cost estimates and timetables. From 1996 through 
2000, NOAA cleaned up 11 sites. Since 2000, the agency has cleaned up 
75 sites. Nine sites remain.
  Of course, these timetables and cost estimates are only meaningful if 
sufficient funds are provided to carry them out. This year, no cleanup 
work will be done because of the funding cuts. This means the cleanup 
will not be finished in 2006 as planned, but will lapse into 2007.
  Congressional cuts in the administration's cleanup request in fiscal 
years 2003, 2004 and 2005 have been devastating. Effectively 
eliminating funding in fiscal year 2006 means that we are abandoning 
this project and saying it is okay for Federal agencies to pollute 
native lands with impunity.
  When developing the Fur Seal Act amendments in 2000, Congress 
undertook a detailed review of the transition scenario established in 
the 1983 Fur Seal Act amendments. By 1983, the fur seal profit had 
diminished, and Federal expenditures on the islands had risen to $6.3 
million annually. NOAA estimates that 95 percent of those expenditures 
were for municipal and social services.
  In 1982, NOAA proposed a scheme to transfer municipal operations on 
the islands to local control and end the Federal subsidy. That plan 
consisted of four parts: the first was a $20 million trust fund. The 
trust fund was established and fully capitalized.
  Second was the construction of useable harbors by the State. The 
State was very clear in testimony before Congress that it had made no 
such commitment, and in fact it did not fund harbor construction.
  Third, the government would transfer most of its land to the local 
entities. That transfer is still not complete.
  Fourth, the islands would manage and retain the income from the fur 
seal harvest. The government ended that commercial fur seal harvest the 
next year.
  Given the failure to carry out two of the four pieces of the 
transition plan, and the complete abrogation of a third piece, Congress 
decided in 2000 to finish the cleanup and land transfer. Because of the 
chronic underfunding of the cleanup program, it will take roughly an 
additional $16 million and two more years to complete the work required 
by the two-party agreement between NOAA and the State of Alaska. If we 
put it off further, or underfund the remaining work this year, it will 
take longer and cost more.
  I know and have great respect for the chairman of this subcommittee, 
and I know that he cares deeply about oppressed people throughout the 
world. Before finishing this bill, I hope he will look at the 
embarrassing history of our government in regards to the citizens of 
the Pribilof Islands and realize the least we can do is remove the 
environmental contamination which occurred under NOAA.
  Mr. Chairman, because of this issue, I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on H.R. 2862.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments to this 
section, the Clerk will continue to read.

[[Page H4455]]

  The Clerk read as follows:


                   Administrative Review and Appeals

       For expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and 
     clemency petitions and immigration-related activities, 
     $215,685,000.


                           Detention Trustee

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Detention Trustee, 
     $1,222,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Trustee shall be responsible for managing the 
     Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System and for 
     overseeing housing related to such detention: Provided 
     further, That any unobligated balances available in prior 
     years from the funds appropriated under the heading ``Federal 
     Prisoner Detention'' shall be transferred to and merged with 
     the appropriation under the heading ``Detention Trustee'' and 
     shall be available until expended.


                      Office of Inspector General

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $66,801,000, including not to exceed $10,000 to meet 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character.

                    United States Parole Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Parole 
     Commission as authorized, $11,200,000.

                            Legal Activities


            Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities

       For expenses necessary for the legal activities of the 
     Department of Justice, not otherwise provided for, including 
     not to exceed $20,000 for expenses of collecting evidence, to 
     be expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for 
     solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; and 
     rent of private or Government-owned space in the District of 
     Columbia, $665,821,000, of which not to exceed $10,000,000 
     for litigation support contracts shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     not to exceed $1,000 shall be available to the United States 
     National Central Bureau, INTERPOL, for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 105 of this Act, upon a determination 
     by the Attorney General that emergent circumstances require 
     additional funding for litigation activities of the Civil 
     Division, the Attorney General may transfer such amounts to 
     ``Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities'' from 
     available appropriations for the current fiscal year for the 
     Department of Justice, as may be necessary to respond to such 
     circumstances: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant 
     to the previous proviso shall be treated as a reprogramming 
     under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for 
     obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.
       In addition, for reimbursement of expenses of the 
     Department of Justice associated with processing cases under 
     the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to 
     exceed $6,333,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Trust Fund.


               Salaries and Expenses, Antitrust Division

       For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and 
     kindred laws, $144,451,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, not to exceed $116,000,000 of offsetting collections 
     derived from fees collected for premerger notification 
     filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements 
     Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 18a), regardless of the year of 
     collection, shall be retained and used for necessary expenses 
     in this appropriation, and shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated 
     from the general fund shall be reduced as such offsetting 
     collections are received during fiscal year 2006, so as to 
     result in a final fiscal year 2006 appropriation from the 
     general fund estimated at not more than $28,451,000.


             Salaries and Expenses, United States Attorneys

       For necessary expenses of the Offices of the United States 
     Attorneys, including inter-governmental and cooperative 
     agreements, $1,626,146,000: Provided, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $8,000 shall be available 
     for official reception and representation expenses: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That, in addition 
     to reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears available to 
     the Offices of the United States Attorneys, not to exceed 
     10,465 positions and 10,451 full-time equivalent workyears 
     shall be supported from the funds appropriated in this Act 
     for the United States Attorneys.


                   United States Trustee System Fund

       For necessary expenses of the United States Trustee 
     Program, as authorized, $214,402,000, to remain available 
     until expended and to be derived from the United States 
     Trustee System Fund: Provided, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, deposits to the Fund shall be 
     available in such amounts as may be necessary to pay refunds 
     due depositors: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, $214,402,000 of offsetting 
     collections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 589a(b) shall be retained 
     and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation and 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That the 
     sum herein appropriated from the Fund shall be reduced as 
     such offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 
     2006, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2006 
     appropriation from the Fund estimated at $0.


      Salaries and Expenses, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the 
     Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $1,220,000.

                     United States Marshals Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals 
     Service, $800,255,000; of which not to exceed $6,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses; 
     and of which $20,000,000 for information technology systems, 
     equipment, and the renovation of United States Marshals 
     Service prisoner holding space in United States courthouses 
     and Federal buildings shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That, in addition to reimbursable full-time 
     equivalent workyears available to the United States Marshals 
     Service, not to exceed 4,729 positions and 4,551 full-time 
     equivalent workyears shall be supported from the funds 
     appropriated in this Act for the United States Marshals 
     Service.


                     Fees and Expenses of Witnesses

       For fees and expenses of witnesses, for expenses of 
     contracts for the procurement and supervision of expert 
     witnesses, for private counsel expenses, including advances, 
     such sums as are necessary, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $8,000,000 may be made 
     available for construction of buildings for protected witness 
     safesites: Provided further, That not to exceed $1,000,000 
     may be made available for the purchase and maintenance of 
     armored vehicles for transportation of protected witnesses: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $7,000,000 may be made 
     available for the purchase, installation, maintenance and 
     upgrade of secure telecommunications equipment and a secure 
     automated information network to store and retrieve the 
     identities and locations of protected witnesses.


           Salaries and Expenses, Community Relations Service

       For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service, 
     $9,659,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section 105 of 
     this Act, upon a determination by the Attorney General that 
     emergent circumstances require additional funding for 
     conflict resolution and violence prevention activities of the 
     Community Relations Service, the Attorney General may 
     transfer such amounts to the Community Relations Service, 
     from available appropriations for the current fiscal year for 
     the Department of Justice, as may be necessary to respond to 
     such circumstances: Provided further, That any transfer 
     pursuant to the previous proviso shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming under section 605 of this Act and shall not be 
     available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.


                         Assets Forfeiture Fund

       For expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. 524(c)(1)(B), (F), and 
     (G), $21,468,000, to be derived from the Department of 
     Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.

                      Interagency Law Enforcement


                 Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement

       For necessary expenses for the identification, 
     investigation, and prosecution of individuals associated with 
     the most significant drug trafficking and affiliated money 
     laundering organizations not otherwise provided for, to 
     include inter-governmental agreements with State and local 
     law enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and 
     prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug 
     trafficking, $506,940,000, of which $50,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That any amounts 
     obligated from appropriations under this heading may be used 
     under authorities available to the organizations reimbursed 
     from this appropriation.

                    Federal Bureau of Investigation


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation for detection, investigation, and prosecution 
     of crimes against the United States; including purchase for 
     police-type use of not to exceed 3,868 passenger motor 
     vehicles, of which 3,039 will be for replacement only; and 
     not to exceed $70,000 to meet unforeseen emergencies of a 
     confidential character pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 530C, 
     $5,741,132,000; of which not to exceed $150,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended; of which $2,288,897,000 
     shall be for counterterrorism investigations, foreign 
     counterintelligence, and other activities related to our 
     national security; and of which not to exceed $25,000,000 is 
     authorized to be made available for making advances for 
     expenses arising out of contractual or reimbursable 
     agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies 
     while engaged in cooperative activities related to violent 
     crime, terrorism, organized crime, gang-related crime, 
     cybercrime, and drug investigations: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $205,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided further, That, in addition 
     to reimbursable full-time equivalent workyears available to 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation, not to exceed 31,668 
     positions and 30,525 full-time equivalent workyears shall be 
     supported from the funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation.

[[Page H4456]]

                Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Reichert

  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Reichert:
       Page 10, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 12, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $11,683,000)''.
       Page 26, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $78,289,000)''.
       Page 71, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $16,606,000)''.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment, and any amendments thereto, conclude in 15 minutes, and that 
the remaining time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and myself, the opponent.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert) 
will control 7\1/2\ minutes and a Member opposed will control 7\1/2\ 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and first of all would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) for his great work in helping local law enforcement, but I rise 
today to speak on an issue that is more than something I believe in; it 
is who I am.
  The COPS program is an essential program to our local law 
enforcement, and I am here today in support of it. I spent 33 years of 
my life as a cop. I worked my way up the ladder. I served as patrol 
officer, jail guard, detective, lieutenant, and finally the sheriff in 
King County in Seattle, Washington. I became a cop because deep in my 
heart I believed I could make a difference in the community and that I 
could protect it. The COPS program enforces that ideal.
  Since 9/11, we have found our local cops in an unusual dilemma. They 
are expected to carry out new homeland security duties as first 
responders, while at the same time maintaining their original 
responsibilities. I am a member of the Select Committee on Homeland 
Security, and I believe our country's security is a priority, but I do 
not think that we should be carrying out this function as an unfunded 
mandate at the expense of local law enforcement.
  We are seeing Federal law enforcement receive an unprecedented amount 
of funding, while at the same time the scope and the responsibility of 
first responders on the front lines is increasing without parallel 
funding. Even in this amendment, restoring COPS funding to its original 
level of last year still allows for very significant increases to the 
Federal law enforcement agencies.
  In my experience, local and Federal law enforcement are most 
effective when they are working together. Teamwork is the key. You 
would not play a football game by sending some of the players out onto 
the field with pads and helmets and others with no equipment at all. In 
a team, all players should be valued equally, especially in law 
enforcement, where our fights have to be balanced, our attacks have to 
be balanced both local and Federal.
  In the war on drugs, in the war on terror, in the national fight 
against gangs, local police officers and Federal agents are all working 
together towards the same goal of making our country safer. According 
to Attorney General John Ashcroft: ``Since law enforcement agencies 
began partnering with citizens through community policing, we have seen 
significant drops in crime rates.'' Now that crime has dropped, we are 
going to cut the funding that has kept our communities safe? That is 
absurd.
  Local cops are the ones on the front lines, they are the men and the 
women keeping our families safe daily, protecting our children in 
school, monitoring gang violence, the first responders who are there 
when you call 911. You do not pay a lesser price for your family's 
safety than you do for homeland security.
  We are in a new era of both family and national security. Both our 
first responders play a dual role, as the first ones on the scene in 
the case of a terrorist attack and the first ones on the scene in 
everyday emergencies as well. One is not worth less than the other. 
Cops must be well prepared and equipped for any emergency they are sent 
into.
  Mr. Chairman, this program is vital. Across the country it procures 
equipment, combats domestic violence, puts cops in schools, fights meth 
gangs, and much, much more. I urge my colleagues to support the COPS 
program and vote for this amendment today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
yield myself 5 minutes.
  My father, as I said in one of the other amendments, was a policeman. 
The fact is when I think of the name COPS, my dad used to tell me never 
to call policemen cops, and I even have a hard time saying the word 
cops, while I know it is the title of the bill. My father was a 
Philadelphia policeman for 20-some years.
  I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I understand what the 
gentleman is trying to do, but perhaps the most important program we 
fund in this bill is the FBI and its efforts to protect the Nation from 
terrorist attacks.
  Thirty people from my congressional district died in the attack on 
the Pentagon. The first CIA person killed in Afghanistan was from my 
congressional district. This amendment cuts the FBI by $50 million 
while the threat of terrorism and espionage from countries, such as 
China, and the spread of gangs increases.
  And I would tell the gentleman that I met with a group of local law 
enforcement people around the country, and some were from Washington 
State, one police chief; and gangs are an important issue. We have a 
carve-out of $60 million in this bill with regard to gangs.
  We must provide the FBI, though, with the sufficient resources to 
combat these threats. This amendment would go the other way.
  The bill funds the FBI at the requested level when you account for 
the Administration's proposal to reduce the FBI's appropriation by $50 
million and move it to OCDETF. The committee rejected this proposed 
transfer, as members on both sides asked us to do.
  If you combine the requested increase for the FBI salaries and 
expenses and requested reimbursement for the FBI under OCDETF, this 
bill is equal to the request. A reduction now of $50 million from the 
FBI will reduce the number of funded FBI agents by 365. Now, why would 
we want to reduce the FBI by 365 agents?
  According to the testimony of Director Mueller, there could be, and 
probably is, al Qaeda sleeper cells operating in the U.S. The committee 
heard testimony that Hamas and Hezbollah have operatives in the U.S. In 
fact, as I said to the Director: ``Are there Hezbollah operators in the 
United States?'' His answer was: ``Yes, there are Hezbollah.'' And keep 
in mind, Hezbollah are the ones who blew up the 241 Marines in Beirut.

                              {time}  1445

  That group that blew up the American Embassy and the 241 marines in 
Beirut, that man who put that effort together, still walks the street. 
We know the dangers of Iran, and the Director says Hezbollah and Hamas 
are here, and we want to take 365 agents away.
  Time Magazine reports that more than 3,000 companies in the U.S. are 
suspected of collecting information for China. China is spying against 
our companies in the United States, and I urge all Members to get that 
FBI briefing.
  The Department of Justice estimates there are approximately 30,000 
gangs with 800,000 members impacting 2,500 communities. This amendment 
would basically take away all of the money in the bill for gangs. If 
you happen to have been one of the Members who voted for the bill 
fighting gangs from several weeks ago, this money takes out all of the 
money for last year as well as this year. There is so much to

[[Page H4457]]

deal with on the issue of gang and gang violence.
  It would also have a very negative impact on DEA. We heard earlier 
today about meth. This amendment cuts DEA by $12 million. The debate 
conflicts. It switches back and forth. We are not doing enough to 
combat drugs, do this, do that. And so now this amendment runs counter 
to all of the other things we have discussed. We take $12 million from 
DEA. The bill provides DEA with funding above the budget request in 
order to restore the proposed reductions to combat meth by fully 
funding mobile enforcement teams. Members said do not cut those teams 
because locally this is so important. This literally takes out those 
teams. They will not be there.
  The amendment hurts DEA's effort to combat meth, will result in a 
destruction of more lives in this deadly game. Members saw the pictures 
that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) had.
  It also reduces the Broadcasting Board of Governors by $16 million. 
If we cannot broadcast into the Middle East, and into Afghanistan and 
into Iran and Iraq, we are in trouble. This is a bad amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) makes some 
excellent points. Actually, the gentleman makes some of the points I 
made in my initial statement.
  I was the sheriff up until January 3 of this year. I have been on the 
front lines, as I said, for 33 years. I have kicked in doors; I have 
arrested drug dealers, prostitutes, pimps, murderers, robbers, and 
burglars. I have arrested gang members. I have been in meth houses and 
seen children sitting on the couches of homes where meth is cooked and 
made.
  If the battle for homeland security is taking place across the sea in 
Iraq, it is also taking place right here in this country. As I 
partnered in the last 7 or 8 years as sheriff, as I partnered with the 
FBI, the DEA, the people who lead the charge in the Seattle FBI offices 
and DEA offices and Federal offices, the word I heard loud and clear 
over and over: Local law enforcement is important. Local law 
enforcement is a partner. Local law enforcement is key. Sharing 
information, working with local law enforcement is our top priority.
  But in fact what happens today is we talk about a $588 million 
increase to the FBI. We are talking about taking away $50 million. They 
would still see an increase of over half a billion dollars in their 
budget this year. DEA would still see an increase of over $55 million 
in their budget this year, still bringing back $78 million to COPS.
  To build that partnership, and when I talk about building a football 
team and some having equipment and some not having equipment, when 
Congress gives $588 million to the FBI and gives $55-plus million to 
DEA and other Federal agencies, and yet is taking away $78 million from 
the rest of the team. It just does not make sense.
  This has to be a team effort, and if the Federal Government and 
Federal agencies mean what they say about team spirit and working 
together in partnerships, they need to show it by funding COPS fully. 
Bring back the $78 million that they are suggesting be removed from 
their budget.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment not 
because I oppose the COPS program, because I know the chairman does not 
oppose the Community-Oriented Policing Services program. As he 
indicated, his family understands how important community policing is. 
But I rise in opposition to this amendment because of the offsets. As 
Chairman Wolf has pointed out, the gentleman makes unacceptable offsets 
here.
  I would ask, does the gentleman from Washington really think that a 
$50 million cut from the FBI, including funding for counterterrorism 
and counterintelligence programs, is something that the FBI can do 
without?
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I know that local law enforcement is 
involved in those same programs as partners with the FBI.
  As sheriff in Seattle, one of the projects we were involved in is we 
had detectives assigned from the sheriff's office to the Washington 
Joint Analytical Center, which is a center that analyzes incoming 
intelligence data for homeland security and for other crimes in the 
county. We also were members as a local law enforcement agency of the 
Joint Terrorism Task Force, and other task forces, Federal task forces, 
that existed in King County.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time because I only have 2 
minutes, I need a little more efficient answer. Does the gentleman 
think that the FBI's counterterrorism program can stand a $50 million 
cut from what we have appropriated and recommend in this bill?
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
I do not think the FBI counterterrorism program can afford to lose the 
local support that they already have.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman think that his 
amendment, which cuts DE mobile enforcement teams, which go out and 
help State and local fight methamphetamine, does the gentleman think we 
can afford to cut those programs?
  Mr. REICHERT. Does the gentleman think we can afford to cut local 
police and firefighters programs?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. My point is, Mr. 
Chairman, the cuts are simply unacceptable. The purpose is laudable. 
The offsets are unacceptable.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would just restate some of the obvious here. Again, this is a 
partnership. The FBI is gaining a great deal of money in this budget 
proposal, $500 million. I think they can work within that framework. 
Again, local law enforcement is getting cut $78 million. This truly has 
to be a partnership. Let us bring the COPS program back to its 2005 
level, increasing it by the $78 million which is the proposed cut.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The first telephone call you would make if you found out a loved one 
was kidnapped would be to the FBI. We want to take $50 million away 
from that first agency you would call.
  Meth--why do Members want to cut the DEA when we are all concerned 
about meth?
  International broadcasting in Afghanistan and Iraq tell the story and 
do a good job. You do not want to take money from law enforcement to 
help law enforcement. There is a different way. This is not a good 
idea. I urge defeat of the amendment so the FBI has the necessary 
resources so it can do what it wants to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Thornberry). All time for debate on this 
amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Reichert) will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                              Construction

       For necessary expenses to construct or acquire buildings 
     and sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law 
     (including equipment for such buildings); conversion and 
     extension of Federally-owned buildings; and preliminary 
     planning and design of projects; $20,105,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That $10,000,000 shall be 
     available for equipment and associated costs for a permanent 
     central records complex in Frederick County, Virginia.

                    Drug Enforcement Administration


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character pursuant 
     to 28 U.S.C. 530C; expenses for conducting drug education and 
     training programs, including travel and related expenses for 
     participants in such programs and the distribution of items 
     of token value that promote

[[Page H4458]]

     the goals of such programs; and purchase of not to exceed 
     1,043 passenger motor vehicles, of which 937 will be for 
     replacement only, for police-type use, $1,706,173,000; of 
     which not to exceed $75,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended; and of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided, That, in addition to reimbursable full-time 
     equivalent workyears available to the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, not to exceed 8,371 positions and 8,270 full-
     time equivalent workyears shall be supported from the funds 
     appropriated in this Act for the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Baird

  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Baird:
       Page 12, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 26, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. BAIRD (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment, and any amendments thereto, conclude by 10 minutes, and that 
the remaining time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and myself, the opponent.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no coincidence that the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Reichert), as a former sheriff, spoke earlier about the problem 
with meth. I rise to address the same problem with a much different, 
but I think a more appropriate, offset.
  Methamphetamine is the leading cause of crime in a number of States. 
It is the fastest-growing drug. It is responsible for identity theft, 
murders, domestic violence and horrific disfigurement of its users. We 
have seen a dramatic growth in methamphetamine over the years, and it 
is pervasive in the communities. Unfortunately, we are not winning this 
battle, and we must win this battle.
  What I propose is fairly simple. It would provide $10 million to the 
Community-Oriented Policing Service program to be used for providing 
training to State and local prosecutors and law enforcement agents for 
investigation and prosecution of offenses. Of that $10 million, $3 
million would be set aside for prosecutors and law enforcement agents 
in rural communities, and we would also provide $10 million to DEA to 
combat international trafficking.
  Let me explain why we need to do this. Methamphetamine comes from two 
sources, locally manufactured so-called clan labs where the drug is 
made from locally available materials, and internationally imported 
precursors and finished product. We must confront both of these. They 
are destroying our families and destroying our communities.
  The offset we have offered in this bill, I think, is thoroughly 
appropriate. Here is where it comes from: $20 million would be taken 
from 2010 census program, $10 million in budget authority from salaries 
and expenses, and $10 million in budget authority offset would come 
from the short form of the census.
  Since fiscal year 2001, this Congress has approved close to $2.73 
billion for the census. Let me say that again: $2.73 billion for the 
census. This year alone we are proposing to add $832 million in funding 
for the census. And by comparison, this bill calls for only $520 
million for the COPS program.
  Ask your average man and woman on the street, your law enforcement 
agencies, your emergency rooms, treatment centers, schools, where 
should we spend the money? Billions of dollars for the census, or to 
intercept international narcotrafficking and bringing in 
methamphetamine precursors and finished product?
  We have a war on terror internationally, but I can tell Members the 
terror in our communities is being caused by methamphetamine. I used to 
treat meth addicts. It is a devastating drug. That is why I cofounded 
the Methamphetamine Caucus, a bipartisan caucus. We must get our hands 
around this.
  This is a reasonable offset. It will provide, frankly, not enough 
additional funds, but a significant message that we are going to 
intercept international drugs and methamphetamine, and we are going to 
help our local law enforcement.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
much for the same reason I rose in opposition to the previous 
amendment. It is not that the additional funding is not needed in the 
program, it is that the money that is the funded to the Census Bureau 
is needed in the Census Bureau.

                              {time}  1500

  The chairman and I have worked very hard in trying to balance these 
accounts. They are delicately balanced because of the bad allocation 
that we received. The Census Bureau in order to do its job has to 
prepare early. It looks like a lot of money. It is a big job. It is 
extremely important that it is done right. While I am totally 
supportive in increasing these local and State law enforcement 
assistance programs, the offsets are just untenable, this one included. 
I rise to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In the last census, I remember being given paperweights, calendars, 
buttons, pins, all sorts of stuff. I would wager that every Member of 
this body received those things. When you talk to local law 
enforcement, when you visit meth houses, when you treat the addicts of 
this horrific drug, we have to understand how bad this drug is. It is 
devastating. And I see the Census Bureau giving glass paperweights. 
Somewhere our priorities are wrong.
  Let me say the numbers again: $2.73 billion already for the census, 
another $832 million this year, compared to $520 million. I am not 
asking for additional expenditures of the taxpayers' money. I am asking 
for us to make some tough and responsible decisions. I frankly would be 
hard pressed to tell the constituents in my area who see their schools 
being corrupted, their neighborhoods being corrupted, their children 
being addicted, people being murdered, their identity being stolen, 
their financial lives being ruined that we are going to fund 
paperweights for the census or some awfully expensive revision.
  I used to teach research design. I cannot fathom that it costs this 
much money to modify this census. There were some bureaucrats last time 
around who spent an awful lot of money buying those paperweights, and 
if we cut $10 million to get rid of some of those bureaucrats in order 
to put more cops on the streets, more international investigators to 
stop the influx of methamphetamine, this Congress will have done at 
least one good thing today in what is otherwise, I think, a very good 
bill; but we need to find more funding for meth.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment which would reduce 
funding for the Bureau of the Census. As chairman of the House 
Government Reform Subcommittee on Federalism and the Census, I 
appreciate the important role of the census in providing information 
about the American people and our economy. It sounds pretty simple, 
paperweights versus crime fighting, and certainly the statements 
concerning our needs for crime fighting are compelling. But it is just 
not that simple.
  The census provides information vital to how we as a Nation operate. 
Every 10 years, each congressional seat

[[Page H4459]]

is reapportioned based on census data. The decennial census is the 
fundamental guarantee of fair representation. Every seat in Congress is 
apportioned and established according to the decennial census. Also, 
each year the Federal Government allocates almost $300 billion in funds 
based in part on census data.
  Also, census information is not just used for the decennial census. 
Annually, the Census Bureau produces information on international trade 
statistics, demographics, and important economic census information is 
utilized by businesses as they plan locations in how to grow. Actions 
taken for our economy are based upon information annually and on a 
regular basis that is produced by the census.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. An amendment to 
remove funds from the census budget is an amendment that would reduce 
the accuracy of congressional reapportionment and redistricting and 
impair the ability of the Federal Government to allocate funds for 
important programs that aid communities nationwide. Vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Some years ago, I was treating a meth addict. I asked him to tell me 
what it was like to be hooked on methamphetamine. He said at the time, 
Doctor, if my children were in a corner of this room and said, Daddy, 
we need you. He said, I love my children. But if methamphetamine were 
in the other corner and my body said I want methamphetamine, and this 
grown man in his 40s who looked to be about 60 because of the ravages 
of this drug, this grown man burst into tears and he said, Doctor, I 
would go for the methamphetamine because I cannot help myself.
  It is about priorities. We have to stop this drug. It is killing our 
citizens. I think the census wastes money. I think the money could be 
better spent on protecting the lives of our citizens and the safety of 
our communities and schools. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this. It is a 
reasonable offset and the money will be well spent on interdicting 
international imports of this drug and on local enforcement and 
training.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Taking money 
away from the census and the American community survey is very 
shortsighted. I support very much the hard work and intent of the 
gentleman's amendment, but it truly is shortsighted and inappropriate 
to take money away from the census. Too many decisions that we make in 
government have to be based on census data. Federal and State funds for 
schools, employment services, housing assistance, day care, hospitals, 
emergency services, programs for seniors, and much more will be 
distributed based on census data.
  In this information age that we live in, we need reliable information 
in order to make good decisions for this Nation. Without good data, you 
cannot administer the laws of this country fairly. Without good data, 
money will flow to communities with powerful allies as opposed to where 
the need truly is. The census is important for the planning of our 
government.
  I rise in very strong support of this amendment, the work of the 
committee, and the administration's and OMB's allocation for the 
census.
  I, for one, will continue to do all I can to make sure that the 
Census Bureau has the capabilities to provide the Congress, and this 
Nation, with the ability to provide all of us with high quality data 
needed by the public and its elected representatives to make informed 
public policy decisions.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment, but the gentleman makes a good 
case. On the paperweights, we are going to do a letter to the census 
saying no paperweights and no gifts and things like that. If that is 
the case, we ought to deal with it. We ought not, though, take it from 
the census. I think if the gentleman can work with us, and maybe the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), we really need to do something beyond what we are 
doing with regard to meth.
  This year the bill is $8 million above. I agree with the gentleman. I 
do not know how this amendment is going to come out. Hopefully, it will 
fail, because I do not think we want to go after the census as the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney) said. But the gentleman is right. Something 
really has to be done almost beyond what we are doing for meth. So I 
commit whether you win or lose on this, we will get together and see 
what we can do, but I would hope that we could vote this amendment down 
because by helping meth, we do not want to then torpedo the Census 
Bureau.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Baird) will be postponed.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  As we were looking at this, it came to my attention through an 
article in USA Today that the FBI's entertainment office consists of 
five agents. They are responsible for responding to requests from 
Hollywood for information. When I was elected to Congress, one of the 
things that I wanted to be aware of the whole time that I was here is 
that we have a responsibility to spend taxpayers' dollars wisely. I do 
not think that the United States taxpayers should be subsidizing 
Hollywood in any way. I wanted to express to the chairman of the 
committee, with my gratitude for his good work and to others interested 
in this issue, that I hope that these agencies can be more fiscally 
responsible with these taxpayers' dollars, and I do not think that we 
ought to be subsidizing Hollywood in any way when they want 
information.
  That was what I wanted to make very clear today. The sum total of 
that amount is $250,000 each year that goes for Hollywood liaisons. I 
wanted to respectfully make the gentleman aware of this.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  We will look into this. We were led to believe by the FBI that they 
do not have this. The gentlewoman may be right. We will look into it 
and work with her to see that this does not take place.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

          Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
     Firearms and Explosives, including the purchase of not to 
     exceed 822 vehicles for police-type use, of which 650 shall 
     be for replacement only; not to exceed $25,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; for training of State 
     and local law enforcement agencies with or without 
     reimbursement, including training in connection with the 
     training and acquisition of canines for explosives and fire 
     accelerants detection; and for provision of laboratory 
     assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies, with 
     or without reimbursement, $923,613,000, of which not to 
     exceed $1,000,000 shall be available for the payment of 
     attorneys' fees as provided by 18 U.S.C. 924(d)(2); and of 
     which $10,000,000 shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That no funds appropriated herein shall be 
     available for salaries or administrative expenses in 
     connection with consolidating or centralizing, within the 
     Department of Justice, the records, or any portion thereof, 
     of acquisition and disposition of firearms maintained by 
     Federal firearms licensees: Provided further, That no funds 
     appropriated herein shall be used to pay administrative 
     expenses or the compensation of any officer or employee of 
     the United States to implement an amendment or amendments to 
     27 CFR 178.118 or to change the definition of ``Curios or 
     relics'' in 27 CFR 178.11 or remove any item from ATF 
     Publication 5300.11 as it existed on January 1, 1994: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated herein 
     shall be available to investigate or act upon applications 
     for relief from Federal firearms disabilities

[[Page H4460]]

     under 18 U.S.C. 925(c): Provided further, That such funds 
     shall be available to investigate and act upon applications 
     filed by corporations for relief from Federal firearms 
     disabilities under section 925(c) of title 18, United States 
     Code: Provided further, That no funds made available by this 
     or any other Act may be used to transfer the functions, 
     missions, or activities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
     Firearms and Explosives to other agencies or Departments in 
     fiscal year 2006: Provided further, That no funds 
     appropriated under this or any other Act with respect to any 
     fiscal year may be used to disclose part or all of the 
     contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by 
     the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
     Firearms and Explosives or any information required to be 
     kept by licensees pursuant to section 923(g) of title 18, 
     United States Code, or required to be reported pursuant to 
     paragraphs (3) and (7) of such section 923(g), to anyone 
     other than a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency 
     or a prosecutor solely in connection with and for use in a 
     bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution and then only 
     such information as pertains to the geographic jurisdiction 
     of the law enforcement agency requesting the disclosure and 
     not for use in any civil action or proceeding other than an 
     action or proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or a review of such an 
     action or proceeding, to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 
     of such title, and all such data shall be immune from legal 
     process and shall not be subject to subpoena or other 
     discovery in any civil action in a State or Federal court or 
     in any administrative proceeding other than a proceeding 
     commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
     Explosives to enforce the provisions of that chapter, or a 
     review of such an action or proceeding; except that this 
     proviso shall not be construed to prevent the disclosure of 
     statistical information concerning total production, 
     importation, and exportation by each licensed importer (as 
     defined in section 921(a)(9) of such title) and licensed 
     manufacturer (as defined in section 921(a)(10) of such 
     title): Provided further, That no funds made available by 
     this or any other Act shall be expended to promulgate or 
     implement any rule requiring a physical inventory of any 
     business licensed under section 923 of title 18, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That no funds under this Act 
     may be used to electronically retrieve information gathered 
     pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(4) by name or any personal 
     identification code: Provided further, That no funds 
     authorized or made available under this or any other Act may 
     be used to deny any application for a license under section 
     923 of title 18, United States Code, or renewal of such a 
     license due to a lack of business activity, provided that the 
     applicant is otherwise eligible to receive such a license, 
     and is eligible to report business income or to claim an 
     income tax deduction for business expenses under the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.

                         Federal Prison System


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary of the Federal Prison System for the 
     administration, operation, and maintenance of Federal penal 
     and correctional institutions, including purchase (not to 
     exceed 768, of which 701 are for replacement only) and hire 
     of law enforcement and passenger motor vehicles, and for the 
     provision of technical assistance and advice on corrections 
     related issues to foreign governments, $4,895,649,000: 
     Provided, That the Attorney General may transfer to the 
     Health Resources and Services Administration such amounts as 
     may be necessary for direct expenditures by that 
     Administration for medical relief for inmates of Federal 
     penal and correctional institutions: Provided further, That 
     the Director of the Federal Prison System, where necessary, 
     may enter into contracts with a fiscal agent/fiscal 
     intermediary claims processor to determine the amounts 
     payable to persons who, on behalf of the Federal Prison 
     System, furnish health services to individuals committed to 
     the custody of the Federal Prison System: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $6,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed $50,000,000 shall remain available for 
     necessary operations until September 30, 2007: Provided 
     further, That, of the amounts provided for Contract 
     Confinement, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain available 
     until expended to make payments in advance for grants, 
     contracts and reimbursable agreements, and other expenses 
     authorized by section 501(c) of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980, for the care and security in the 
     United States of Cuban and Haitian entrants: Provided 
     further, That the Director of the Federal Prison System may 
     accept donated property and services relating to the 
     operation of the prison card program from a not-for-profit 
     entity which has operated such program in the past 
     notwithstanding the fact that such not-for-profit entity 
     furnishes services under contracts to the Federal Prison 
     System relating to the operation of pre-release services, 
     halfway houses or other custodial facilities.


                        Buildings and Facilities

       For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new 
     facilities; purchase and acquisition of facilities and 
     remodeling, and equipping of such facilities for penal and 
     correctional use, including all necessary expenses incident 
     thereto, by contract or force account; and constructing, 
     remodeling, and equipping necessary buildings and facilities 
     at existing penal and correctional institutions, including 
     all necessary expenses incident thereto, by contract or force 
     account, $70,112,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which not to exceed $14,000,000 shall be available to 
     construct areas for inmate work programs: Provided, That 
     labor of United States prisoners may be used for work 
     performed under this appropriation.


                Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated

       The Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available, and in accord with 
     the law, and to make such contracts and commitments, without 
     regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by section 9104 
     of title 31, United States Code, as may be necessary in 
     carrying out the program set forth in the budget for the 
     current fiscal year for such corporation, including purchase 
     (not to exceed five for replacement only) and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles.


   Limitation on Administrative Expenses, Federal Prison Industries, 
                              Incorporated

       Not to exceed $3,365,000 of the funds of the corporation 
     shall be available for its administrative expenses, and for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, to be computed on an 
     accrual basis to be determined in accordance with the 
     corporation's current prescribed accounting system, and such 
     amounts shall be exclusive of depreciation, payment of 
     claims, and expenditures which such accounting system 
     requires to be capitalized or charged to cost of commodities 
     acquired or produced, including selling and shipping 
     expenses, and expenses in connection with acquisition, 
     construction, operation, maintenance, improvement, 
     protection, or disposition of facilities and other property 
     belonging to the corporation or in which it has an interest.

                    Office on Violence Against Women


       Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance for the prevention and prosecution of violence 
     against women as authorized by the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act''); the Violent 
     Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 
     103-322) (``the 1994 Act''); the Victims of Child Abuse Act 
     of 1990 (``the 1990 Act''); the Prosecutorial Remedies and 
     Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 
     2003 (Public Law 108-21); the Juvenile Justice and 
     Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (``the 1974 Act''); and 
     the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 
     2000 (Public Law 106-386); $387,497,000, including amounts 
     for administrative costs, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That except as otherwise provided by law, not to 
     exceed three percent of funds made available under this 
     heading may be used for expenses related to evaluation, 
     training and technical assistance: Provided further, That of 
     the amount provided--
       (1) $11,897,000 for the court-appointed special advocate 
     program, as authorized by section 217 of the 1990 Act;
       (2) $1,925,000 for child abuse training programs for 
     judicial personnel and practitioners, as authorized by 
     section 222 of the 1990 Act;
       (3) $983,000 for grants for televised testimony, as 
     authorized by Part N of the 1968 Act;
       (4) $187,308,000 for grants to combat violence against 
     women, as authorized by part T of the 1968 Act, of which--
       (A) $5,000,000 shall be for the National Institute of 
     Justice for research and evaluation of violence against 
     women;
       (B) $10,000,000 shall be for the Office of Juvenile Justice 
     and Delinquency Prevention for the Safe Start Program, as 
     authorized by the 1974 Act; and
       (C) $15,000,000 shall be for transitional housing 
     assistance grants for victims of domestic violence, stalking 
     or sexual assault as authorized by Public Law 108-21;
       (5) $63,491,000 for grants to encourage arrest policies as 
     authorized by part U of the 1968 Act;
       (6) $39,685,000 for rural domestic violence and child abuse 
     enforcement assistance grants, as authorized by section 
     40295(a) of the 1994 Act;
       (7) $4,415,000 for training programs as authorized by 
     section 40152 of the 1994 Act, and for related local 
     demonstration projects;
       (8) $2,950,000 for grants to improve the stalking and 
     domestic violence databases, as authorized by section 40602 
     of the 1994 Act;
       (9) $9,175,000 to reduce violent crimes against women on 
     campus, as authorized by section 1108(a) of Public Law 106-
     386;
       (10) $39,740,000 for legal assistance for victims, as 
     authorized by section 1201(c) of Public Law 106-386;
       (11) $4,600,000 for enhancing protection for older and 
     disabled women from domestic violence and sexual assault, as 
     authorized by section 40802 of the 1994 Act;
       (12) $14,078,000 for the safe havens for children pilot 
     program, as authorized by section 1301(a) of Public Law 106-
     386; and
       (13) $7,250,000 for education and training to end violence 
     against and abuse of women with disabilities, as authorized 
     by section 1402(a) of Public Law 106-386.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:


[[Page H4461]]


       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 19, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 20, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 23, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $4,000,000)''.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and any amendments thereto conclude in 10 minutes and that 
the time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself 
as the opponent.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire, what was the unanimous 
consent request stated by the gentleman from Virginia?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state that the unanimous consent 
request, which has been agreed to, was for 5 minutes for the 
gentlewoman from Texas and 5 minutes for the gentleman from Virginia as 
the opponent.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I just want the gentlewoman to understand it. I do not 
think she did understand it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me first of all thank the ranking member for his inquiry and also 
thank the chairman. I think the time frame was not in agreement, but 
the issue is so important that I will proceed.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment speaks specifically to what I think is the 
devastating disease of child violence and child abuse. This is a simple 
amendment. It takes from the $300 million-plus allotment for the Edward 
Byrne grants a simple $2 million for child abuse training programs for 
judicial personnel and practitioners.
  In a hearing in the Judiciary Committee just a week ago, a number of 
us presented bills trying to fight against sexual predators and those 
who would abuse children. We have discovered that the number one killer 
of children is now homicides. Even in the backdrop of this debate, we 
find a troubling set of circumstances in Aruba where a young 18-year-
old still goes missing after celebrating her graduation and, of course, 
expressing great hope and aspiration for her entry as a freshman into 
college. The plague on children is rampant. This is a simple way of 
addressing the need for ensuring that we have practitioners as well as 
those dealing with judicial personnel and practitioners to be able to 
help children to recount incidences against them.
  I have introduced legislation to address the question of child 
predators as it relates to the DNA, but this particular amendment is 
important because one of the key aspects of preventing child abuse and 
child violence, of course, is to make sure that we can make the case, 
and the case is dependent upon those judicial personnel and 
practitioners who are sensitive enough to be able to engage a child and 
to understand.

                              {time}  1515

  We are always grateful when a child has been recovered, when they 
survive violence and abuse, but we note by a number of our States that 
that has not been the case. We have seen these troubling cases all 
across America, children that have been kidnapped, children that have 
been raped and killed, the Jane Does and the John Does of little babies 
who have suffered.
  Just 24 hours ago there was a story noting the abuse of a 4-month-
old, a sexual abuse of a 4-month-old. So the importance of this 
particular funding is to prevent child violence, prevent child abuse, 
and to be able to provide additional training for the vast number of 
practitioners and judges to be sensitive in their work dealing with 
children.
  We can do more. I hope that we will pass a number of child predator 
bills that are making their way through the Committee on the Judiciary 
and other committees. But, frankly, it is extremely important that we 
look to making a national statement, we are not going to take it 
anymore, a national statement in protecting our children and providing 
them with the kind of legal protection and as well sensitive judges and 
practitioners who will work with them.
  This is not in any way affecting this legislation inasmuch as the 
moneys for the Byrne grant that deal with drug task forces. That 
certainly has my support, even as the President zeroed it out, but my 
support with oversight, an amendment that I will offer at a subsequent 
time. But I ask my colleagues to consider their commitment to 
preventing child abuse and child violence, providing them with 
appropriate counsel and sensitive judiciary to understand their needs 
and to be on the front lines of saying and suggest that this is an 
important cause for America and making a statement.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank the gentlewoman for the amendment. I accept the 
amendment. I want the Record to show that the committee did the best it 
could to fund the Violence against Women. The bill provides $5.4 
million over last year for these programs, and it is $500,000 over the 
President's request. I think the gentlewoman's amendment is good, and I 
accept it. I think we should adopt it. My only concern is where she 
takes the money from. She takes the money from the Justice Assistance 
Grant, the very place that we have had Members down here arguing that 
there is not enough. So if as we move through, I want to do this, if we 
can maybe look to see a different place, but I accept the amendment, 
and I want to thank the gentlewoman for it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman's reasoning, 
and I agree to accept the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me wholeheartedly thank the chairman and the ranking member, and 
I look forward to working with them if we can find an accommodating 
place as we move forward. But I thank them very much.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       Office of Justice Programs


                           Justice Assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the Missing Children's 
     Assistance Act, including salaries and expenses in connection 
     therewith, the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end 
     the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Public Law 
     108-21), and the Victims of Crime Act of 1984, $227,466,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Stearns

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Stearns:
       Page 22, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 81, line 19, after both dollar amounts insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment, and any amendments thereto, conclude by 10 minutes, and that 
the remaining time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and myself, the opponent.

[[Page H4462]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I do not need a lot of time. This is pretty simple, this amendment. 
It is basically an amendment to help our local law enforcement 
community. Mr. Chairman, it basically transfers $10 million from the 
Legal Services Corporation and gives it instead to the Justice 
Assistance Grant, or JAG, program.
  I would like to thank the chairman for funding this critical program, 
especially in light that the administration's budget proposed a zero 
funding. So he is to be commended for funding this program, and I need 
to compliment him on that matter.
  But in my district I have heard from law enforcement officials and 
across the State of Florida about how much this JAG funding helps them 
fight crime, and to protect and serve the citizens within their 
jurisdiction. The JAG program is set to receive about $348 million in 
funding under this bill. It is my hope that an additional, just simply 
an additional $10 million will help increase the numerous and 
substantial benefits under this program.
  The Legal Services Corporation would still receive $321 million, 
which I and many of my colleagues would agree is still a reasonable 
amount of money to provide for legal services to the poor. In addition 
to this Federal subsidy, there are thousands of attorneys across the 
country who provide thousands of hours and hundreds of millions of 
dollars in service pro bono for these people.
  I would be remiss, however, if I did not point out to my colleagues 
that the Legal Services Corporation has been providing free legal 
services to quasi-legal immigrants, despite the fact that we passed a 
restriction in 1996 that barred local legal service groups from using 
Federal money for these activities. This $10 million reduction in Legal 
Services Corporation funding would bring it more in line, of course, 
with the President's request, certainly in spirit.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not an anti-legal service amendment, but merely 
a modest, a simple, modest, amendment to further help our local law 
enforcement combat drugs and fight crime. So I am not asking the Legal 
Services to justify its existence. I am just saying let us make a 
modest attempt here to send a message how important it is to keep the 
JAG program, and I urge my colleagues to support their local law 
enforcement and to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment. I understand what the 
gentleman is trying to do. I just wanted to kind of let people know 
that last year's level for Legal Services was $330 million. At last 
year's level, the corporation and its grantees cannot do anything new. 
The level provided in the bill will not even pay for inflationary 
costs. The corporation actually requested $364 million, but the 
committee had only enough to fund the current level.
  Eighty percent of the legal needs of people in poverty are not 
addressed. We tried to strike a balance with regard to the poor. This 
program helps the poor, and there have been so many good restrictions 
put on the Legal Services under the former leadership of former 
Congressman John Erlenborn. So to take more money away to cut the Legal 
Services Corporation could dramatically impact the ability of low-
income Americans to seek and obtain justice. Justice, justice thou 
shall pursue, and I think this is really an amendment that would hurt 
the poor, so I would hope that we would not accept it. It is not as 
much as they wanted, but it is about where it should be. And with that 
I urge Members to vote ``no.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  This is awful. Can we not find a more vulnerable group in the country 
to take money away from? At a time when the country is rewarding wealth 
by huge high-income tax cuts, surely we can find money for worthy 
purposes someplace other than Legal Services. The fact is the poor 
people, if they are going to participate in the American dream, if they 
are going to participate in the American legal system that we all are 
so proud of, then they have to be able to have support in that effort. 
That is recognized. The whole premise of the Legal Services Corporation 
recognizes that, and its services are totally inadequate.
  Fifty percent of the potential clients were turned away from Legal 
Services and not served at all last year. In West Virginia we are 
turning away 90 percent of the people requesting services. Legal 
Services requested more money than we were able to appropriate to them. 
This is not a place to cut for anything, for law enforcement.
  And the other irony here is where the gentleman finds money to 
support law enforcement, he finds money from folks who are living in 
the communities that need this additional law enforcement. I would 
suggest to him that he go to the high income tax people who have 
received inordinate benefits from the tax cuts we have given them in 
the last 5 years to find his offsets to support the policing that is 
needed most in the communities from where the people who are seeking 
legal services aid in the Legal Services Corporation come from.
  This is a bad amendment. It cuts a program that is desperately needed 
if we expect everybody in the country to participate in the American 
legal system, and we should expect and want and make sure that 
everybody participates in the American legal system that we are all so 
proud of and bragging about.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I heard the argument of my distinguished colleague from West 
Virginia. He is arguing that a 2 percent, 2\1/2\, 2.8 percent cut in 
the Legal Services Corporation is bad, is terrible. Put that in 
perspective. They are getting $321 million. We are just saying take $10 
million out of that and give it to the Justice Assistance Grant 
program, which provides grants to States. And what do these grants do? 
They help the local law enforcement so that they can fight crime, fight 
drugs, and in the end they will not need Legal Services.
  So my point, Mr. Chairman, is if we cannot cut the Legal Services by 
2.8 percent symbolically and give it to a program like the Justice 
Assistance Grant, which is going to help these people so they do not 
need Legal Services, they do not need the government-run legal program, 
because they will be free of crime, then I think we are making a 
mistake.
  So this is a very simple amendment with great symbolic reference here 
that one as a Member can say, I believe in my local community, I want 
to fight crime, I want to give grants to the States so that they can do 
it so that in the end they do not need these legal services. And good 
golly, if we cannot cut the Legal Services Corporation by about 2.8 
percent, then really, Mr. Chairman, we are really not interested in 
trying to even look at fiscal responsibility, much less symbolic 
responsibility for helping our local police sheriffs in all of our 
congressional districts and all the counties throughout this country.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to consider this 
amendment. It is both symbolism and plus it helps the local police 
force. And, goodness gracious, the Legal Services Corporation is going 
to get roughly 2.7 percent less. I think that is a small amount 
considering the administration decided to zero out this program. It is 
only by the grace of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) that this 
program is back in place. So I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment and be on the right side of the angels.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment. Former Congressman John 
Erlenborn did a great job of restraining and bringing some sense to the 
Legal

[[Page H4463]]

Services. Legal Services had an event years ago when I was running, and 
they criticized me. I mean, they were very political, very political, 
and they have changed that now.
  The American Bar Association asked for $364 million. We only did $330 
million. But I think we really need to in this society make sure that 
we are representing the poor, too, when the rich can get 
representation, and it is even difficult for the middle class. And I 
have never been a great fan of Legal Services.

                              {time}  1530

  I have had some serious problems. The fact is, I will try to find the 
tape where they criticized me. But I think this year it is a good 
balance, it is a good level; and I think on behalf of making sure that 
the poor have legal representation, although I understand what the 
gentleman is trying to do, I would ask that we do not support the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman is saying. 
Legal Services has been political at times. The gentleman points out 
cases where they have been. I think it is a commendation to the 
gentleman, in light of the fact of how they politicize things, he is 
still here arguing for a complete budget. I am asking for a 2.7 percent 
reduction, on behalf of the communities.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Thornberry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns) will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


               State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) (``the 1994 
     Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (``the 1968 Act''); and the Victims of Trafficking and 
     Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-386); and 
     other programs; $1,001,296,000 (including amounts for 
     administrative costs, which shall be transferred to and 
     merged with the ``Justice Assistance'' account): Provided, 
     That funding provided under this heading shall remain 
     available until expended, as follows--
       (1) $348,466,000 for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 
     Assistance Grant program pursuant to the amendments made by 
     section 201 of H.R. 3036 of the 108th Congress, as passed by 
     the House of Representatives on March 30, 2004 (except that 
     the special rules for Puerto Rico established pursuant to 
     such amendments shall not apply for purposes of this Act), of 
     which--
       (A) $10,000,000 is for the National Institute of Justice in 
     assisting units of local government to identify, select, 
     develop, modernize, and purchase new technologies for use by 
     law enforcement; and
       (B) $85,000,000 for Boys and Girls Clubs in public housing 
     facilities and other areas in cooperation with State and 
     local law enforcement, as authorized by section 401 of Public 
     Law 104-294 (42 U.S.C. 13751 note);
       (2) $355,000,000 for the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
     Program, as authorized by section 242(j) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act;
       (3) $30,000,000 for the Southwest Border Prosecutor 
     Initiative to reimburse State, county, parish, tribal, or 
     municipal governments only for costs associated with the 
     prosecution of criminal cases declined by local United States 
     Attorneys offices;
       (4) $110,000,000 for discretionary grants authorized by 
     subpart 2 of part E, of title I of the 1968 Act, 
     notwithstanding the provisions of section 511 of said Act;
       (5) $10,000,000 for victim services programs for victims of 
     trafficking, as authorized by section 107(b)(2) of Public Law 
     106-386;
       (6) $871,000 for the Missing Alzheimer's Disease Patient 
     Alert Program, as authorized by section 240001(c) of the 1994 
     Act;
       (7) $40,000,000 for Drug Courts, as authorized by Part EE 
     of the 1968 Act;
       (8) $10,000,000 for a prescription drug monitoring program;
       (9) $40,000,000 for prison rape prevention and prosecution 
     programs, as authorized by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 
     2003 (Public Law 108-79), of which $2,175,000 shall be 
     transferred to the National Prison Rape Elimination 
     Commission for authorized activities;
       (10) $25,000,000 for grants for residential substance abuse 
     treatment for State prisoners, as authorized by part S of the 
     1968 Act;
       (11) $10,359,000 for a program to improve State and local 
     law enforcement intelligence capabilities including 
     antiterrorism training and training to ensure that 
     constitutional rights, civil liberties, civil rights, and 
     privacy interests are protected throughout the intelligence 
     process;
       (12) $10,000,000 for a capital litigation improvement grant 
     program; and
       (13) $11,600,000 for a cannabis eradication program to be 
     administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration:

     Provided, That, if a unit of local government uses any of the 
     funds made available under this title to increase the number 
     of law enforcement officers, the unit of local government 
     will achieve a net gain in the number of law enforcement 
     officers who perform nonadministrative public safety service.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Dreier

  Mr. Dreier. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Dreier:
       Page 22, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 23, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 45, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 46, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 46, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment, and any amendments thereto, conclude by 10 minutes, and that 
the time be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) will each control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, securing our borders is clearly the responsibility of 
the Federal Government. We have had a program that was initiated in 
1994 called the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP. It has 
done a very good job of reimbursing the States for the appropriate 
incarceration of illegal immigrant criminals, people who have come into 
this country illegally and committed crimes. We have, unfortunately, 
seen not the kind of increase in that level of reimbursement that we 
should, so this amendment proposes that we transfer an additional $50 
million from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration 
to the SCAAP program.
  I congratulate the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the 
committee for putting into place funding at the level of $355 million. 
I do not believe that that is adequate.
  I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), and 
the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis), in support of this very important effort to 
have the Federal Government step up to the plate and ensure that we 
meet our responsibility.
  In my County of Los Angeles alone, it costs $150 million a year for 
the incarceration of these criminals, and I believe that we need to 
provide more resources. I hope very much that my colleagues join in 
support of this important amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, I support the 
amendment, so in fairness I ask unanimous consent to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Maryland (Gilchrest) and 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the time will be divided as stated.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California has a good point. We were 
down in El Salvador 2 weeks ago and they told us they were pouring 
across

[[Page H4464]]

the border, members of MS-13 and gang members. We met with gang members 
who told us they came across, got arrested, got into prison, and went 
back. It is a tremendous burden not only for my region, but also for 
California, Texas, Arizona, and the entire country. So I understand the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to express my 
appreciation to the distinguished subcommittee chairman and 
congratulate him on his fine work, not only on this issue but the very 
important NASA programs about which we spoke earlier.
  I think this $50 million amount, which enjoys the support, I know, of 
the distinguished chairman of the full committee, is the right thing to 
do. In bringing about this reduction from NOAA, we have seen a 53 
percent increase in NOAA's administrative expenses over the last 3 
years, and we have seen a constant reduction in the SCAAP funding. So I 
believe this is the appropriate thing to do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  I want to compliment the gentleman from California on this amendment 
and I understand the gravity of the situation. I just wish the money 
did not come out of NOAA. If we look at NOAA's budget this year, it is 
millions of dollars below where it was last year.
  Let us take a look at what that section of NOAA has to deal with: the 
effect of oceans on climate; the effect of oceans on the air we 
breathe; weather patterns that direct where the forests, deserts and 
agriculture are going to be; the effect on aquaculture and fish farming 
on the natural environment in the ocean; ocean currents that distribute 
the heat and the balance of the planet.
  The ocean currents right now are beginning to slow down in the North 
Atlantic because of a redistribution of salt and fresh water in the 
ocean. The magnitude of the impact on that on the northeastern parts of 
the United States and Western Europe, if you look at London, on the 
same latitude as Labrador, the climate is like the State of Maryland. 
Finally, red tides, poisonous, deadly to humans, but do not impact the 
shellfish.
  The huge magnitude of the research that is lacking now as a result of 
our lack of understanding of oceans on life on planet Earth is 
staggering. NOAA should be at the same level of funding and have the 
same understanding in our educational institutes as NASA.
  So I compliment the gentleman in trying to fix this terrible problem 
with our border crossings and the criminal activity that results all 
across the United States, but the issue of our oceans I do not think is 
adequately being addressed.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, let me compliment the gentleman on his 
statement. I totally concur with those goals. The gentleman has never 
let me forget the importance of keeping oceans as a priority.
  The fact of the matter is, as we look at the $5.7 billion budget 
request for the Department of Commerce, 63 percent of that budget 
request is for NOAA, which we know is critically important. I do not in 
any way undermine the importance of it. I do believe, though, if you 
look at this $50 million in administrative expenses, this is something 
that clearly could be handled very, very easily within that massive 
budget of NOAA.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the 
full committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise only to express my 
strong support for the Dreier-Kolbe amendment, which recognizes that 
Congress has a long-standing understanding of the fact that the 
difficulties of immigration, the challenges of illegal immigration 
especially, are a Federal responsibility.
  What the gentleman is proposing is not creating a grant program, but 
rather reimbursing for funds already spent to meet the challenge of our 
borders. Indeed, it is very important that we move forward in terms of 
funding. This $50 million amount raises the total to $405 million, only 
about 25 cents on the dollar relative to the national cost. It is a 
very important change.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge everybody to support the Dreier-Kolbe amendment, 
and I thank the gentlemen for their work.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dreier amendment, not 
because I am opposed to the intent of the amendment, but rather opposed 
because of the source of funding that he has taken. We have already 
increased in this bill the funding for the cause he is trying to 
increase, namely, incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. We have 
already added $54 million, which is an 18 percent increase over last 
year. At the same time, NOAA has been cut $500 million.
  Let me say that again: NOAA has been cut $500 million below last 
year's number in this bill, and I fail to understand the logic of 
stealing more money from NOAA when it has already been cut $500 
million.
  I appreciate that this comes from administrative expenses, but at a 
certain point that has got to cut into the science. NOAA, as we know, 
provides crucial services to this country. Each year we cope with on 
average 10,000 thunderstorms, 2,500 floods, 1,000 tornadoes, as well as 
six deadly hurricanes. The National Weather Service alone pays for 
itself over and over in terms of the protection it gives to people and 
to property.
  So as much as I sympathize with the intent of the gentleman from 
California, I think it is a poor choice of where to take the money 
from. Why would one take an additional $54 million away from an entity 
that has already been cut $500 million in this budget compared to last 
year?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge that we oppose the amendment and that we defeat 
the amendment. I know I am up against tough company here with the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules and the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, but I would be happy to help the gentleman try to find 
some other areas.
  Why take it out of science? The National Science Foundation was cut 
last year, the worst cut in almost 2 decades; and now we are proceeding 
to cut NASA, another science agency. At some point we have to recognize 
that the future of this country is directly tied to our research 
effort, and our research effort is dependent upon funding that we 
provide here.
  I urge opposition to the Dreier amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the way the time was divided up, the 
minority got no time in opposition to this amendment. Therefore, I ask 
unanimous consent for 8 additional minutes, to be divided equally 
between the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and myself.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment 
is not a benign amendment. It is an anti-ocean amendment. Understand, 
it is really not an amendment fighting immigration on the border; it is 
a reimbursement amendment. I will be corrected if I am wrong in my 
interpretation, but it is a reimbursement amendment to States who have 
expended money on incarceration of illegal aliens. My point is that as 
it is a reimbursement to States, it is not for fighting on-the-line 
illegal immigration.
  Secondly, Mr. Chairman, it is not benign in a very important way: the 
House mark already cuts the NOAA budget by over $486 million from the 
2005 enacted levels and $153 million from the President's request. So 
NOAA in this bill is already feeling the pain, along with a lot of the 
other accounts, because of our inadequate allocation.
  This amendment is extremely difficult to NOAA for a lot of reasons.

[[Page H4465]]

First and foremost, just looking at it overall, this amendment would 
result in RIFs to NOAA. Over 100 employees, NOAA employees, government 
employees, would be affected, would be RIF'd by this amendment, and 
over 200 nongovernmental researchers and staff. This comes from 
operations, a lot of this money, Mr. Chairman; and it would have a real 
employee impact.
  These are some of the operations it would cut, and they include 
research: $5 million from the NOAA core and program support; $12 
million from the National Marine Fisheries Service. It is certainly a 
very anti-ocean amendment: $8 million from the National Oceans Service; 
$3 million from the National Environmental Satellite Data and 
Information Service; $7 million from the Oceanic, Atmospheric and 
Research Activities; and, extremely important, and we ought to 
understand as we deal with this amendment, it would involve a $14.9 
million, almost a $15 million, reduction out of operations for the 
National Weather Service Hurricane and Other Severe Weather Warnings.
  As I said in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It 
is not benign. It has a lot of very harmful effects on NOAA, an 
organization that has already experienced its fair share of pain as we 
moved this bill to the floor.
  Again, this bill has been well balanced. For those agencies, the pain 
has been spread evenly. For us to go in and start having these kinds of 
severe cuts in agencies like NOAA is very harmful.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair, I was a little 
confused by this unanimous consent request propounded by the ranking 
minority member, and I do not know how much time I have remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) now has 7 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. I began with 5 minutes, and now I have 7 minutes. That 
sounds like a pretty good arrangement from my perspective.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the coauthor of this 
amendment and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I do rise in support of this amendment, cognizant as I am of the 
arguments we have just heard against it and the source of the funding, 
and on recognizing the importance of science. I do not think there is a 
more important priority than we have right now than this law 
enforcement.
  My district in southeastern Arizona shares about 100 miles of the 
U.S.-Mexico border. The communities along this border suffer the brunt 
of our failed national immigration policies. Last year Border Patrol 
apprehensions within one county, Cochise County, Arizona, alone, were 
more than 240,000 persons. The entire county has a population of 
124,000 people. It is not difficult to imagine the strain on local 
resources caused by the incredible traffic of people trying to enter 
this country illegally through this relatively small section of the 
border. Local law enforcement must protect communities against 
increasingly dangerous traffickers; detention facilities must hold 
criminal aliens that cannot be held in Federal facilities.
  The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, better known as SCAAP, 
provides reimbursements to State and local governments for part of the 
cost of incarcerating foreign nationals who are criminal aliens. The 
amendment offered by my colleague from California and me would increase 
the amount of funding for this critical program by $50 million. I would 
point out that every dollar we do not appropriate here is a dollar that 
is not spent by local law enforcement in the streets on law enforcement 
because they are having to spend it on prosecutions or incarceration 
costs.
  Border security clearly is a Federal responsibility, and from fiscal 
year 1996 through 2002, Congress appropriated over $500 million per 
year for SCAAP. But over the past few years, the funding has dropped 
dramatically, placing greater burdens on local communities, when the 
population of the criminal aliens is only increasing.
  I appreciate the constraints placed on my colleague, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) with the very limited allocation that he 
has. I strongly believe, however, that Congress has to place a high 
priority on border security, and we must assist States and communities 
who are suffering the brunt of this burden.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Dreier-Kolbe amendment 
and then the underlying bill.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia has 1 minute 
remaining; the gentleman from California has 5 minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from West Virginia has the right to close.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say that it appears that my very good 
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), is going to oppose 
this amendment, and I share the concern that has been raised about the 
issue of the funding for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 
Administration. I think that oceans continue to be a high priority.
  We need to look at the funding level that we have at this point. As I 
was saying in my exchange with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest), if you look at the $5.7 billion request that has been made 
for the Department of Commerce budget, 63 percent of that budget goes 
towards NOAA. It seems to me that as we look at a responsible area 
where we can take funds and deal with this critical priority of having 
the Federal Government step up to the plate and secure its border, this 
$50 million from administrative expenses is a minuscule amount 
juxtaposed to the impact that it could have on this priority.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and I have had the privilege 
of cochairing the California congressional delegation. I am very happy 
to say that since 1994, when the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
Program funding was put into place, we have been able to come together. 
Every single Democrat in the House and Senate from California has 
joined every single Republican in this House to support increased 
levels of funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. In 
fact, just last year when we had a request for $750 million, our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle requested an additional $100 
million. It would be nice if we could provide that support, but as the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) pointed out, we in this 
bill, very well crafted by the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), 
have $355 million, and our sole request is that we increase that from 
$355 million to $405 million.
  So I urge strong support of this measure.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), another coauthor of this amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I thank the gentlemen for bringing this forward, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier). This is very important. That is why in Arizona we will find 
overwhelming support for this Republican and Democrat amendment. We 
simply in Arizona are dealing with a porous border, and we are dealing 
with costs that we can do nothing about in Arizona.
  It is the Federal Government's responsibility to secure the border. 
The Federal Government has not secured the border. Hospitals are 
incurring costs. Education is incurring costs. Law enforcement, 
specifically for this, is incurring great cost, and if the Federal 
Government is failing to secure the border, it is the Federal 
Government's responsibility to pony up. This represents still just 
pennies on the dollar of what are spent in Arizona, California, and 
other border States in particular, but at least it is something. At 
least it is something.
  President Bush, himself a former border Governor, said in 1995, ``If 
the Federal Government cannot do its job enforcing the borders, then it 
owes the States monies to pay for its failure.'' That is what we are 
asking for here.

[[Page H4466]]

SCAAP just reimburses States and localities for incurred costs for 
incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. That is what we are asking 
for here, simply a little fairness. We need broader reform.
  Myself and my colleagues have offered broader, meaningful immigration 
reform that will deal with this in the long term, but, in the short 
term, we need to do something for the border States in particular.
  I commend my colleagues for bringing this forward, and I urge support 
for this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) has 1 minute 
remaining; the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. The gentleman from West Virginia has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. He does have the right to close.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to close on our side, but I 
yield 10 seconds to my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, I would like to say 
that the oceans are an important aspect of funding, but I want to say 
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) have a very critical issue that needs to be 
addressed as well.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very clear, if you take my State of California, 
the annual cost for the incarceration of those who are here illegally 
and who have committed crimes is about $750 million. That is for one 
State alone. This is a nationwide problem, as we all know. All we are 
proposing is that we increase from $355 million to $405 million the 
effort to bring about reimbursement so that the resources at the State 
level, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) said, can be expended 
on the very important problems of dealing with the crime in the 
streets. We need to make sure the Federal Government secures our 
borders.
  I thank my friends, the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), 
the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for 
joining me as cosponsors of this.
  Oceans are a priority, but I believe we can take this minuscule 
amount and deal with this very, very important societal need.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of our amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, as I yield to another gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr) to close, I note that the minuscule amount 
results in 100 RIFs out of NOAA.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, not because SCAAP is 
not a good idea to fully fund, and I support that, but not taking it 
from NOAA. What you are doing here is choosing to cut California to 
help California, and choosing to cut California results in cutting what 
is essentially the largest population in the entire United States 
living on the California coastline. They develop, on all of the issues 
of the marine sanctuaries, the research that goes on, of the students 
that go out on the NOAA ships, all of these funds are going to be 
affected by this cut.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of things we can do about SCAAP, and I 
strongly support more funding, but I think California can do a better 
job of trying those cases in Mexico where they have been successful in 
incarcerating and gotten 100 percent conviction in courts in Mexico, 
which are a lot cheaper than incarcerating them in California. This $50 
million cut really wipes out NOAA. The committee already cut half a 
billion dollars from NOAA, and to add another $50 million, which RIFs 
100 people, a lot of those people live in California.
  This is a bad amendment because of what it attempts to cut, and I 
would strongly oppose it and ask my colleagues to defeat the Dreier 
amendment.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dreier/Kolbe 
amendment that would increase funding for the State Criminal Alien 
Assistance Program (SCAAP) by $50 million. This is an extremely 
important issue to the people of California, because now Californians 
pay a disproportionate amount of the costs of incarcerating criminal 
aliens. SCAAP reimburses state and local governments for some of these 
costs.
  States do not hold authority over national immigration policy, and 
they should not shoulder the burden of paying for criminal alien 
incarceration. It is the responsibility of the Federal government to 
ensure the security of our borders. Because undocumented aliens pose a 
great risk to our national security, the Federal government should bear 
the costs.
  I thank Congressmen David Dreier and Jim Kolbe for introducing this 
amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
will be postponed.


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XX, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order:
  Amendment offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin; amendment offered by Mr. 
Terry of Nebraska; amendment offered by Ms. Velazquez of New York; 
amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Reichert of Washington; amendment No. 
16 offered by Mr. Stearns of Florida; and amendment No. 3 offered by 
Mr. Dreier of California.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 230, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 244]

                               AYES--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gohmert
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman

[[Page H4467]]


     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--230

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

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Cox
     Hinojosa
     Oberstar
     Peterson (PA)
     Rothman
     Sessions
     Strickland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the vote). Members 
are advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1622

  Messrs. BRADY of Pennsylvania, BARRETT of South Carolina, CONAWAY, 
BASS, MURPHY, MILLER of North Carolina, COSTA, Ms. WATERS, Mr. BOREN 
and Mr. ORTIZ changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HONDA, SIMMONS, FOSSELLA, McCRERY, CUELLAR, RAHALL, DANIEL E. 
LUNGREN of California, FATTAH and LARSON of Connecticut changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Terry

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 252, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 245]

                               AYES--175

     Ackerman
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brown (OH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutknecht
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lynch
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Napolitano
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--252

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carter
     Castle
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Nunes
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry

[[Page H4468]]


     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cox
     Hinojosa
     Oberstar
     Rothman
     Sessions
     Strickland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1632

  Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. HOLT, Mr. SNYDER, Ms. 
HARMAN, Ms. BEAN, Mr. DINGELL, and Mr. WAXMAN changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ORTIZ and Mrs. EMERSON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 234, 
noes 189, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 246]

                               AYES--234

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     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)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Renzi
     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
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--189

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Crenshaw
     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)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Conyers
     Cox
     Hinojosa
     McCrery
     Oberstar
     Rothman
     Ryan (WI)
     Sessions
     Strickland
     Tancredo


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1640

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Reichert

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Reichert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 130, 
noes 297, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 247]

                               AYES--130

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Carnahan
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     DeGette
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Slaughter

[[Page H4469]]


     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Tanner
     Terry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Weiner
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--297

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cox
     Hinojosa
     Oberstar
     Rothman
     Sessions
     Strickland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1649

  Mr. GRAVES and Mr. KUCINICH changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Baird

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 260, 
noes 168, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 248]

                               AYES--260

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutknecht
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--168

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carter
     Clay
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Tom
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     English (PA)
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kelly
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Nunes
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)

[[Page H4470]]


     Sodrel
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hinojosa
     Oberstar
     Rothman
     Sessions
     Strickland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1658

  Mr. SERRANO and Ms. LEE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. REICHERT and Mr. DENT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Stearns

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 112, 
noes 316, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 249]

                               AYES--112

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Boehner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Brady (TX)
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Cox
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--316

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Hinojosa
     Oberstar
     Rothman
     Sessions
     Strickland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes 
remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1707

  Mr. SCHWARZ of Michigan and Mr. BISHOP of Georgia changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MARCHANT and Mr. SODREL changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Dreier

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231, 
noes 195, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 250]

                               AYES--231

     Akin
     Baca
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Evans
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)

[[Page H4471]]


     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Souder
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--195

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Feeney
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gilchrest
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bachus
     Fattah
     Gutierrez
     Hinojosa
     Oberstar
     Sessions
     Strickland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes 
remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1716

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I was briefly absent from this Chamber 
today and inadvertently missed rollcall vote 250. I would like the 
Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on 
rollcall vote 250.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Thornberry). Are there further amendments to 
this section of the bill?


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of new jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       Page 22, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $21,947,600)''.
       Page 23, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $21,947,600)''.
       Page 65, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $21,947,600)''.

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, the budget of the United 
Nations currently stands at $3.7 billion. The contribution from the 
United States, or actually the contribution from the United States 
taxpayers, is almost a quarter of that, $439 million. The amendment 
that is before us deals with just less than 1/10 of 1 percent of that 
entire U.N. budget.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to simply take that .6 percent of 
the U.N. budget from the U.S. assessments towards the U.N. and put 
those funds into a program that we have talked about earlier, the 
Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant 
Program. As we have talked previously on this floor, this is a law 
enforcement assistance grant program that works in partnership with 
Federal, State, and local governments with the objective of creating a 
safer community for all of us. It does that by awarding grants to 
States and local communities and counties and local governments to help 
improve their functioning of their criminal justice systems, and it 
does it with an emphasis on violent crime and serious offenders.
  What can this money be used for? It can go to provide for personnel, 
equipment, training, technical assistance, and information systems for 
more widespread apprehension, prosecution, adjudication, detention, and 
rehab of offenders who violate both State and local laws.
  Since September 11 this grant program has been a significant program 
for law enforcement. As the chairman knows, I represent the Fifth 
District of New Jersey, an area just outside of Ground Zero in New York 
City, an area that is all too aware of the need to have increased law 
enforcement and to deal with the prospects of terrorist attack.
  How much money are we talking about? The total sum of this transfer 
is a little under $22 million. And as I said before, the entire United 
Nations budget is $3.7 billion. So we are talking about .6 percent, a 
little less than 1 percent, of the overall U.N. budget to do this. But 
with that little tiny bit of money, it will translate into a 6.3 
percent increase for this purpose, not enough for every law enforcement 
need throughout the country, but enough to meet the numerous needs that 
are not being met right now.
  Mr. Chairman, later in this week we will be dealing with U.N. reform 
and pointing out that the U.N. has not lived up to its original 
charter. That charter sets out that the U.N.'s job is preventing war 
and maintaining world peace. There have been over 300 wars since 1945, 
when the U.N. was created. Twenty-two million people have died. 
Obviously, it is not living up to its full potential. In part it is 
because of its bloated bureaucracy, its inefficiency, and its bad 
management in so many different ways, an untold amount of wasted 
dollars at the U.N. The United Nations cannot even come up with the 
definition of what terrorism is. But let me tell the Members, Mr. 
Chairman, after September 11, local law enforcement agents in my 
district in New Jersey can tell us what terrorism is because they have 
seen it firsthand.
  So I offer this amendment today to make sure that they have all the 
tools necessary to keep our citizens safe at home.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I am going to accept the amendment, but I know there is going to be 
another amendment later that cuts $200 million out.
  Secondly, I think the membership should know that in our bill last 
year, we had language setting up the Gingrich-Mitchell Reform Task 
Force, which is making their report, I believe,

[[Page H4472]]

tomorrow or the next day, and they had some fairly dramatic 
recommendations to reform the U.N., and I think that is really the way 
to go.
  Thirdly, while it is true the U.N. has failed in Srebrenica, they 
failed in Sarajevo, they failed in Rwanda, and they are failing in 
Darfur, the recommendations of the Gingrich-Mitchell can make a large 
difference.
  Lastly, the peacekeepers that we have in some places, for instance, 
the peacekeepers in Sudan, keep American men and women, military, from 
being on the ground. So I would urge Members, where we are going to 
accept the amendment, to look at the Gingrich-Mitchell recommendations 
which will be coming out this week which will be dramatically reforming 
the U.N. on a bipartisan basis.
  So having said that, I accept the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have amendment at the desk, and I will offer it and 
withdraw it.
  My amendment designates $1.2 million out of the overall census budget 
for research on migration to improve demographic analysis and 
population estimates.
  When the 2000 census count was announced, there was a great deal of 
confusion at Census Bureau. Demographic analysis, which has been the 
gold standard for measuring error in the census, and which had showed a 
substantial net undercount in the census for 50 years, showed an 
overcount. The population estimates, which had been used to distribute 
funds throughout the decade, missed almost 8 million people. There was 
a simple explanation for this. The Census Bureau assumptions on net 
migration into the country were wrong. The Census Bureau is now asking 
Congress for additional funds to do the research necessary to correct 
these estimates.
  Measuring error in the census and providing population estimates for 
the distribution of funds are part of the core mission of the Bureau. 
Improvements in those activities should be funded before anything else. 
I am disappointed that this research has not been funded. I will, 
however, withdraw this amendment, and I hope that the chairman and 
ranking member will work to see that the necessary research gets done 
before the 2010 census.
  The Census Bureau has at times wasted money on gadgets and 
promotional items instead of basic research. We need to direct their 
efforts back to basic research, such as the demographic analysis.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk which would increase 
the funding for investigation and prosecution of consumer identity 
fraud.
  Approximately 10 million people a year are being victimized by 
identity theft. Last year's business and financial institutions lost 
about $52 billion, and consumers lost about $5 billion due to identity 
theft.
  Too little is being done to effectively address consumer identity 
theft and credit card fraud. Presently what happens is the credit card 
companies just simply wipe out the debt, but the fees are not never 
appropriately pursued. The problem is that the laws we have on the 
books are not being adequately enforced due to insufficient 
investigative and prosecutorial resources. While the Department of 
Justice devotes some resources towards identity theft, it is not a high 
priority due to inadequate resources, and so the thieves practice their 
wares with impunity.
  Mr. Chairman, last year we passed legislation which authorized money 
for consumer identity theft enforcement. We have not properly funded 
that, and this amendment would go a long way into properly funding it. 
I understand, however, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from Virginia 
(Chairman Wolf) has expressed some concerns about the offsets and the 
funding level in the bill already, and I would ask the chairman if he 
would work with us to make sure that the funding of identity theft is 
properly done under the bill between now, over in the Senate, and in 
conference.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, he has my commitment to that. This is a very 
important issue, and we can work together.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
chairman for his commitment.
  And with that, I will not offer the amendment, but will be working to 
make sure that consumer identity theft investigation and prosecution is 
properly funded under the bill.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Marchant) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thornberry, Acting Chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________