[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 80 (Thursday, June 16, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4580-H4607]
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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2862.

                              {time}  1149


                     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 further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, June 
15, 2005, the amendment by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) had 
been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 108, line 7.


                  Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Paul

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

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Paul:
       Page 108, after line 7, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay any United States contribution to the United 
     Nations or any affiliated agency of the United Nations.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have is very simple, and it tells us 
exactly what it does, so I am just going to read it. It says, ``None of 
the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay any United 
States contribution to the United Nations or any affiliated agency of 
the United Nations.''
  So, very simply, a vote for my amendment would be a vote to defund 
the United Nations, and it would be a policy statement, obviously. We 
have had some debate already on the United Nations, and we will be 
having another debate either later today or tomorrow dealing with 
reform of the United Nations. Yesterday we had a vote dealing with 
removing half of the funding from the United Nations. This would be in 
the same direction, but it would remove all of the funding.
  The United Nations has been under serious attack, and most Americans 
know there is a big problem with the United Nations. There is 
corruption involved with the oil-for-food scandal, as well as the abuse 
of human rights. There are a lot of people who believe that we can 
reform the United Nations and make it much more responsive to our 
principles. I do not happen to share that belief.
  I have been a longtime opponent of the United Nations not so much 
because of the goals they seek, but because of their failure to reach 
these goals, as well as the attack on our national sovereignty. For me, 
it is a sovereignty issue, and that is the reason that I believe that 
it does not serve our interests to be in the United Nations, and we 
should make a statement for the many Americans who share that 
particular view.
  But I would like to take a little bit of this time right now to 
relate my position on the United Nations with the bill that is coming 
up later today or tomorrow, and that is the reform bill. The reform 
bill is very controversial. We already have former Republican and 
Democrat ambassadors, Secretaries of State who are in opposition to 
this, and our own President has expressed opposition to this. It is not 
for the same reasons that I am opposed to that reform bill, but they 
are opposed to it because there is a threat of cutting some funding.

[[Page H4581]]

  But in their attack on the reform bill, they do say they support the 
policy changes. That is what I would like to emphasize here. Most 
people see the reform bill as a mere threat to the United Nations to 
shape up, or we are going to cut half of their funds. Yesterday we had 
a much more straightforward vote, because if you, also, believe in true 
reform, all those supporters of the reform bill should have supported 
the Hayworth amendment and just flat out cut half of the funding. But 
the reform bill says that, well, if you do certain things, we are going 
to give you your money. Of course, those who really like the U.N. find 
that offensive and think that is too intrusive on the functioning of 
the United Nations.
  But I, quite frankly, do not believe that if the U.N. reform bill 
gets anyplace, that there is any way, since the President is opposed to 
it and so many individuals are opposed to it, that any funds will ever 
be cut. But I do believe a bill could get passed, and, that bill, also 
changes policy, which I think that too many of my conservative 
colleagues on this side of the aisle have failed to look at, and that 
is what I am concerned about, the policy changes.
  So instead of tightening up the reins and the financial control of 
the United Nations and getting them to act more efficiently and 
effectively, what they are doing, if they do not have the ability to 
really strike the 50 percent, the bill institutionalizes new policy 
changes.
  I want to just mention the policies that I believe that are risky, 
especially if you are interested in protecting our national 
sovereignty.
  The first thing it would do is it would change the definition of 
terrorism as related to United Nations, and it would change the ability 
and the responsibility of the United Nations to become involved. Today 
it is currently understood that if there is an invasion of one country 
by another, the United Nations is called up, and they assume 
responsibility, and then they can put in troops to do whatever they 
think is necessary. But if this new policy is adopted, it will 
literally institutionalize the policy that was used by our own 
government to go into Iraq, and that is preemptive war, preemptive 
strikes, to go in and either support an insurgency, or in order to get 
rid of a regime, or vice versa. This is a significant change and an 
expansion of U.N. authority. I, quite frankly, think that this is a 
move in the wrong direction.
  Also, the Peacebuilding Commission, I think, is very risky, and also 
something that we should look at.
  So not only do I urge my colleagues to vote for my resolution to 
defund the United Nations, I urge my colleagues to look very cautiously 
at the U.N. reform bill, because there is a lot more in there than one 
might think. The one thing we do not need is John Bolton and Paul 
Wolfowitz, the authors of our policy for regime change in Iraq, in 
charge of the same policy in the U.N.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment amounts to a complete rejection of the 
United States' engagement with the United Nations and many other 
nations of the world.
  Last year this bill created a high-level task force to review the 
efforts of the United Nations. This task force was chaired by former 
Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and former Majority Leader Senator 
Mitchell, and the task force came out with its recommendations 
yesterday. They are fairly dramatic, which will mandate, if you will, 
and force the United Nations to make dramatic change. Hopefully the 
Bush administration will embrace the Gingrich-Mitchell recommendations 
that will then be adopted by the United Nations when they meet in 
September.
  As the chairman knows, we initiated this task force because of the 
U.N.'s lack of involvement on the Darfur, Sudan, issue, the sexual 
exploitation of young girls by U.N. peacekeepers, and the oil-for-food 
scandal. If we were not participating at all, we would not be able to 
put pressure on the U.N. to do the right thing with regard to Darfur. 
Genocide is taking place in Darfur as we now speak. Also, the U.N. will 
be sending peacekeepers to the North-South Sudanese peacekeeping 
agreements, and, as my colleagues know, better than 2.1 million people, 
mainly Christian, some Muslim, died at the hands of the Khartoum 
government as a result of their activities for the North. Also, Sudan 
is involved in terrorist activities, and we need to be able to put 
pressure on the Sudanese.
  Not speaking boldly in an effort to force the U.N. to do something on 
this issue, the genocide in Darfur, and also to be able to implement 
and monitor, not with American soldiers, but with U.N. peacekeepers in 
Sudan, would be a mistake.
  As the gentleman knows, we already have cut the administration 
request for international organizations by $130 million; therefore, 
essentially we are already recommending holding back any growth of the 
U.N. Lastly, as the gentleman from Texas says, the Hyde bill will be 
coming up shortly after this bill, and that is where you should address 
these issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has 
expired.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. How much time remains, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise in joining the chairman in opposition to this amendment, and I 
hope the same majority of our colleagues reject this amendment this 
year as did last year. I would note that this is the same or an 
extremely similar amendment that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) 
introduced last year and was defeated by a 83-to-355 vote majority.

                              {time}  1200

  I hope that the body takes the same position with regard to this 
amendment this year as it did last. At a time when the United States is 
involved in a war against global terrorism, at a time when the 
international economic community is becoming increasingly integrated 
and the world is becoming increasingly smaller and we are increasingly 
bumping up against our friends and adversaries around the world, this 
is no time to do away with the organization.
  However imperfect it may be, that brings together all of those 
divergent political interests, all those divergent countries, all those 
divergent political philosophies that represent people around the 
world. We need to bring people closer to us so that we can debate them, 
so that we can fight them in the context of a civilized body, rather 
than going out and fighting them in wars. That is what the U.N., at its 
best represents. That is what we ought to be aspiring to, that is, 
perfecting the U.N., making it better, dealing with its imperfections 
instead of doing away with it.
  We are lucky to have the U.N. in that sense. We are also fortunate to 
be a powerful enough country to influence the U.N. for the better 
because of the size of our contribution. If we were to withdraw our 
contribution, there is no doubt that that whole process would unravel. 
That would be a tragedy.
  For all the above reasons, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's 
amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6, rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hefley:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

[[Page H4582]]

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby 
     reduced in the amount of $570,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise again today to offer this amendment to cut the 
level of funding in this appropriation bill by approximately 1 percent. 
This would equal $570 million. As you well know, I have offered this 
amendment on a number of bills this year and in prior years. And I 
understand the difficulty that the appropriators have with narrowing 
down the requests from Members and from the administration; and 
although this committee has done an excellent job on this, and I 
understand also that the committee will oppose me and beat me into 
submission, I will whimper and go away.
  But I still think the point needs to be made that we need to begin to 
really draw the line, and the projected deficit is simply too large. We 
could do something about the deficit. Now, this will not solve it by 
any means if we did 1 percent. I mean, we are talking one cent on the 
dollar, and that will not solve it. But it would tell the American 
public that at least we are concerned about the deficit and we are 
willing to do something significant in that direction.
  I have no doubt that some of the good programs in this bill would 
take a cut, and that is unfortunate. But the budget should be no 
different from the taxpayers' budgets at home. When you have less 
money, you spend less money. It is really as simple as that, although 
we all know it is not really simple. It is a difficult thing to do.
  I would ask for support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Colorado's 
(Mr. Hefley) amendment.
  As the gentleman can see, and I have great respect for the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). I know what he is trying to do, and I want 
to acknowledge that. As the gentleman can see from the debate and the 
other amendments offered on the bill, many Members feel the funding for 
the whole host of programs in this bill is already inadequate. In fact, 
all the amendments, most that we have been able to reject, have been to 
add money into the bill. The one that was accepted by the body was the 
one to add $73 million in for 7(a) loan programs which nobody in the 
country wants or needs. So the gentleman can see the trend that things 
are moving.
  The budget resolution passed by the Congress has imposed upon us a 
very restrictive spending climate. This amendment constitutes attempts 
to reopen the decisions we already made in the budget resolution. The 
bill we are considering today stays within the budget resolution 
framework and represents a lot of hard work and difficult decisions to 
match limited funds to competing national priorities. A number of 
accounts in the bill are funded very close to the bone and a reduction 
of 1 percent in many salaries and expenses would have a dramatic effect 
on the FBI, DEA, ATF, Marshals Service.
  And so for those reasons, respecting what the gentleman is trying to 
do, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of time to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman knows that I have the 
greatest respect and friendship for him and for all the tremendous work 
that he does in this body. But I must rise and oppose this across-the-
board cut. First of all, I oppose across-the-board cuts generally 
because they are indiscriminate, and I think anybody who supports 
across-the-board cuts has to admit that the cuts are bound to affect 
some good programs, even in their judgment, as well as adversely affect 
programs that the author of the amendment may not fully appreciate.
  Having said that, I hope that the body judges this amendment in the 
same way it has in past years and on other bills and expresses its 
concern for the offering of across-the-board cuts generally. But having 
said that, I think that if the gentleman is not successful, if he does 
not prevail on his amendment, he should feel good for the same reasons 
I feel bad about this bill, and that is that it represents a huge 
number of cuts much greater than 1 percent on programs that I consider 
to be extremely worthy and that I would hope the chairmen of the sub 
and full committees, as well as ranking, would consider the same.
  NASA is increased by 2 percent, the Justice Department by 4 percent, 
and the FBI by 10 percent. That is the good news. Federal law 
enforcement programs have increased. Almost everything else in the bill 
has decreased a lot more than 1 percent. State and local law 
enforcement experienced a 22 percent reduction. The COPS program, a 13 
percent reduction. Juvenile justice programs, a 12 percent reduction. 
The Commerce Department, a 12 percent reduction. And the State 
Department is receiving 11 percent less than the current level, in 
addition to international organizations receiving 10 percent less.
  The gentleman ought to be pleased with the reductions in most of this 
bill, and surely he would not oppose the increases to the FBI and the 
Justice Department and hopefully not NASA.
  This bill has taken its fair share of cuts. It has experienced the 
pain that has been imposed upon domestic discretionary programs 
generally, by the budget resolution; and I will note an inordinate 
number of amendments being offered by the majority here in the last 3 
days have been trying to increase the author of each amendment's 
particular favorite domestic discretionary program.
  But you add them all up and the majority has offered a lot of 
amendments increasing domestic discretionary spending. For those who 
have done that, I suggest that you look at the budget resolution the 
next time around, understand the relationship, the real relationship 
between a vote for the budget resolution and a squeeze on domestic 
discretionary programs as I have just described in response to the 
gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Hefley) amendment.
  For all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Hefley amendment and hope that my colleagues will turn it down.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. 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 Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
will be postponed.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 
rise?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, if the next is the amendment that I think the gentleman 
is offering, I was going to say I accept it. I understand the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) wants to speak on it. I have to go 
upstairs briefly for a brief moment. But I wanted to be on record as 
being for it, and so I did not want to have my absence for 5 minutes 
look like I was avoiding an issue. I think this is the torture 
amendment. If it is, I think it is a good amendment, and I urge the 
Congress to adopt it, and I am going to vote for it.
  I will yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of the following laws enacted or 
     regulations promulgated to implement the United Nations 
     Convention Against Torture and Other

[[Page H4583]]

     Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (done at 
     New York on December 10, 1984):
       (1) Section 2340A of title 18, United States Code.
       (2) Section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
     Restructuring Act of 1998 (division G of Public Law 105-277; 
     112 Stat. 2681-822; 8 U.S.C. 1231 note) and any regulations 
     prescribed thereto, including regulations under part 208 of 
     title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, and part 95 of title 
     22, Code of Federal Regulations.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each 
will control 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. And in that 1 
minute, I will say that I appreciate very much the statement by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). Even when he is not physically 
present, he is a huge spiritual presence in this Chamber when it comes 
to the issue of human rights and torture, and I appreciate his 
willingness to support this amendment.
  The amendment, quite simply, says that the United States, because of 
our support for the convention against torture, because of our support 
for the Geneva Convention, cannot condone the United States, after we 
have prisoners in our possession, sending those prisoners to other 
countries in the world that do not abide by the convention on torture, 
that do not abide by the Geneva Convention.
  So this amendment will make it unambiguously clear that that is a 
responsibility that the United States takes very seriously, and 
notwithstanding what goes on at Guantanamo, that when the United States 
has possession of a prisoner that we will not outsource torture, that 
we will not actually put these prisoners on planes and send them to 
countries which we know do engage in torture.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). Is there any Member seeking time 
in opposition to the amendment? If not, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, torture is a crime. It is an 
international crime, and it is a violation of U.S. law. The state-
sponsored exportation or outsourcing of torture called ``extraordinary 
rendition'' is repugnant and it is immoral. Outsourcing torture 
threatens America's security. It destroys our Nation's moral authority 
in the world, and it is the height of hypocrisy.
  The fact that this country, through the Bush administration, has been 
sending detainees, including innocent individuals, to countries like 
Syria to be tortured and abused is a stain on America's reputation, and 
it is a shameful rejection of our national values.
  Extraordinary rendition is indefensible. It is legally and morally to 
be condemned by this Congress.
  I am pleased that it is to be incorporated into the bill. I strongly 
urge all Members of Congress to watch this issue carefully. Those of us 
who value human rights want to end the use of our tax dollars to fund 
the outsourcing of torture. And I am very pleased that this has been 
included in the bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me 
and rise to applaud the fact that this amendment will clearly be 
accepted as no one is speaking against it. This amendment has already 
passed the House on the 2005 supplemental appropriations bill by a vote 
of 420 to 2, and a modified version of it was signed by the President.
  This amendment states a policy we can all endorse. It does not expand 
existing law. Existing federal law makes it illegal and it is also a 
violation of international law to torture people. And existing law also 
bans cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees.
  I want to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) that, 
as the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, I have followed 
his work on this closely. I am pleased that he has raised this subject, 
that the entire House has heard him and agrees with him.

                              {time}  1215

  Let me go further, however, because this amendment does not expand 
existing law.
  I think in light of clear issues around detentions and 
interrogations, some of which are being investigated very responsibly 
on a bipartisan basis by the House Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence Subcommittee on Oversight, in light of many questions and 
what I might call a fog of law on these issues, I think we need 
additional legislation.
  It is going to be hard to put together the right bill, the right bill 
that states what we believe in with respect to detentions. My own 
personal view is no one should be detained without a status and without 
the ability to challenge that status, but the right bill, should also 
state what we believe in with respect to interrogations policy.
  I firmly believe that we need interrogations consistent with our 
values so that we learn the plans and intentions of the bad guys before 
they attack us. But precisely how to set limits is the hard part.
  So I hope to work on a bipartisan basis to craft a legal framework 
for the detentions and interrogations. I commend the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for this useful effort to remind us all that 
on a bipartisan basis we condemn the use of torture.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her eloquent 
statement, and I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for 
yielding me time, and I rise in strong support of this amendment. I 
want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for accepting 
it in advance because it is a very important amendment.
  Let me make two very brief points. The Convention against Torture 
could not be more clear in proscribing any kind of torture. It is never 
acceptable. The United States is a signatory and has ratified that 
convention, and that includes, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) pointed out, the outsourcing of torture, and I think his 
amendment is very, very important. It comes at a very important time.
  Let me also make the point, too, that next Thursday I will be holding 
a hearing on the victims of torture. I have written three laws on 
torture, The Torture Victims Relief Act, as it is called, and two 
reauthorizations over the last several years, and during the course of 
hearings that we have held, and we have one set for next Thursday in my 
subcommittee, we heard from people who actually suffered, the 
psychological scars that they bear, the post-traumatic stress, the 
sleepless nights that they endure because they have had to endure 
severe torture.
  We want absolutely no part of torture in any manifestation. This 
amendment makes it very clear. This is already law. This makes it very 
clear that there is an absolute bright line of demarcation between 
interrogation methods that are real, that are listed, that are ethical 
and those that cross that line.
  So I want to thank the gentleman for offering his amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I yield 30 
seconds to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment. If we look at it clearly, it is only an affirmation of 
current law, but I think in the environment in which we are operating, 
with some of the revelations that are coming out about America's policy 
with regard to the treatment of incarcerated persons, it is really 
important to affirm current law.
  We are identifying and pointing out and prosecuting very low-level 
people in the military with regard to certain transgressions, and I 
think it is particularly important to affirm to the whole chain of 
command, right up to the very top, that our laws with regard to 
incarceration are to be obeyed.

[[Page H4584]]

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, America's treatment of prisoners over the 
last several years speaks poorly, and that is an understatement, to our 
national integrity.
  Since 9/11, prisoners have been tortured in Iraq, Afghanistan, 
Guantanamo Bay, and considering the widespread use of torture, no one 
can claim that these are isolated incidents, that it is merely the work 
of a few bad apples.
  At a time when the United States is courting the support of the 
international world, particularly the Arab world, the torture of 
foreign prisoners gives the world's extremists and Iraqi insurgents 
what they believe to be a reason to hate the United States. There has 
been no better recruiting tool for al Qaeda than our attacking Iraq in 
the first place and the events at Abu Ghraib in the second place.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a better way to conduct foreign policy. I urge 
all of my colleagues to support the Markey amendment and to end the use 
of torture by the United States.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I urge the House to embrace this amendment unanimously. It is wrong 
for the political, military and moral leader of the world to be taking 
prisoners which we have captured, putting them on planes, blindfolding 
them, drugging them and sending them to Syria, sending them to 
Uzbekistan, with the sure and certain knowledge that those prisoners 
are going to be tortured by countries that have already been condemned 
by the United States for those practices. That is wrong. It undermines 
our position in the world. It gives al Qaeda more ammunition to put up 
on al Jazeera that undermines our moral leadership.
  Vote ``aye'' on this very important amendment.
  The amendment I am offering today simply reaffirms the U.S. 
commitment to the Convention Against Torture by prohibiting the use of 
funds in contravention of laws and regulations promulgated to implement 
the Convention Against Torture. The U.S. signed this treaty under 
President Reagan, and the Senate ratified it in 1994.
  The House voted overwhelmingly to approve an identical amendment that 
I offered to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill on March 
16, 2005 by a vote of 420 to 2. That amendment, however, only applied 
to funds appropriated in the Emergency Supplemental. The amendment I am 
offering today would apply to all funds appropriated for fiscal year 
2006 to the Departments of State and Justice.
  I am offering this amendment today because despite our commitments 
under this treaty and the statements made by the Administration 
emphasizing that the U.S. is emphatically and unambiguously against the 
use of torture, reports keep growing of the U.S. sending detainees to 
countries where they are likely to face torture, including to countries 
notorious for human rights violations. This practice, known as 
``Extraordinary Rendition,'' amounts to nothing more than Outsourcing 
Torture.
  In order to meet its obligations under the Convention Against 
Torture, the Administration has been engaging in a piece of legalistic 
fiction. It obtains ``diplomatic assurances'' that the transferred 
detainee will not be tortured, and then based on these assurances it 
argues that our obligation under the Convention Against Torture has 
been satisfied because there is no longer a substantial likelihood that 
the person we are sending to one of these known torturing countries 
will, in fact, be tortured.
  This is a sham. If Uzbekistan, a country that has actually boiled 
prisoners to death says they will not torture a prisoner, can we 
believe them? If Syria, a country that Secretary Rice says we cannot 
trust, says they won't torture--can we believe them?
  Syria has broken off all relations with U.S. military and CIA. What 
does this mean for the ``diplomatic assurances'' we received from 
Syria?
  Here is what the State Department's annual human rights report says 
about Syria's methods of interrogation:

     administering electrical shocks, pulling out fingernails, 
     forcing objects into the rectum, . . .

  In Uzbekistan, hundreds of protesters were recently killed under the 
corrupt regime of President Karimov in what human rights groups are 
calling a massacre.
  Last year former Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to certify 
that Uzbekistan had met its human rights obligations. Why?
  Because the State Department found that Uzbekistan used the following 
interrogation techniques:--``suffocation, electric shock, rape, 
beatings, and boiling prisoners to death . . .''
  The amendment I am offering today prohibits the use of any funds 
included in this bill to the contravention of our legal obligations 
under the Convention Against Torture, U.S. Law, and regulation. While I 
would have liked to include language barring the use of diplomatic 
assurances as the basis for renditions, I have not done so today, out 
of recognition that such an amendment would go beyond the scope of this 
bill and constitute new legislation. But what we can do today is take 
another step by having the U.S. Congress reaffirm that it does not 
support or condone torture, or rendition to countries likely to torture 
an individual.
  Throughout United States history we have encountered and defeated 
brutal enemies, inhumane and monstrous dictators and met with hideous 
violence. We take pride that even as our Nation fought for its survival 
against the Nazis and the Japanese Empire during World War II, that we 
did not ask our ``Greatest Generation'' to engage in torture or other 
war crimes. The legacy of the U.S. then, and now, is that we uphold our 
commitment to justice in the face of shadows of terror and war. The 
test of a nation is found as much in how it wages war as how it 
promotes the values of peace and democracy. That is what we must to 
today.
  I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and say ``no'' to 
torture.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MARKEY. 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 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  Mr. TANCREDO. 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. 19 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program under the heading 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS--STATE 
     AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE'' may be used in 
     contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1373).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Dozens of American cities, major cities, have policies that tie the 
hands of police officers to cooperate with immigration enforcement 
agents. The cities include Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago, San 
Francisco, Denver, Boston, Portland and Seattle.
  Cities that have such policies extend to their jails as well. Often 
jails do not identify or report illegal aliens to ICE, these illegal 
aliens that have been incarcerated, so they are released back into the 
community after serving a sentence for a minor crime. These policies, I 
have pointed out in the past, violate Federal law.
  It is especially galling, however, that local governments who have 
these illegal policies and practices do not hesitate then to seek and 
receive Federal reimbursement for the costs of incarcerating illegal 
aliens, aliens they refuse to turn over to ICE for deportation. They 
take the money and then turn the folks loose.
  In 2004, the Federal State Criminal Alien Assistance program, or 
SCAAP, gave awards totaling $300 million to States and counties in 
reimbursements for housing illegal aliens. Yesterday, or the day 
before, we added another $50 million to the amount that was being 
appropriated for that purpose, and I voted for the amendment.

[[Page H4585]]

  In Los Angeles in 2003, over 30,000 criminal aliens were released 
from the county jail and not deported.
  In Denver in 2004, the city-county jail asked for reimbursement for 
over 1,900 illegal aliens, but only turned over the names of 175 to 
Immigration Customs Enforcement.
  It is amazing that Denver alone sent the Federal Government a bill 
for over 1,900 people they have incarcerated for committing other kinds 
of crimes, besides the fact they are here illegally; yet, when it came 
to turning those names over to ICE, they refused to do so, or turned 
over only 175, again as a result, I think, to a large extent, of these 
things we call sanctuary policy.
  Why should Denver or Los Angeles be asking for Federal taxpayer 
dollars to reimburse their costs of housing illegal aliens but then 
refuse to turn those names over to ICE for deportation?
  There are real human consequences to these ``don't ask, don't tell'' 
policies. From 1995 to 1999, the INS released over 35,000 criminals who 
were not deported. Over 11,000 of them, almost 30 percent, went on to 
commit other crimes, and 2,000 committed violent crimes.
  In Denver last month, on Mother's Day, a police officer was shot and 
killed and a second officer critically wounded by an illegal alien who 
has now been arrested in Mexico. He had been stopped twice by the 
Denver police for driving without a license and had appeared in 
municipal court twice. In April, less than 1 month before the shooting, 
this man was in court with a Mexican driver's license; yet no one asked 
him about his immigration status because of Denver's sanctuary policy.
  In July of 2004, a young man was riding his motorcycle in north 
Denver. He was struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver. The driver 
has been arrested. He has been arrested and is in jail awaiting trial. 
He is an illegal alien. He had six prior arrests, but was released 
every time because the offenses were ``minor.'' Never, of course, was 
he reported to the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 
So they are free to commit other crimes.
  This policy is insane, responsible for thousands of major crimes that 
could have been prevented.
  One ICE agent told me recently that when he was doing routine checks 
in jail bookings in a major city, routine checks that are no longer 
done, by the way, 25 percent of all the files he looked at were of 
illegal aliens eligible for deportation. That means we could possibly 
reduce crime rates significantly by detaining and deporting illegal 
alien criminals who are already in local jails, but instead, the 
revolving-door sanctuary policies allow them to go free over and over 
again.
  Today, over 1 year and several meetings with these agencies later, 
the answer appears to be that nothing will happen. The chairman of the 
committee graciously allowed for us to meet with several of the 
agencies involved with Justice and Homeland Security. We were to have 
heard from them as to exactly how they were going to enforce the law 
that is already on the books, but their answer is, of course, silence, 
and it is deafening.
  Mr. Chairman, we as a Nation need to get serious about deporting 
criminal aliens, and we as a Congress need to get serious about 
requiring the agencies to comply with the law.
  My amendment does not make any new laws or create any new penalty or 
change any laws on the books. It merely requires the Federal 
administration to comply with the Federal law, and I hope my colleagues 
will support the amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman probably does not intend his amendment 
and argument to be thus, but I am afraid he is burgeoning on local 
police force bashing here.
  He makes statements like, they take the money and let the aliens go. 
Well, in fact, by the gentleman's own statistics that he cites, local 
law enforcement does turn over illegal aliens at some percentage of 
those that they arrest and identify, and I assume that they turn over a 
very large percentage of those that they identify. I have not looked 
closely at that question, but in any regard, it is clear they are 
participating in this process with the Federal Government of 
identifying and turning over some illegal aliens.
  I would suggest to the gentleman that local law enforcement, first of 
all, are not trained to do this mission. We have a Federal police 
force. We have Federal agents that are trained to perform this mission.
  Local law enforcement have a little different mission. They are in 
the business of trying to maintain stability in neighborhoods, and are 
particularly trained in identifying criminals in neighborhoods, which 
is a full-time job.
  While this is not my constituency, I can imagine in talking to my 
colleagues who do represent constituencies that have sizeable numbers 
of newly arrived immigrants, that it is a particularly difficult job to 
operate in those communities effectively if the policemen are seen as 
reporters on or, if you will, tattle-talers on the people who live in 
that community.

                              {time}  1230

  I can see where it would dry up information about what is going on 
and have the opposite effect of what we are trying to achieve with the 
COPS program. We are trying to establish relationships with the local 
community so we can help the local police force maintain stability and 
keep down crime in those local communities.
  So for that reason, I think this is an ill-advised amendment. We do 
not give local police forces responsibilities of the Federal 
Government, unless we train them to do that and they freely take on 
that mission and unless we give them additional resources to fulfill 
that mission.
  So first of all, local police have to agree to do what the gentleman 
is suggesting, go out and perform the Federal mission; and, secondly, 
if we are going to ask them to take on this Federal mandate, it seems 
to me we ought to give it to them not on an unfunded basis, but we 
should give them additional resources to perform that mission, if they 
would voluntarily accept it.
  Mr. Chairman, as I have outlined, I am strongly opposed to the 
Tancredo amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). The time of the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) has expired. Does the gentleman from West 
Virginia yield back?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) is 
recognized for 2 minutes, the balance of time of the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment. The irony of this amendment would be amusing if its 
implications were not so serious. On one hand, we are providing SCAAP 
funding to help our States and localities incarcerate criminal aliens 
that pose a danger to our communities; yet, on the other hand, the 
gentleman's amendment would make it harder for our State and local law 
enforcement agencies to catch criminals in the first place.
  Many law enforcement agencies have carefully built a relationship of 
trust with their immigrant communities over the years. If we were to 
damage this trust by confusing a State's law enforcement roles with 
Federal immigration enforcement roles, we would be hampering the 
ability of our police departments to perform their primary function: 
protecting communities from crime.
  That is why police departments in our districts do not want this 
amendment. The amendment would have a chilling effect on immigrants' 
willingness to report crimes and cooperate with government overall, 
because immigrants are less likely to come forward with tips or to 
testify as witnesses if doing so could lead to deportation or other 
adverse consequences.
  The effects of the amendment would be devastating. Law enforcement 
agencies, whether performing counterterrorism or other public safety 
functions, must rely on cooperation from immigrant communities to 
operate effectively. Furthermore, the harm of this amendment would 
extend beyond law enforcement. Public health could be

[[Page H4586]]

harmed if, out of fear of being reported to the INS, immigrants were 
reluctant to make use of State and local services.
  For instance, I imagine many communities throughout the Nation 
consider it in the best interest of all of its residents, documented or 
not, to ensure that everyone gets a vaccine shot for their children 
from city hospitals. If an undocumented person were presented a choice 
between deportation and risking illness, I am sure that person would 
make a choice that is not in the best interest of the community.
  In closing, please understand law enforcement gets information and 
wants information from the immigrant community. If they now become 
Federal immigration officers, that information will not be forthcoming.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time for debate has expired. The question is 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. 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 Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo) will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cleaver

  Mr. CLEAVER. 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. 2 offered by Mr. Cleaver:
       Page 108, after line 7, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to process or approve a competition under Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-76 for services provided by 
     the National Logistics Support Center of the National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration in Kansas City, Missouri.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) and a Member opposed each 
will control 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CLEAVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by thanking the gentlemen 
from Virginia and West Virginia. They have both been very easy to work 
with.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering with my good friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), is a very simple 
amendment. It would simply prohibit any funds appropriated under the 
bill from being used to carry out an A-76 privatization review of 25 
employees at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 
National Logistics Supply Center, known as the NLSC, in Kansas City, 
Missouri.
  Our amendment does not require Members to vote on the A-76 issue 
overall; rather, it simply asks that our colleagues take a stand 
against this particular A-76 review. The NLSC's A-76 was begun in order 
to achieve a quota established by OMB that Congress subsequently 
prohibited. That fact was outlined in a June 2002 NOAA memorandum. No 
other rationale other than this quota was given to justify targeting 
the NLSC for an A-76 review. Even after OMB repudiated privatization 
quotas, the NLSC A-76 went forward.
  Additionally, the review seemingly ignores the inherently competitive 
nature of the NLSC. There is no requirement that any agency use this 
service; rather, agencies decide on their own whether or not to use the 
NLSC. The NLSC competes every day to sell its services to agencies. It 
has been the recipient of multiple service awards, and it has reduced 
its response time to 2 days and raised its accuracy rates to 99 
percent.
  Finally, let me just say that the trouble that I have with this, that 
I hope every Member of Congress will have, is that we have spent over 
$1 million hiring consultants to study 25 employees. That turns out to 
be $41,000 per employee, more than many of them earn.
  In April of this year, I, along with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), Senators Bond and Talent, wrote the Department of Commerce 
urging Secretary Gutierrez to bring this privatization review to an 
end. However, despite this bipartisan support and the clear reasons for 
stopping this review, the Department of Commerce moved ahead.
  Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman. This amendment does not address even 
slightly the overall issue of contracting out Federal jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment to prohibit funds 
for a competitive sourcing study. We had asked the gentleman to 
consider withdrawing the amendment. We would have a meeting with the 
Weather Bureau and really do everything we could. But for the Congress 
to interfere and do something like this, would be unprecedented.
  I understand that NOAA first announced this particular cost 
competition in 2003. NOAA recently canceled the competition to ensure 
that the statement of work is comprehensive and plans to reannounce the 
study shortly. These competitions are conducted pursuant to the 
Competitive Sourcing Initiative in the President's Management Agenda, 
and NOAA supports the competition.
  Though I understand the gentleman's concerns and have no preconceived 
notion as to the outcome of the study, I believe we cannot have the 
Congress on every A-76 proposal coming down and stopping it.
  I see the gentleman from Virginia is here, the chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I too understand the 
gentleman's concern on particular employees. The difficulty here is if 
the Congress starts coming out with each and every single group trying 
to protect this group or the other from competitive sourcing, we lose 
basically one of the best tools the executive branch has to make it run 
more efficiently.
  Federal employees win 70 percent of the A-76 competitions at this 
point. But in almost every case, even when they have won, they have 
retooled themselves and made themselves more efficient than when they 
started. And to cherrypick one group or another, I think we will have 
every Member coming to the floor trying to protect this group or the 
other group, and the whole thing falls apart. And if that happens, the 
Federal executive branch loses its major tool in trying to become more 
efficient and saving the taxpayers' dollars.
  I do not know anything about the specifics of this one, but I know 
from a committee perspective we have tried to look at this, we have 
tried to give Federal employees appeals rights now, so that if they 
lose it that they can have appeals rights and things they have not had 
in the past. We have tried to give them protections.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I would also join the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) in opposing this amendment, and urge my colleagues to do 
likewise.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to say again, for the Congress to be voting on each and every 
procurement issue like this, it would just never end. So I reluctantly 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask how much time remains.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment; and I certainly understand the reasons for the opposition of 
the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) as well. If every one of these studies 
were challenged in this way, then it would be a lot of activity on 
these A-76 privatization reviews in the United States Congress.
  But not every one is, and those that are particularly egregious, I 
think,

[[Page H4587]]

need to be brought to the floor. The gentleman from Missouri has done 
that today, and I compliment him for that. The gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Cleaver) makes the case that is being made by his constituents in 
Missouri, in addition to the Members from the other side of the 
Capitol, who are also supportive of his position.
  Just understand that the National Logistics Support Center is a 
particularly fine organization, and this review is being undertaken for 
only one reason. It is because management has been ordered to hit a 
particular numerical privatization number. That is it. That is how 
arbitrary it is. It has nothing to do with the organization itself. 
This organization has won tremendous awards. It does not merit 
privatization, and I think it would be inefficient to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to rise in 
support of his amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of things. 
First of all, to my friends here, I understand their concern. I tell 
them that I do not know anything about this particular office. But it 
is not privatization; it is competitive sourcing. Basically, this 
allows the government sector to compete with the private sector to see 
how we can deliver a service to taxpayers the most efficiently.
  The government wins 70 percent of these competitions, but in most 
cases ends up being more efficient as a result of that. They are able 
to retool their organizations and do things that, without the 
competition, the marketplace would probably not be incentivized to do.
  Secondly, there are no numerical quotas or figures. In fact, Congress 
took those out several years ago when this administration set targeted 
figures in terms of the amounts of competitive sourcing they wanted to 
do under OMB Circular A-76. So that should not be part of this. It is 
not legal to be doing this, and I hope that is not driving it in this 
case.
  But, again, for Congress to come back and cherrypick different 
segments and say, this is exempt, and this is exempt, basically 
destroys the whole system. And once again, although I am sympathetic 
with where the gentleman wants to go on this, I think there are other 
ways to accomplish it rather than coming to Congress. I think this will 
encourage everybody to offer these kinds of amendments, and we will 
lose one of the greatest tools we have toward government efficiency, 
and I would urge the amendment be defeated.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Virginia will yield 
for a colloquy, I fully understand, as the gentleman knows I am a co-
sponsor of this amendment with the other gentleman from Missouri, and I 
think there are several good reasons for it and that the economics of 
the case would compel that this proceed and that the amendment be 
adopted.
  As I understand it, the chairman, and we also heard from the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) a few moments ago, would be 
willing to work on this, because this is an exceptional situation. I 
think the gentleman from Virginia, the chairman, recognizes that.
  What would the chairman be willing to do to see that this gets a fair 
shake? Because we have 25 employees out there that are doing such a 
magnificent job, I just hate to see them go down the drain when, truth 
in fact, it just should not happen.

                              {time}  1245

  If there was ever an amendment that ought to be adopted, but I 
understand the gentleman's position because you would have 15 dozen of 
these amendments coming up here every time this bill is brought up, but 
would you tell the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) what you are 
willing to do.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we would be glad to work with the gentleman 
from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis), too. The chairman of the committee 
has jurisdiction. We could have a meeting, the gentleman could bring 
the representative of the group out there, and we would try to make 
sure that this is done appropriately. We would do everything we 
possibly can.
  This concern is if we did every one of these on the floor, and if we 
did one for the gentleman, there are probably 15 Members that would 
then come forward and say, Why did I not have an opportunity? I give my 
word, we would work in good faith.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes 
a strong case for this particular item. I would be happy to work with 
the gentleman as well in my position as chairman of the Committee on 
Government Reform to make sure that these employees are fully protected 
as we move forward on this and given the benefit of the doubt.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment, and express appreciation to both gentlemen from Virginia, 
and look forward to working with them.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

       Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       Page 108, after line 7, insert the following:

                   TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used to include in any bilateral 
     or multilateral trade agreement any provision that would--
       (1) increase any limitation on the number of aliens 
     authorized to enter the United States as a nonimmigrant, or 
     to adjust to such status; or
       (2) increase any limitation on the number of aliens 
     authorized to enter the United States as an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence, or to adjust to such 
     status.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as a result of a peculiar event arising out of the 
inclusion of immigration provisions in the Singapore and Chile fast 
track trade bills of last year, I have decided to offer this amendment 
that would restrict the use of funds in the bill to include in any 
provision in any bilateral or multilateral trade agreements that would 
increase the number of aliens authorized to enter the United States as 
an immigrant or nonimmigrant.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, except for the provision of the limitation of funds 
which has become a gimmick to avoid the committees of jurisdiction, 
this particular piece of legislation would land right smack right in 
the middle of the Committee on Ways and Means in terms of international 
trade.
  There are two reasons to oppose the amendment. The gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) indicated that he was concerned about content 
in the Singapore and Chile free trade agreements. Had he consulted the 
chairman of the committee of jurisdiction, he would have found out that 
we had entered into significant negotiations with the United States 
Trade Representative, and that they fully appreciate the fact that 
there will be no temporary provisions in any additional bilateral 
bills. They have expressly stated this in side letters accompanying 
various agreements. In addition, the United States Trade Representative 
has committed to the committee of jurisdiction that it will not deal 
with any issues related to temporary entry without extensive 
consultation with Congress and the appropriate committees.
  The second reason to oppose this amendment is because as we speak, 
the United States is attempting to negotiate the Doha Round, especially 
in the

[[Page H4588]]

area of market access for U.S. goods, services and agricultural 
products in emerging markets. The United States was principally 
responsible for making sure the Doha Round went forward.
  A provision of the market access, or so-called GATS Mode 4, involves 
the discussion in negotiation over temporary movement of business 
personnel. If this amendment were to pass, we would be fundamentally 
and substantively undermining the United States in its attempts to 
negotiate agreements favorable to the United States in terms of market 
access.
  The chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means would have 
appreciated knowing that this amendment was coming because of these two 
vital pieces of information: One, it is not necessary. We have taken 
steps to ensure it does not happen. And, two, an expression of 
undermining the United States as it attempts to negotiate through the 
World Trade Organization fundamental agreements beneficial to the 
United States makes no sense whatever.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Of course, this amendment was printed in the Congressional Record 4 
days ago. I assume that was an indication of our intent to offer it. I 
am pleased also to hear, as the chairman has indicated, that 
arrangements have been discussed about this, and there have been 
promises made that none of this kind of thing will come forward. Of 
course, if that is the case, this amendment should not provide a 
problem for anyone. We should simply make sure that we put in place the 
rule that Congress determines our immigration policy. We did not give 
that up with TPA.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, having to search through the Congressional Record to 
discover that someone is meddling in another committee's jurisdiction 
is probably not the best way to make sure that the United States passes 
laws that are in the interest of the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Tancredo amendment. Let me first say that I take a back seat to no one 
in being concerned about the effects of the internationalization of our 
economy. I represent the steel industry and other basic industries that 
have been disadvantaged in this whole process terribly, and we have 
been concerned about the inadequacy of trade agreements as they do not 
protect these industries during the short term.
  The first thing I want to say about the Tancredo amendment, is that 
this is a particularly bad vehicle to make the kind of decisions that 
this amendment is trying to make. This is an appropriations bill. This 
is for the Committee on Ways and Means, to do, and not to try to slip 
into an appropriations bill.
  Second, this amendment addresses legal immigration. If there is 
anything we need to do, it is to be able to debate and discuss and 
compromise on how we deal with legal immigration, not to limit it on an 
appropriation bill.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, there are skills that we need in this country, 
and we have to be very careful about how we might impact our ability to 
access those skills through this kind of a process.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentions the need to debate. I absolutely 
believe in the need to debate these issues, especially immigration 
issues. But when they get wrapped up into trade agreements, we cannot. 
That is the purpose of my amendment, to ensure that debate stays in 
this Congress where it belongs, not in the negotiations between trading 
partners.
  It is the unique responsibility of the Congress of the United States 
to establish immigration procedures. It is not something that we should 
cede over to our trade negotiators.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, we just voted in committee on the question of a trade 
agreement with the Central America free trade region. It is extensively 
debated, it is discussed by the committees of jurisdiction, and the 
administration has to listen to what Congress has to say. It is 
entirely appropriate that it be done through the appropriate 
committees.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not just apply to these 
trade agreements. The amendment would prevent the use of the funds by 
State, Justice, Commerce and related agencies for any negotiations that 
would have the effect of increasing immigration.
  The amendment is unnecessary. The U.S. Trade Representative, as we 
have already heard, has long recognized that trade agreements are not 
the appropriate forum to negotiate provisions regarding permanent 
immigration.
  In addition, the U.S. Trade Representative has confirmed with the 
Committee on the Judiciary that it will refrain from negotiating any 
immigration provisions in any trade agreement negotiated since 
implementation of the Singapore and Chile agreements, including the 
agreement in the World Trade Organization.
  This amendment would send a very negative signal to our trading 
partners about the United States' commitment to seeking liberalization 
in goods, agricultural services in the Doha Round. At a time when the 
services sector accounts for 8 out of 10 U.S. jobs and roughly 30 
percent of U.S. exports, we have much to gain from these negotiations. 
Let us not tie the hands of those negotiating for the United States.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is if there is an agreement made, and Members 
feel secure in the fact that there are never going to be any 
immigration provisions in a trade agreement, then no Member should be 
concerned about my amendment. We should allow it to pass in order to 
establish that as the will of Congress.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I will repeat the second point I made. We are currently 
in delicate negotiations in the World Trade Organization on market 
access, and one of the provisions is the question of temporary movement 
of legal aliens; not that it will be done, but that it is being 
discussed.
  The gentleman's amendment will pull the rug out from the United 
States. The amendment will have significant effects, and it should not 
pass.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  If it would have significant effect, then I am even more sure we need 
to pass it, because, of course, we have to make sure that this is 
something that the Congress deals with, not trade representatives.
  It happened last year when the trade agreements with Chile and 
Singapore came to the floor. A number of Democrats joined with me in 
expressing their concern about that. I remember particularly the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) who came down and was furious 
about the fact that these trade agreements included immigration 
provisions.
  Well, I would respectfully request, just remember your words because 
they are true. It is an example of the fact that we do have something 
to fear that this amendment is being opposed to the extent it is by the 
chairman and others. The fact is if they are fearful of what this 
amendment might do, then we have to pass it.
  I supported fast track authority for the President when it passed the 
House and have supported a number of trade agreements that have come 
before this body. It is not the issue of trade that we are debating 
here. It is also not the issue of whether or not service agreements 
should be dealt with, because service agreements, that is just a 
euphemism for immigration provisions that are identified mostly by 
certain categories that mean essentially guest worker provisions. We 
have that. It is in the law. Congress establishes the number of people 
that will be allowed into this country for the purpose of providing 
services. That should be

[[Page H4589]]

something we decide. It should not be a part of these agreements.
  They come to us after the discussions. Even in committees, they come 
to the floor, and Members know what happens; it is either we take it or 
leave it. We cannot amend it. That is the concern that we have.
  Whether or not we agree with immigration caps, issues that should be 
debated openly and talked about openly are immigration, who has the 
responsibility for establishing immigration law? As I say, it is the 
Congress of the United States. It has nothing to do with people who are 
negotiating our trade arrangements. That is something that is important 
for us to understand. It is a peculiar aspect of these trade 
arrangements that, as I say, has only happened in the last few years. 
But I fear that the past is prologue, and that is exactly where we are 
going with these things. They will attempt to obfuscate, and it will 
not be all that clear that they are in there, but they will be in 
there. They will be in there as service agreements, as the chairman has 
indicated.

                              {time}  1300

  Does that even raise a red flag with regard to immigration policy? 
But it most certainly is immigration policy.
  It is imperative, therefore, that we simply establish our control 
over immigration policy. Enough authority has been handed over to our 
trade negotiators already. When we enter into bilateral and 
multilateral trade policies, we also, then, of course, enter into 
jurisdictional issues with regard to the WTO. I am not willing to turn 
over my responsibility as a Congressman to the WTO for trade or for 
immigration issues.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TANCREDO. 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 Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
will be postponed.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill (preceding the short title), insert 
     the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 8. __. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     under the heading ``Office of Justice Programs--Justice 
     Assistance'' may be used by the State Authorizing Agent that 
     has not shared, with the Attorney General, its improvement of 
     criminal justice records as described in Section 3759 of 
     Title 41, United States Code.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) each will control 5 minutes.
  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.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that does not violate current law, 
does not in any way violate any concerns that the majority would have, 
and I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for over the past 
couple of days working with me on some of the concerns I have 
expressed. But I particularly offer to them this amendment because it 
is an amendment of fairness in Federal funding that, by the way, the 
President of the United States extinguished, if you will, in his budget 
but we added back in a bipartisan way the antidrug task forces. But 
what we did not support in the supporting of the funding was the 
discriminatory treatment of the prosecutions and arrests.
  I rise today in the name of the victims of Tulia and Hearne, two 
cities in the State of Texas symbolic of cities around the Nation with 
antidrug task forces who in the past have had arrest and conviction on 
the single testimony of one individual. The case in Tulia showed 
premeditated perjury, no other evidence but the word of one task force 
member against 15 to 30 African Americans who were ultimately 
destroyed, taken away from their families, prosecuted, convicted, and 
jailed.
  This amendment speaks to the need of ensuring that there is 
corroborated evidence either showing the drugs, either showing video or 
another witness that would corroborate that this particular individual 
was engaged in drug usage or drug possession or drug selling. The 
Jackson-Lee amendment seeks to restore justice into the justice system 
by making the operation of federally funded State and local antidrug 
task forces more transparent in order to prevent nightmares such as 
those that occurred in Tulia, Texas. Grants to fund State and local 
antidrug task forces come from the Edward Byrne grants.
  As a member of the House Law Enforcement Caucus, I am an ardent 
proponent of initiatives that strengthen and support our law 
enforcement, but we also need to ensure that we have the right kind of 
training and funding and better facilities, the same thing that I 
argued for as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security in 
supporting first responders. But we have a grant process that does not 
protect against the racial imbalance of the prosecutions of African 
Americans and other minorities.
  Racial imbalance requirement restrictions: notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed 
to authorize the National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice 
Statistics, or the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to ensure 
that there is fairness. We have worked on this matter with my 
colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, particularly the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  I offer this amendment to my colleagues to say it does not violate 
current law; it only requires State agencies to share the ability to 
improve their criminal justice records to show that they are not 
discriminating.
  Mr. Chairman. I thank the Chairman from Virginia as well as the 
Ranking Member, from West Virginia for their bipartisan work to produce 
a Unanimous Consent Agreement that made this very important amendment 
in order. The Jackson Lee amendment seeks to restore ``justice'' into 
the Justice system by making the operation of federally-funded state 
and local anti-drug task forces more transparent in order to prevent 
nightmares such as those that occurred in Tulia, Texas and more 
recently in Hearne, Texas.
  Grants to fund state and local anti-drug task forces come from the 
``Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance 
Programs (Byrne Program), '' 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, and equipment, and for improved interoperable 
communications for these first responders. However, with this 
amendment, I seek to restore the integrity, honesty, evenhandedness, 
and judiciousness of our law enforcement agencies.
  42 U.S.C. Sec. 3789d section (b) of the ``Omnibus Crime Control and 
Safe Streets Act of 1968,'' reads

       (b) Racial imbalance requirement restriction
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, nothing 
     contained in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the 
     National Institute of Justice, the Bureau of Justice 
     Statistics, or the Law Enforcement Assistance 
     Administration--
       (1) to require, or condition the availability or amount of 
     a grant upon the adoption by an applicant or grantee under 
     this chapter of a percentage ratio, quota system, or other 
     program to achieve racial balance in any criminal justice 
     agency; or
       (2) to deny or discontinue a grant because of the refusal 
     of an applicant or grantee under this chapter to adopt such a 
     ratio, system, or other program.

  The Jackson Lee amendment does not seek to contravene this provision 
of the law. Rather, the amendment does seek to hold the State and local 
grant recipients accountable for the manner in which they conduct their 
anti-drug programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the type of reporting that is prescribed under my 
amendment is authorized in law as found in 42 U.S.C. 3782, 42 U.S.C. 
3759, and 42 U.S.C. 3789e, the Byrne Program as well as 42 U.S.C. 3751 
and 3753.
  Section 3782 lays out the parameters of the establishment of rules, 
regulations, and ``procedures that are necessary to the exercise'' of

[[Page H4590]]

agency function in carrying out the provisions of Byrne. Specifically, 
it authorizes the promulgation of rules and regulations that ensure 
that the entire program has a ``high probability of improving the 
criminal justice system'' and is ``likely to contribute to the 
improvement of the criminal justice system and the reduction and 
prevention of crime.'' More importantly, however, the rules and 
regulations promulgated must help the reporting agencies determine the 
program's ``impact on communities and participants.'' The very negative 
results of the program that we saw in Tulia and Hearne, Texas clearly 
and unequivocally contravene these provisions, and the Jackson Lee 
amendment seeks to correct this problem.
  Section 3789e contains a report to the President and to Congress that 
relates to the nature of the activities conducted under this program. 
The Jackson Lee amendment seeks to ensure that unethical and dishonest 
application of anti-drug task forces funded under this program do not 
slip through the cracks. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is vital to 
protecting the integrity and the evenhandedness of the activities 
funded under this program. Many years of Civil Rights jurisprudence and 
law have been ignored and thrown out the window when America permitted 
situations such as that in Tulia and Hearne to take place with 
impunity!
  Improper and illegal operation of anti-drug task forces was the 
impetus for my introduction of H.R. 2620, The Law Enforcement 
Evidentiary Standards Improvement Act of 2005. This bill will provide 
much-needed oversight and accountability for the millions of federal 
dollars distributed to state and local law enforcement agencies to 
fight the drug war. Its provisions propose to minimize the injustice of 
erroneous arrests and convictions by (1) enhancing the evidentiary 
standard required to convict a person for a drug offense and (2) 
improving the criteria under which states hire law enforcement officers 
to participate in drug task forces.
  In recent years, it has become clear that programs funded by the 
Edward Bryne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program have borne 
opportunities for the abuse of the penal system, racially disparate 
treatment, corruption and tainting of law enforcement agencies, and the 
commission of civil rights abuses across the country. This is 
especially the case when it comes to the program's funding of hundreds 
of regional narcotics task forces. Operation of anti-drug task forces 
around the country, which has lacked state or federal oversight, has 
been riddled with corruption and is the root of some of America's most 
horrific law enforcement-related scandals.
  One of the better known federally-funded anti-drug task force 
scandals occurred in Tulia, Texas several years ago. Fifteen percent 
(15%) of the African American population was arrested, prosecuted, and 
sentenced to decades in prison based on the uncorroborated testimony of 
a federally-funded undercover officer who had a record of racial 
impropriety in the course of enforcing the law. The Tulia defendants 
have since been pardoned, but these kinds of scandals continue to 
plague the Byrne grant program.
  In fact, just a month ago, on May 11, 2005, the defendant, the 
District Attorney of Robertson County, in Hearne, Texas and the South 
Central Texas Narcotics Task Force, in a case filed by the American 
Civil Liberties Union on behalf of 28 African Americans, offered to 
settle the case after five years of litigation. This case arose from 
the arrest of these 28 individuals--out of 4,500 other residents of 
Hearne in November 2000 on charges of possession or distribution of 
crack cocaine. During litigation, the presiding judge was asked to 
dismiss the charges because they were based on evidence from an 
unreliable informant, as reported to the Houston Chronicle. 
Furthermore, reportedly, Task Force officers in the case suggested that 
the informant had added baking soda to narcotics recovered as evidence 
in one of the cases.
  These scandals are not the result of a few `'bad apples'' in law 
enforcement; they are the result of a fundamentally flawed bureaucracy 
that is prone to corruption by its very structure. Byrne-funded 
regional anti-drug task forces are federally-funded, state managed, and 
locally staffed, which means they do not really have to answer to 
anyone. In fact, their ability to perpetuate themselves through asset 
forfeiture and federal funding makes them unaccountable to local 
taxpayers and governing bodies.
  To date, fifty (52) organizations at the national, state, and local 
levels have signed on their support for this legislation and would 
support this important amendment that is consistent with its goals. Mr. 
Chairman, I ask that my colleagues on this very distinguished 
Subcommittee work with me to accept this important amendment.
  I would like to thank my staff member Dana Thompson for his detailed 
work on this important amendment. Thank you, Dana.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a different amendment than was printed in the 
Record. I am not even sure that it addresses the same issue. We were 
told we had the ability to prohibit the amendment to be offered and I 
did not even want to do that. We felt that whatever the outcome was, it 
should be. The amendment unnecessarily takes away from funds from State 
and local law enforcement. We just saw the amendment. I saw it 2 
minutes ago, maybe it was 5 or 6 minutes ago.
  We do not know the full impact of the funding prohibition. All we 
know is that the amendment will cut funds to fight crime. I told the 
gentlewoman we will continue to work with her on this issue. Just 5 
minutes before, is it the same thing that the reference said it would 
be? Where does the language come? If my memory serves me correctly, 
there have been many amendments to add into that category that we have 
spent time here.
  Because of all those reasons, not for the subject matter, but for all 
those reasons, I would urge a ``no'' vote on that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time is left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the Jackson-Lee amendment, which is really 
based on the concept of no more Tulias, is one that I hope my 
colleagues will support. None of the funds made available in this act 
under the heading ``Office of Justice Programs'' may be used by a State 
authorizing agent that has not shared, with the Attorney General, its 
improvement of criminal justice records as described in section 3759 of 
title 42.
  We remember the Tulia incident with great pain. This case arose out 
of Texas in which huge numbers of African Americans, 15 percent of the 
African American population was arrested and prosecuted and sentenced 
to decades in prison. This is our response to how we handle it. I urge 
support of our colleague from Texas, a member of the Judiciary 
Committee, on this amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, what happened in Tulia was a true 
disgrace. It is not an isolated example. While most of our law 
enforcement officers and prosecutors do a fine job and we support them, 
the type of information that this amendment would gather can only be 
helpful to them and effective law enforcement, and will do more to 
protect innocent victims like those in Tulia. A gubernatorial pardon or 
a damage award, do not satisfy the full concerns of those who were 
injured in Tulia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this very important 
amendment. This amendment would simply cause to have funds withheld for 
State or local antidrug task forces that do not collect and make 
publicly available data as to the racial distribution of convictions 
made as a result of their operation. This is so important. I had many 
of the members from Tulia, Texas, here at the Congressional Black 
Caucus week where we do our legislative conference. Thirty-nine of them 
were black. They were arrested on drug charges. There were 38 
convictions, based primarily on the testimony of one informant who was 
later discredited. This one informant, this one man, had a record, he 
had a history, he lied, they came from a small town where nobody cared 
whether or not there was real evidence, and this was just outrageous.
  The gentlewoman from Texas is absolutely correct. This information 
must

[[Page H4591]]

be made available so that we can stop this kind of misjustice and 
miscarriage of the law. I not only support it, I would urge my 
colleagues to do so.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend the gentlewoman from 
Texas for her leadership on this issue. I believe that getting 
additional information can only be helpful to the many law enforcement 
and prosecuting agencies that are trying to do an effective job of 
protecting our families.
  We have had now two instances that are publicly known in Texas of 
prosecutorial abuse concerning the investigation and enforcement of our 
drug laws, and they were really outrageous examples--so outrageous that 
a Republican Governor pardoned all the people involved in the Tulia 
incident. There have also been civil damage awards. But the damage done 
to a family by what wrongdoing can occur is serious, and a pardon and a 
damage award is not enough to make up for the harm to that family.
  Getting the information will help prevent these incidences from 
happening, allow effective law enforcement, and appropriate protection 
for individual rights. We must not let racism contaminate our law 
enforcement.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that this amendment by the 
gentlewoman simply asks the Attorney General, the State authorizing 
agencies, to do what they are supposed to do under the law and to do it 
accurately and faithfully and that, among other things, it refers to 
requiring complete criminal histories, to include final disposition of 
arrests, the full automation of criminal justice histories and 
fingerprint records, the frequency and quality of the criminal history 
reports and the improvement of State records systems. I think it is 
very benign in that sense and requires States and governments to report 
as they are supposed to report under our laws.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I express my support for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the 
chairman if he has any additional speakers.
  Mr. WOLF. I will close.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished ranking 
member for his review of the amendment and clarifying and making it a 
very direct and very simple proposition. Many years of civil rights 
jurisprudence law have been ignored and thrown out the window when 
America permitted situations such as that in Tulia and Hearne to take 
place with impunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a former judge and a trained lawyer, and I have 
consistently worked with law enforcement across America and in my 
hometown and in my State. I am not here to impugn the hard work of good 
law enforcement officers. I just want there to be a balance between the 
rights of Americans and the law enforcement system and the judicial 
system. We cannot have a system of Federal funding that will fund 
antidrug task forces or other efforts that are not complying with the 
law, submitting cases that, in fact, have evidence, corroborating 
evidence, have video, have another witness, have the drugs that person 
is alleged to have actually had in their possession.
  This simply requires agencies receiving Federal funds in law 
enforcement instances to improve their criminal justice record and to 
acknowledge that it is unfair to discriminate and prosecute one race, 
one community, one city, one rural area. I know we can do this in a 
bipartisan way, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this. The gentlewoman probably would have 
been prohibited from offering the amendment. We said fine. The 
amendment was changed. In fact, the title was there and then the 
amendment changed. I do not think anybody truly here knows, I do not 
care where they went to law school, what it truly does and what it 
truly means.

                              {time}  1315

  They could have gone to UVA, Georgetown, Harvard, or Timbuktu.
  Secondly, if I could have the gentlewoman's attention, I offered to 
her to let us sit down and talk about this. Nobody is opposing 
necessarily what she is trying to do. Let us sit down. Let us talk 
about it. Let us work it. No, we are going to go ahead and do it.
  So this institution has to have some definition, or else we just take 
any amendment that comes along.
  So all the amendments, I counted them up. The gentleman from 
Washington wanted to take money from the bill to put it in State and 
local law enforcement. This takes money from State and local law 
enforcement and puts it somewhere else. The gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Terry) wanted to take money from the rest of the bill and put it 
into State and local law enforcement. This takes it from State and 
local law enforcement and puts it somewhere else. The gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Boswell) wanted to take money from another part of the bill, 
and God bless him, he had a good amendment, and put it in State and 
local law enforcement. This takes it from State and local law 
enforcement and puts it somewhere else; for what, we are not even sure. 
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) wanted to take money from 
the rest of the bill to put it where? In State and local law 
enforcement. This takes money from State and local law enforcement and 
puts it not even completely where people even know it is. The gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Weiner) had a great debate here. I think he wanted 
to take $126 million from NSF to put it in State and local law 
enforcement. This takes money from State and local law enforcement and 
puts it somewhere else. The beat goes on. The beat goes on.
  So, because not knowing what this does, we are going to go ahead and 
oppose this. I just think if Members want to vote on something they do 
not understand, I think they ought to come down here and vote on 
something that they do not understand. I think that is part of their 
right to being here, but I do not understand it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the gentleman 
is correct that he has worked with many Members, including myself, and 
he is correct on that. I respectfully say that he is incorrect, and we 
thank him for allowing the amendment to go forward, but we worked not 
to not have a point of order, and the amendment is not changed from 
what it was previously. It just clarifies it so it would not be subject 
to a point of order, and all it does is ask for a reporting of these 
records to ensure fairness.
  And I would love to work with the distinguished gentleman. I hope we 
can work together because he has been fair, and I want the Record to 
show that. But this is hurting the hearts and minds of constituents 
across America. And I know we have good law enforcement, and I know the 
States would not be offended, nor would they be burdened by simply 
reporting this information. I ask the gentleman to understand that 
there was no offense intended, and I thank him for the kindness he has 
shown, but this is an important issue.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if we offered to work 
with the gentlewoman to resolve the issue, I think, from where I come 
from, that resolves the issue. But she has offered something that we do 
not even know what it does. It takes funds from an area that everyone 
else is saying they do not want to take it from, I am having a hard 
time understanding what that precisely means.
  And I would say we could get both of these amendments in different 
versions and send them to Georgetown Law School or UVA Law School or 
George Mason Law School and see if they think there is any change. I 
understand we offered to work with her. I thought that was really the 
right thing to do.
  With that I urge a ``no'' vote on an amendment that I am not sure 
what it does.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page H4592]]

  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS


 Limitation on use of funds to license export of centerfire 50 caliber 
                                 rifles

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay administrative expenses or compensate an 
     officer or employee of the United States in connection with 
     licensing the export of a nonautomatic or semiautomatic rifle 
     capable of firing a center-fire cartridge in 50 caliber, .50 
     BMG caliber, any other variant of 50 caliber, or any metric 
     equivalent of such calibers, to any nongovernmental entity.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today to offer an amendment that would strengthen current 
State Department policy regarding the export of .50-caliber sniper 
rifles. Under this amendment only official government entities would be 
allowed to purchase these weapons through the export process. The 
language of the amendment would simply prevent export to any 
nongovernmental entity; in other words, the arms dealers that bought 25 
of them for al Qaeda and the representatives of the IRA and the KLA.
  The .50-caliber sniper rifle is in a class by itself. A weapon of 
war, the Army Handbook on Urban Combat states that the .50-caliber was 
designed to attack both fuel tanks and other impenetrable targets. It 
is considered able to penetrate all but the heaviest shielding material 
from up to a mile away.
  This high-powered antimateriel weapon has even been touted by its 
manufacturers in advertisements that it is capable of disabling or 
destroying a modern jet aircraft. I quote from Barrett Firearms 
Manufacturing. In their advertisement, they say, ``The cost-
effectiveness of the .50-caliber sniper rifle cannot be overemphasized 
when a round of ammunition purchased for less than 10 U.S. dollars can 
be used to destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft.''
  I should repeat that because it is hard to believe. But despite this 
unparelleled potential for damage, including the threat posed to 
railcars carrying hazardous materials and civil aviation, the .50-
caliber is easier to obtain than a handgun and no less available than a 
common shotgun.
  Governor Schwarzenegger, who recently signed a law banning the .50-
caliber in California, stated that this gun is ``a clear and present 
danger to the public's safety.''
  These guns are sought after by terrorists, warlords, drug smugglers, 
and other individuals looking to use the .50's exceptional power, 
accuracy, and distance for terrorist and criminal purposes.
  There have been any number of substantiated reports that al Qaeda, 
the IRA, and the KLA have purchased a number of these guns in recent 
years. There is an arms race taking place just south of the border in 
Mexico where drug cartels are employing .50-calibers in a bloody turf 
war that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of people caught up in 
the crossfire.
  The ``60 Minutes'' TV show has reported at length on this issue. In 
their most recent piece, they profile an Albanian American gunrunner 
named Florin Krasniqi. Mr. Krasniqi details how he has coordinated the 
export of .50-calibers from the U.S. to arm the Kosovo Liberation Army 
in their guerilla war to break away from Serbia. The reason the .50-
caliber was his weapon of choice, he stated simply, ``You could kill a 
man from over a mile away. You can dismantle a vehicle from over a mile 
away.'' And they are so easy to buy.
  If we are not going to deal with the danger that .50-calibers pose to 
the American public, let us at least prevent the export of these 
weapons of terror to foreign terrorists. Restricting exports of .50-
calibers is necessary because, unlike most items controlled under the 
U.S. Munitions List and comparable international control lists, 
firearms are frequently licensed for commercial resale, increasing the 
likelihood that they will end up in the hands of our enemies.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a human rights issue, and it is an issue of 
protecting our national security. We need to pass this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I point out that this Moran amendment has been a moving target, Mr. 
Chairman. This thing has been moving around the last couple of days, 
and I have been trying to get ahold of the final draft of the final 
Moran amendment so I can finally look at the language that is finally 
going to be presented to this Congress that would set final policy on 
our export policy with regard to one single caliber of firearms, and 
not even the whole entire caliber of that particular firearm, but just 
a very small segment of it. And now this final language that I have in 
this moving target says that it would ban the utilization of Federal 
dollars for the regulation for ``the export of a nonautomatic or 
semiautomatic rifle,'' not rifles, ``capable of firing a center-fire 
cartridge in 50-caliber,'' or the like, ``to any nongovernmental 
entity,'' which I commend the gentleman from Virginia for removing the 
broader language and narrowing it down to a nongovernmental entity. 
This is an improvement in this particular amendment.
  But this amendment says ``nonautomatic or semiautomatic rifle.'' It 
does not address fully automatic 50-caliber machine guns, but it does 
target rifles, rifles that I call buffalo guns that go back to the 
1800s in this country. The Sharp's 50-caliber is one of the original 
50-caliber long-range rifles. It was used to implement buffalo hunting 
back in those years, and its being a 50-caliber is not the reason why 
it is among the most accurate long-range rifles, but because they chose 
that caliber back then for long-range accuracy, and they developed the 
cartridge for that kind of target shooting. And, in fact, there has 
been an entire organization that has grown up around target shooting 
that has to do with the 50-caliber, that venerable buffalo gun, and I 
believe they are called the 50-caliber Target Shooting Club, and I know 
that they have been organized for over 20 years. So this amendment 
would target rifles when there is not a record of their being used for 
crime. There are allegations, but not a record that I can find.
  And I look at some of these quotes: ``Could be used to destroy or 
disable a modern jet aircraft.'' Are we going to outlaw every caliber 
and every weapon that could be used to destroy or disable a modern jet 
aircraft? If that is the case, then we take every deer rifle out of the 
rack and out of every cabinet of every home in America because they can 
be used the same way. We can name caliber after caliber that could 
destroy or disable a modern jet aircraft. In fact, sometimes we are a 
little concerned about that happening.
  The fact that the Governor of California advocates an assault on the 
50-caliber target rifle, the buffalo gun, does not convince me in the 
least, but this would not do anything to prevent a 49-caliber or a 51-
caliber or going a little bigger or a little smaller. It would 
encourage that. But what it would do, Mr. Chairman, is it would

[[Page H4593]]

make the 50-Caliber Shooting Club exclusively a USA club, and it would 
continue to develop the 50-caliber shooting in the United States, but 
our foreign friends that are involved in the same thing that we are 
here, legitimate hunting, legitimate target shooting and development of 
a venerable weapon, would be prevented from doing so for an illogical 
reason, if there is a reason at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Virginia and I, and I think 
everyone here, share his objective, and that is to keep 50-caliber 
weapons, and for that matter any weapon, out of the hands of 
terrorists. I am afraid, though, that his amendment does not accomplish 
that.
  The fact of the matter is that the State Department already has the 
ability, and uses it, to stop any type of sales of 50-caliber rifles to 
terrorists or any other type of undesirable groups. If there are any of 
these anywhere around in the world, and again I am not aware of any 
incidence where that has taken place, they have been sold illegally. So 
this amendment is not going to address the illegal sales. It may keep 
all weapons of 50 caliber here in this country, but they can be made 
elsewhere all around the world. So it just simply does not accomplish 
the goal that I know he wants and that we all want.
  And since he did mention the Barrett M107, let me point out also that 
it was selected by the Chief of Staff Office of the U.S. Army as one of 
the ``top 10 inventions of 2004'' for the fight against the war on 
terror. Certainly it has been beneficial to our troops. It can be 
beneficial to our allies around the world.
  Again, we do not want to see these weapons or any weapons in the 
hands of terrorists. We already have a method to stop that in terms of 
legal sales. This amendment does not get to the illegal sales. So a 
good objective, but a flawed amendment.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Just to respond to the points that were made, first of all, I agree 
that our soldiers like the weapon. I want them to continue to be able 
to use it. And this, of course, does not restrict their usage. I just 
do not want it to get into the enemies' hands. And I think that the 
gentleman does not want terrorists being able to buy these. Al Qaeda 
has purchased 25 of them.

                              {time}  1330

  To respond to the gentleman from Iowa when he said that any number of 
guns could disable a commercial jet aircraft, to complete the quote, it 
can disable a modern jet aircraft from over a mile away.
  That is the point of it. These are unparalleled weapons. I am not 
trying to restrict them in the United States. They can have these U.S. 
clubs for .50 caliber guns. I just do not want them sold by arms 
dealers. We know that is what is happening, and they are getting into 
the hands of our enemy.
  In a day when we see reports about people being arrested on public 
property because they were photographing public buildings, on the one 
hand, and then on the other hand we are allowing these weapons to be 
sold to terrorists? No. It is okay to sell them to a government, but 
not to these private individuals who are going to turn around and sell 
them to the terrorists.
  There are certain things that we need to adjust to after 9/11. We are 
in a war against terrorism. Why would we go along with arming the 
opposition? So I think much of the argument that has been made supports 
our contention that we ought to ban the export of these to 
nongovernmental entities.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) 
for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
  (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Moran amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. 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 Virginia (Mr. Moran) 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mrs. Maloney:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce any provision of law that prohibits or 
     restricts funding for the United Nations Population Fund 
     (UNFPA).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 14, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member opposed will each 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this limiting amendment simply prevents the State 
Department from spending taxpayer dollars to restrict funding for the 
United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA. The effect of this amendment 
would be to release much-needed funds to help women, children, and men 
in nearly 150 countries around the world.
  For 3 years, the Bush administration has withheld $34 million 
annually from UNFPA that passed both the House and Senate. UNFPA is the 
only multilateral agency devoted to helping developing countries combat 
female genital mutilation and obstetric fistula, to helping countries 
advance access to family planning and quality reproductive health care, 
to promoting HIV-AIDS prevention, improved education and health care. 
These are the jobs of UNFPA. They are the world's leader in this task.
  In this world in which we live, while I have been speaking, one woman 
has died from pregnancy-related causes, nine people have contracted 
HIV, and 6 have died from AIDS. All of this tragedy occurs in just one 
minute, and all of it can be prevented if UNFPA is funded and allowed 
to do its work.
  This is not the way it has to be. The U.S. annual $34 million 
contribution could prevent 2 million unintended pregnancies, 800,000 
induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, and 77,000 infant deaths 
around the world. This is why we need UNFPA. We should not stand in 
their way, especially when women and girls are dying.
  We are a government that champions tolerance, equal opportunity, life 
and hope. I urge my colleagues to allow the United States to join 169 
countries that are already funding and supporting UNFPA. We are 
standing alone. We should join the world community and support this 
important work.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) for 10 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not belong in the bill. It is 
really an amendment that relates to the Foreign Assistance 
Appropriation, under the bill of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) 
where this comes. It is inappropriate to use the funds for the 
Department of State's operations, including salaries, to enforce the 
law, because it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to 
enforce the law and would in essence mean that there could be no 
enforcement of Kemp-Kasten. It would make it null and void.
  It was determined by the Secretary of State in 2004 that because 
UNFPA continues its involvement in China's coercive birth limitation 
program, current law precludes funding for UNFPA.
  I visited China. The China policy with regard to coerced and forced 
abortion, the one-child policy, is barbaric. I could take a whole day 
to talk about the government of China with regard to the persecution of 
the Catholic

[[Page H4594]]

Church, the persecution of the Protestant Church, the persecution of 
Buddhists, the persecution of Muslims, the sale of kidneys with regard 
to execution of prisoners, the slave labor camps, and now in essence 
the coercive policy that this government has. In order to do anything 
that would send a message to that government that it is okay to do what 
they are doing is absolutely wrong. So you can argue this on process, 
this is not the place, but I think you can argue this on the merits.
  China is doing fundamentally evil things, and the record should state 
the evilness of their policies. For that, I urge a strong ``no'' to 
send a message to that government that their actions are totally 
inappropriate.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman 
Wolf), who worked so hard on human rights, to punish an organization 
working to promote human rights absolutely makes no sense. I have great 
respect for the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), and I agree 
with the gentleman that the stories about China are absolutely 
appalling. That is why we need UNFPA. The only thing that not releasing 
the money does is ensure the Chinese women have absolutely no place to 
turn. UNFPA is rights-based. It is fighting the Chinese Government's 
oppressive policies.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Maloney-Shays amendment 
regarding the United Nations Population Fund. UNFPA funding must be 
released to aid women, children, and men in the world's poorest 
countries. The UNFPA fund provides critical maternal health in these 
nations, emergency assistance for refugees, reproductive education, 
prevention and treatment for HIV and AIDS, and clinical care for 
infants and children.
  Yet the President has withheld the U.S. contribution to the UNFPA 
under false accusations that funds have been used to support coercive 
population practices in China. Every legitimate investigation of these 
accusations has proven them false.
  Furthermore, UNFPA work in China actually contributes to putting an 
end to coercive practices. It is surely time for the United States to 
stop withholding funds from the UNFPA. These funds can make all the 
difference in the world, improving lives and saving lives around the 
world. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and allow the 
U.S. to support the world's largest international source of funding for 
population and reproductive health programs.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Lancaster, Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. The Chinese Government has a policy of killing unborn 
children it deems a waste of valuable space in one of the world's 
largest countries. UNFPA actively and passively supports this policy of 
thinning the population by killing unborn children. In fact, it has 
gone so far as to praise China's population control tactics. Until that 
changes, UNFPA should not get a dime of taxpayer money.
  As we debate this bill, let us face the truth: Is that really what we 
want to support or encourage? I do not think so.
  Make no mistake about it, UNFPA is in bed with Beijing on forced 
abortions; and if we fund UNFPA, Beijing gets stronger. If we fund 
UNFPA, we only encourage the regime's strategy of exterminating the 
babies they do not want. If we truly care about human rights, we should 
support programs that work, programs that uphold the dignity of human 
life, not programs that allow a repressive, Communist government to 
enforce a systematic effort of abuse and repression and murder.
  Our country does not believe in forced abortion. We do not believe in 
harvesting the organs of prisoners who are being executed.
  Why would we want to support this? A Nation that believes in the 
rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should not give 
aid to any organization that does not support these rights.
  I urge opposition to and defeat of this amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, it is a fact. It is a fact 
that international delegations have visited the UNFPA's programs 
consistently in China, and it is a fact that they have said that the 
UNFPA is part of the solution in China, helping to promote voluntary 
family planning.
  It is a fact that, since 1999, 60 delegations, 145 diplomats from 
around the world, have visited UNFPA's China program, and not one of 
them has found any evidence to suggest that the UNFPA is doing anything 
other than making the situation better.
  Every year the world's poorest nations have millions of mothers dying 
needlessly during childbirth. Millions of infants die every year in 
these same countries. These deaths, most of them, can be prevented.
  It is the mission of UNFPA to save lives, to promote healthy women, 
healthy babies, and healthy families by allowing voluntary family 
planning.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. For 25 
years, the United Nations Population Fund has been an aggressive and 
shameful accessory to gross crimes against women and babies in the 
People's Republic of China. Despite being admonished to do otherwise on 
countless occasions, the U.N. Population Fund continues to be the chief 
apologist and enabler for both past and ongoing crimes against 
humanity.
  Now the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is offering an 
amendment that would suspend all U.S. laws, including all of our human 
rights laws, in order to compel U.S. taxpayer funding for the U.N. 
Population Fund. The Maloney amendment is written in such a way to 
immunize UNFPA from having to obey any U.S. law or funding 
restrictions, including the Kemp-Kasten anti-coercion amendments. I 
strongly urge its defeat.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not forget that the UNFPA has whitewashed, 
sanitized, and facilitated--it has been an accomplice--in China's 
barbaric one-child-per-couple coercive population program that has 
victimized hundreds of millions of women and murdered hundreds of 
millions of children.
  As a direct result, there is this exceedingly dangerous statistical 
demographic anomaly known as the ``missing girls.'' There may be as 
many as 100 million missing girls in China today, a tragedy beyond 
words. As a result, there are also on any given day, according to the 
Country Reports For Human Rights Practices, the human rights report by 
the State Department, 500 women in China who commit suicide every day. 
Five hundred. This coercion has a terrible, deleterious effect on 
Chinese women.
  As violations of human rights go, coercive population control in 
China is among the worst and most degrading systematic abuse in human 
history.
  Let us not forget or be naive, I say to my colleagues, about the fact 
that in China today, brothers and sisters are illegal and children can 
only be born if permission is granted by the state.
  We all know that in the United States, families get State and Federal 
tax credits and deductions for their children so they can better cope 
with economic pressures.

                              {time}  1345

  In China, on the other hand, there is no welcome mat for children, 
and Chinese parents have huge fines imposed upon them if they try to 
bring their children into the world. Unwed mothers are also severely 
punished in China, and are compelled to abort, even if it is their only 
one child, the one that they are supposedly permitted to have. China's 
eugenics policy, which compels the murder of disabled babies, is 
clearly reminiscent of the Nazis.
  Those who violate these cruel, inhumane, antichild policies are fined 
up to 10 times the annual salary of both husband and wife, a draconian 
penalty that usually ensures that the child, at the end of the day, is 
aborted.

[[Page H4595]]

  This is China's national policy, Mr. Chairman. In all counties, 
including UNFPA-supported counties, severe fines are imposed on women 
who have babies out of plan. Some women do resist. Some women have 
their children on the run, as they say. Some resist or pay bribes or 
endure the harsh penalty, the so-called ``social compensation fee.'' 
Others are forcibly aborted, trussed, and brought into the so-called 
family planning clinics to have their babies aborted, and some are even 
tortured, and some are jailed.
  Last December I chaired yet another hearing on forced abortion in 
China. I have had about 18 or more hearings over the last several 
years, and we heard from a woman by the name of Mrs. Mao Hen Feng, a 
Chinese woman who had been imprisoned and tortured because of her 
resistance to coercive population control.
  I would point out to my colleagues, I met with Peng Peiyun, the woman 
who runs this program, and, during the course of that several-hour 
conversation, she kept coming back to the fact that, oh, the UNFPA is 
here. They do not see any coercion. The UNFPA clearly enables the PRC 
to practice this draconian program, and then they resort to the 
whitewash and say, but the UNFPA is here, and, again, they do not find 
any of this.
  Amazingly, Mr. Chairman, the UNFPA calls China's massive violence 
against women like Mrs. Mao voluntary family planning, as if cheap 
sophistry makes it all okay. Just call it voluntary family planning, 
and it is all okay. It makes the definition of ``voluntary'' a joke.
  To make matters worse, Mr. Chairman, UNFPA spokesmen gleefully 
encourage other countries to follow China's disgraceful lead.
  I hope the majority of our colleagues will have no part in enabling 
either China or its best friend, the UNFPA, in these horrible abuses. 
Instead of funding the UNFPA, both they and China should be on trial at 
the International Criminal Court for crimes of genocide and crimes 
against humanity.
  Talk to these women who have suffered. Look at the terrible loss of 
life, millions upon millions of babies killed, often right at the ninth 
month as women try to conceal their pregnancy, and the UNFPA is there 
on the ground enabling this terrible abuse. They provide cover, 
respectability, tangible support, and technical capabilities that 
predictably results in massive acts of cruelty and murder in China.
  Defeat the Maloney amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire on the time, please?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the distinguished 
minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Maloney) for yielding me this time and for her leadership 
over the years on this issue that is very important for America, to 
speak out in terms of reducing the number of abortions that take place 
throughout the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I came to the floor because I listened with interest to 
the statements that were being made here, especially by a couple of 
speakers ago about China, including my distinguished friend, the 
gentleman from New Jersey Mr. Smith. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I have worked 
together over the years to speak out against China's coercive family 
planning, as they call it, policies. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I have fought 
together against the human rights abuses in China. We spoke against 
them when there was a Democratic President. We spoke against them when 
it was the policy of a Republican President. We never hesitated to 
criticize Presidents of our own party for their coddling of the Beijing 
government while they were repressing their people.
  None of us takes second place to anyone in our denunciation of the 
regime in Beijing for its inhumane treatment of its own people. The 
list is a long one that we could go into, but we do not have time for 
that now.
  Where the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I part company is on their characterization 
of the role of UNFPA. Certainly, I think without any question, every 
person in this body would denounce the coercive abortion policy of the 
Beijing government. Certainly we want fewer abortions to take place. 
The best way to do that is to have family planning. For some reason, 
there has been a campaign against UNFPA, because they have been 
effective in promulgating family planning information to women in need 
so that they will not find themselves in a situation where an abortion 
is an option.
  When I was ranking member on the Committee on Foreign Operations 
Appropriations a number of years ago, we put forth a compromise where 
the money would go forth for UNFPA, but none of the funds would be used 
in China. It was a compromise. I was not happy with that, because it 
made certain concessions, but it was a compromise, and each side had to 
yield something on it.
  I just want our colleagues to know that a vote for the Maloney 
amendment is not a vote in support of any organization that would be 
sympathetic to the coercive abortion policies in China. It simply is 
not so.
  UNFPA has done very, very valuable work. We go through this year in 
and year out. I remind my colleagues that in 2001, President Bush, our 
new President, sent a team to China who certified that UNFPA had 
nothing to do with China's coercive policies, and they were not in 
violation of Kemp-Kasten, and $21.5 million went forward.
  Since 1999, there have been 60 delegations and 145 diplomats from 
around the world who have visited UNFPA's China program. None of them 
have found any evidence to suggest that UNFPA is doing anything other 
than making the situation better. Family planning reduces abortions. It 
is that simple. Even after President Bush's first certification, 
Secretary Powell was part of reviewing the activities there as well and 
came back with the same result.
  What we are talking about here today is, let us reduce abortions, let 
us denounce the Beijing regime for what they do not only in this area, 
but in other areas, and not look the other way from that, because that 
is in my view, a crime against humanity, the way they treat women.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) knows chapter and verse. 
There is probably nobody in the Congress who knows better than the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) how coercive their abortion 
policies are. He has tried to move to give some opportunity to people 
who have been victims, and I salute him for that. But I disagree with 
the gentleman when he says that UNFPA is a part of any of that, and 
that they have done anything other than make the situation better in 
China.
  So I hope that our colleagues will understand these distinctions and 
support the very important Maloney amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, the United States is isolated; 169 
countries support the important work of UNFPA.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate about Chinese policy on 
population growth, but I want to just say, I cannot imagine what it 
would be like to be in the United States and have four times as many 
people living here, four times as many people in Washington, D.C., four 
times as many people in New York City. So I do understand that China 
needs to deal with this issue, but not the way they are dealing with 
it. This amendment does not in any way impact what China is doing.
  Cutting funds to the UNFPA will prevent vital assistance for poor 
women and children in developing countries. The UNFPA's program helps 
families prevent unwanted pregnancies, undergo childbirth safety, avoid 
STDs including HIV/AIDS, and combat violence against women. I think 
that is what we want to do.
  I believe we must support the UNFPA and its family planning 
initiatives, because world population continues to grow out of control. 
In 1960, we had 3 billion people on this Earth. Today we have 6 billion 
people. In 40

[[Page H4596]]

years, without worldwide family planning services, it will rise to 9 
billion people.
  The UNFPA responds to this growth by assisting the world's poorest 
countries in formulating population policies and strategies. 
Overpopulation threatens not only the world's political stability, but 
our global environment as well.
  As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I can attest to the substantial 
contributions international family planning makes to economic 
development, higher living standards, and improved health and 
nutrition.
  Mr. Chairman, I just hope that we do not get sidetracked on a debate 
about what China is doing, when there are 150 poor countries around the 
world that need our help, and millions and millions and millions of 
women who need our help and assistance.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire about the time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman has 3\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, we recently experienced the Southeast Asia 
tsunami that destroyed valuable medical services for women across the 
affected area. But, with the help of the UNFPA, we were able to 
calculate that 150,000 women were pregnant in the region at the time of 
the trauma, putting them at greater risk than normal because of sudden 
loss of medical support. Without UNFPA, these women would not have had 
the guarantee of safe, clean environments to deliver their babies. They 
would not have had the access to the medical support and medicines they 
need to ensure a healthy birth.
  Safe and healthy childbirth should not be a political issue. While 
disagreements about UNFPA will certainly remain, continuing to ensure 
this program has never been more important than it is now. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting the Maloney-Shays amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment. I respect 
the passion and force the gentleman from New Jersey brings to the fight 
against coercive abortions in China, but this is not about coercive 
abortions in China. This is about saving lives in Sri Lanka and 
Indonesia and areas that have been devastated by the tsunami.
  I was in Sri Lanka only a few months after the tsunami. I was in a 
maternity hospital that was ravaged by the first wave. That region has 
lost its capacity for maternal health care. It has lost its nurses, its 
doctors, its midwives, its entire maternity health care infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, 150,000 women scheduled to give birth after the 
tsunami, they need help. The UNFPA is one of the only agencies of its 
kind that can provide that help. It does not make sense for us to 
abandon the lives of newborn babies and their mothers in tsunami-
affected areas because of what we do not like happening in China. The 
two issues are not at all related.
  We have an opportunity. This is something we can agree on, and that 
is maternal health care and reproductive health care, and saving lives 
in areas that desperately need it.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) who has been a great leader on 
this issue.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, 
which would correct an error in the interpretation of our law that has 
put the lives of the world's most vulnerable women and children at 
risk.
  Since 2002, the United States has provided no funds to the United 
Nations Population Fund. The facts are clear. UNFPA has a worldwide 
policy of not providing abortions, even when they are legal in the 
country in which UNFPA is operating. UNFPA does not coerce women into 
abortion and sterilization. It works to secure voluntary reproductive 
health options around the world.
  U.S. law prohibits funding for organizations that support coercive 
practices.

                              {time}  1400

  But UNFPA is being penalized because it is trying to overturn, end 
coercive practices in China.
  In meeting after meeting over the past 3 years, the State Department 
has repeatedly said that nothing UNFPA does will lead to a restoration 
of its funding as long as it continues to operate in China, unless 
China changed its laws.
  Let us make it very clear. UNFPA is the premier multilateral 
organization helping to provide safe motherhood, reproductive health 
assistance to the world's poorest children.
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire on the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Fifteen seconds.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, is that on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has 30 seconds.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that we may have 
a disagreement in some ways, but UNFPA is a world leader.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is recognized 
for 15 seconds.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why, without 
passing the Maloney amendment, we punish millions of women throughout 
the Third World. Our annual $34 million contribution could prevent 2 
million unintended pregnancies; 800,000 induced abortions; 4,700 
maternal deaths, and most of them are young girls that have no control 
over their lives; and 77,000 infant deaths. That is what we should be 
doing. This should not be about China. This should be about the Third 
World.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want my comments to be separated. One, I want to 
commend and thank the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), for her strong support on human rights. Particularly, she 
has been very good in China. She was there from the Tiananmen Square 
times and all the time. So I just want the record, we want to separate 
these out, but I want the record to show that I admire her and respect 
very much her support for human rights in China. It has been 
outstanding.
  The second point I want to make is to separate back to the debate 
that my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), was just 
talking about. I favor family planning. I am speaking for myself. I 
favor family planning. But this is a government that still has 
Tiananmen Square demonstrators in prison. In 1991 the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I were in Beijing Prison Number 1, and we 
are the only two Members of the Congress that have been in a Chinese 
gulag, and we saw Tiananmen Square demonstrators making socks. Some of 
you may be wearing the socks, socks for export to the United States. 
God bless him, Senator Moynihan got the socks, when I came back, held 
the socks up on the Senate floor with regard to how bad China was. And 
I will get that, what Senator Moynihan said, and put it in the Record.
       Mr. Moynihan. Mr. President, here are products of prison 
     labor, sold in international trade by the Chinese. You can 
     buy these: socks with a panda with the word ``boxing'' and a 
     little boxer; this fellow is playing golf, whatever.
       Representative Wolf was in Beijing Prison No. 1, and not 
     recognizing him as a Member of the House of Representatives, 
     they thought he was a buyer. They started showing him the 
     goods for sale.
       They have stopped that. We have ratified that treaty at 
     long last. Surely we ought to indicate that we mean it, that 
     we intend to help enforce this international labor standard.

  This is a fundamentally evil government that you cannot trust. Many 
Tiananmen Square demonstrators that we lament about and talk about are 
still in prison. Now, they moved them out of Beijing Prison Number 1, 
but they are still in prison. And if you do not think there is 
coercion, call Harry Wu. Harry Wu lives out in Fairfax County, in the 
district of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). And Harry will 
tell the gentleman about the forced abortions and the

[[Page H4597]]

policies and the abuse of this government. If you need a new kidney, 
they will go in the prisons, they will find somebody with your blood 
type, they will shoot them, maybe a Catholic priest, maybe Buddhist 
monk, maybe a Protestant pastor, or maybe a pickpocket. But you can get 
a new kidney for $50,000. This is the government that you basically 
want to give money to.
  Now, many of you saw it. I think I did a Dear Colleague letter. Soon 
after the death of Pope John Paul, they arrested two elderly Catholic 
priests. And I say to my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays), talk to the Cardinal Kung Foundation and let them tell you of 
all the persecution. I believe they are now 11 Catholic bishops. The 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) took holy communion from Bishop 
Su.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask if I could yield to the gentleman just for 
two words. Where is Bishop Su now?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. He is in prison.
  Mr. WOLF. He is in prison. One other question. How old is he?
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. He is in his mid-70s. Twenty-seven years in 
prison.
  Mr. WOLF. Mid-70s in prison for giving holy communion.
  Now, the government put him in jail. Nobody else. You have a 
government that you fundamentally cannot trust.
  Lastly, Secretary Powell, a constituent of mine, somebody that we all 
admire. He lives out in my congressional district. Here is what he said 
on July 15, 2004: ``Despite these efforts, China continues to employ 
coercion in its birth planning program including through severe 
penalties for out-of-plan births. And UNFPA's program has not been 
restructured to solve the problems identified in 2002.''
  So Secretary Powell, who we all trust, said they are still doing it. 
And then he ends, ``however, as in 2002, UNFPA continues its support 
and involvement in China's coercive birth limitation program in 
counties where China's restrictive law and penalties are enforced by 
government officials.'' I urge you to defeat this amendment and send a 
message to this fundamentally bad government that is doing all these 
horrible things to women, doing all these things to Catholic priests, 
Catholic bishops, to evangelical pastors, to Buddhist monks.
  I was in Tibet, went in every monastery we could. They told us what 
they are doing to the Buddhist Church. It is against the law to have a 
picture of the Dalai Lama. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.


                                       The Secretary of State,

                                    Washington, DC, July 15, 2004.
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on International Relations, House of 
         Representatives.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Foreign Operations, Export Financing 
     and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-
     199, Div. D) (``Act''), like every foreign operations 
     appropriations act since 1985, provides that ``none of the 
     funds made available in this Act . . . may be made available 
     to any organization or program which, as determined by the 
     President of the United States, supports or participates in 
     the management of a program of coercive abortion or 
     involuntary sterilization.'' Separately in Section 567, the 
     Act earmarks $34 million for the United Nations Population 
     Fund (``UNFPA'').
       In July 2002, I determined that UNFPA's support of, and 
     involvement in, China's population-planning activities 
     allowed the Chinese Government to implement more effectively 
     its program of coercive abortion, and that, therefore, the 
     Kemp-Kasten Amendment precluded funding of UNFPA at that 
     time.
       Since that time, we have had numerous discussions with the 
     Government of China to urge an end to China's program of 
     coercive abortion. We have also urged UNFPA and China to 
     restructure the UNFPA program so that UNFPA does not support 
     or participate in the management of China's coercive program. 
     Despite these efforts, China continues to employ coercion in 
     its birth planning program, including through severe 
     penalties for ``out of plan births'' and UNFPA's program has 
     not been restructured to solve the problems identified in 
     2002. However, as in 2002, UNFPA continues its support and 
     involvement in China's coercive birth limitation program in 
     counties where China's restrictive law and penalties are 
     enforced by government officials. More information on the 
     nature of China's birth-limitation regime and UNFPA's 
     involvement therein is contained in the enclosed report on 
     China's Birth-Limitation Policy.
       The Administration is preparing to take the steps, 
     including consulting with Congress, that would be necessary 
     to apply the amount that had been reserved for UNFPA in the 
     ``International Organizations and Programs'' account to the 
     ESF account, for use in support of the President's initiative 
     to aid victims of trafficking.
       We will continue to remain engaged with China and UNFPA on 
     this issue. As I stated in 2002, if Chinese laws and 
     practices were changed so that UNFPA's activities did not 
     support a program of coercive abortion, or if UNFPA were to 
     change the program implementation for its funding so that it 
     did not support a program of coercive abortions, I would be 
     prepared to consider funding UNFPA in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Colin L. Powell.
       Enclosures: As stated.

         Report to Congress on China's Birth Limitation Policy

       The Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2673, H. Report 
     108-401, in the Statement of Managers, requests the 
     Department of State [hereinafter ``the Department''] to 
     report ``not later than July 15, 2004, on the steps it and 
     UNFPA have taken to urge the Government of China to end its 
     birth limitation policy, including the social compensation 
     fee, and the results of those efforts, nationally, and 
     particularly in the counties in which UNFPA operates.'' This 
     report responds to that request.


                            U.S. Engagement

       Since the Secretary's determination of July 21, 2002, that 
     funding for UNFPA was precluded by the Kemp-Kasten Amendment 
     of the FY 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, the 
     United States has actively engaged with China to end coercive 
     practices in its birth-limitation program and with UNFPA to 
     end its support for that program. We have urged China to 
     implement fully the principle recognized in the Programme of 
     Action of the International Conference on Population and 
     Development (ICPD) that all couples should have the right 
     ``to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and 
     timing of their children and to have the information and 
     means to do so, and . . . to make decisions concerning 
     reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence. . 
     . .'' In order to implement this principle the Chinese family 
     planning program should be fully voluntary and free of all 
     forms of coercion.
       Immediately following the Secretary's determination, the 
     Department commenced a round of five negotiating sessions 
     with China with the objective of eliminating coercive 
     provisions in law and ending coercive practices in the 
     counties in which UNFPA is involved. We also encouraged China 
     and UNFPA to restructure their proposal for the new fifth 
     country program (CP5) agreement in a way that would allow the 
     United States to fund UNFPA. Discussions were held with 
     senior UNFPA and Chinese officials in New York, 
     Washington, Beijing, and during international meetings on 
     population matters. Department personnel visited UNFPA 
     project counties in China on two occasions, in November 
     2002 and August 2003. Embassy and Consulate personnel 
     based in China made numerous field visits, both to 
     counties in which UNFPA operates and counties in which 
     there is no UNFPA assistance. These field visits were 
     designed to learn about the implementation of China's 
     birth limitation laws and policies/practices, and about 
     UNFPA's activities in China. Despite several rounds of 
     discussions with U.S. representatives, UNFPA and China 
     decided not to make substantive changes to the proposed 
     UNFPA fifth country program. For example, UNFPA did not 
     condition the start of the program on the elimination of 
     social compensation fees (SCF). When CP5 was adopted at 
     the first regular session of the UNFPA Executive Board in 
     January 2003, the United States could not support the 
     program because of coercive measures in the enforcement of 
     China's birth limitation laws. The U.S. delegate stated 
     that the United States believes that UNFPA should not be 
     associated in any way with coercion.
       In the summer of 2003, the Administration considered that 
     circumstances surrounding UNFPA's continued involvement in 
     China's birth limitation program had not changed sufficiently 
     to warrant U.S. funding.
       As described below, many of those circumstances continue to 
     persist, despite claims by Chinese officials that they are 
     working to eliminate coercive measures. These, along with 
     others described in State's annual human rights reports, 
     information supplied by UNFPA, the results of U.S. efforts to 
     engage both UNFPA and China on numerous occasions from 2002 
     through 2004, and the fact that China's coercive policies 
     have, since the Secretary's July 2002 determination, now been 
     codified and enforced as a matter of national law, all 
     contribute to the finding that the Kemp-Kasten amendment 
     continues to preclude funding for FY 2004.


                China's Birth-Limitation Regime--Now Law

       A new national Law on Population and Birth-Planning went 
     into effect on September 1, 2002. This law codifies on a 
     national basis, for the first time, China's longstanding 
     ``one child policy'' and specifies a number of government 
     birth-limitation measures that amount to coercion. 
     (As mentioned in the 2002 determination, county laws had 
     previously been in place and were used to enforce the 
     birth limitation policy.) The national law provides, inter 
     alia, ``. . . practicing birth planning is a basic 
     national policy of the State. The State (shall) employ 
     comprehensive measures to control population quantity and 
     improve population

[[Page H4598]]

     quality.'' (Article 2.) ``Citizens have a right to have a 
     child and also have a duty to practice birth planning 
     according to the law. . . . (Article 17.) ``The State 
     shall stabilize currently implemented birth policies. . . 
     .
     Those who meet the conditions in laws and regulations can 
     request the arrangement of the birth of a second child. 
     Specific methods (shall be) stipulated by the people's 
     congresses of provinces. . . .'' (Article 18.) ``Citizens 
     who give birth to a child in violation of Article 18 of 
     this law should pay a social compensation fee. . . .'' 
     (Article 41.) ``Among (government) personnel who pay a 
     social compensation fee in accordance with Article 41 of 
     this law, those who are State staff should also be given 
     administrative punishment according to law.'' ``Other 
     personnel (who are not state staff) should also (in 
     addition to the social compensation fee) be given 
     disciplinary punishment by their own unit or 
     organization.'' (Article 42.)
       Since the promulgation of the national law, all provinces 
     and equivalent governmental units except the Tibetan 
     Autonomous Region have issued implementing regulations that 
     set out birth planning requirements. These regulations 
     generally allow only one child, with specific exceptions that 
     allow qualified couples to have a second, or in rare cases, a 
     third child. They also set ranges for assessment of the 
     social compensation fees (SCF) by local authorities. Fees 
     range from the equivalent of one half the local average 
     annual household income to as much as 10 times that level. 
     One county where UNFPA has activities, Liuyang in Hunan 
     Province, assesses a fee of two times the average annual 
     household income. Liuyang County has waived the fee for pre-
     marriage births, but not for inadequate birth spacing (when 
     an additional child is allowed), or for ``out-of-plan'' 
     births. (An example of province implementing regulations is 
     provided as annex two.)
       The Department has urged Chinese government officials to 
     eliminate the SCF, as well as other coercive birth limitation 
     measures. UNFPA has urged experimentation with the fee in 
     UNFPA program counties with a view towards elimination by the 
     end of the current program. The Chinese government has 
     suggested that because the SCF is specifically prescribed in 
     national law, local governments do not have authority to 
     completely waive collection of the fee. Other coercive 
     measures in place in China include cutting off state-funded 
     education or health care benefits for ``out of plan'' 
     children, loss of employment, and imposition of a system 
     of severe fines and penalties. National and Provincial 
     Chinese government officials have declined or been unable 
     to assure us that penalties such as demotion or loss of 
     job are not also imposed in countries where UNFPA 
     operates.
       The 2004 State Department Country Report on Human Rights 
     Practices confirms China continues enforcement of its birth 
     limitation policies and law. (Annex One.)


                     UNFPA's Engagement with China

       Last month, at the Department's request, UNFPA furnished in 
     a very timely fashion information regarding its China 
     program. The Director of UNFPA's Asia and Pacific Division, 
     Sultan Aziz, wrote to the Department on June 14, 2004, 
     highlighting the concerns UNFPA shares with the United States 
     ``over aspects of China's family planning strategy that could 
     lead to coercion.'' In particular, he made the following 
     points about UNFPA's view of it approach and progress in 
     China:
       ``UNFPA, like all UN organizations, is guided by 
     international human rights standards and principles in all 
     our programs. Using the ICPD principles as our platform, 
     UNFPA Country Programmes focus on voluntary, client-oriented 
     family planning services with a range of choices and 
     options.''
       ``UNFPA has made a significant contribution in improving 
     reproductive health knowledge, reducing (the) proportion of 
     sterilization and abortions, reducing maternal mortality and 
     increasing the proportion of births with skilled 
     attendants.''
       ``UNFPA does not support China's one-child policy, and has 
     proactively engaged in serious dialogue with the Chinese 
     government on this issue. There is growing realization in the 
     government, if not directly stated, about the problems 
     arising from the one-child policy--sex ratio imbalances, 
     ageing and population structure.''
       ``China is committed to the ICPD and its steadily, 
     incrementally and firmly moving beyond demographic targets 
     towards a voluntary and client-oriented FP [family planning] 
     approach. UNFPA, has been catalytic in fostering, supporting 
     and guiding the transition.''


               UNFPA's Fifth Country Programme for China

       Much of UNFPA ``input,'' i.e., its programs, goals, and 
     activities, in China is designed to assist China in ``forming 
     new management and service approaches of its population and 
     family planning program.'' The goals of its current program 
     (CP5), building on those of its previous program (CP4), 
     continue to strive toward moving the Chinese government from 
     an ``administrative'' approach to a ``client-centered, 
     quality of care'' approach, closer to the standards of the 
     Programme of Action--and thus toward achieving through 
     individual counseling desirable population goals without 
     coercion. But these efforts miss the mark; they are narrowly 
     tailored to expand access to reproductive health information 
     and to allow couples and individuals to select their 
     contraceptive methods in compliance with the national and 
     provincial regulations. Their end result is not that couples 
     and individuals may freely make decisions as to the number 
     and spacing of their children. Rather, in counties where the 
     UNFPA operates, China continues to implement its coercive 
     laws and practices.
       The UNFPA-China agreement sets as a hortatory objective the 
     elimination of the SCF by 2010, but it provides for no 
     specific actions to further that end. UNFPA noted that it 
     required CP5 participating counties to lower fees and 
     encouraged further experimentation, but the agreement does 
     not provide for elimination. Further, the agreement requires 
     that counties participating in CP5 eliminate targets and 
     quotas, but does not require them to eliminate coercive 
     ``administrative'' or ``disciplinary'' punishments--thus 
     continuing to reflect UNFPA's support for China's coercive 
     program.
       The UNFPA budget for CP5 amounts to almost $8 million over 
     3 years. The funding allocation for CP5 is similar to that in 
     CP4 funding. It includes cost for personnel (including 
     consultants), monitoring and evaluation, research, 
     publications, international meetings and exchange visits, and 
     vehicles. UNFPA also continues to fund equipment for China, 
     including for management information systems and data 
     management software which are capable of tracking births, 
     although UNFPA claims in its June 14, 2004 letter that the 
     Management Information System [MIS] is ``categorically not 
     intended for tracking out of plan pregnancies, or to help 
     enforce the social compensation fees.'' UNFPA is also 
     financing improvements in the administration of the local 
     family planning offices.
       These resources are provided directly or indirectly to the 
     State Family Planning Commission in counties where it 
     enforces the fines and administrative penalties such as job 
     loss, demotion, and expulsion from the Communist Party. The 
     UNFPA activities include training of reproductive health 
     service providers in, among other things, awareness of the 
     law in order that they may provide reproductive health 
     counseling. This, as well as UNFPA's supplying equipment and 
     supplies to the very agencies that employ coercive practices, 
     amounts to support for not only in China's broader 
     population-planning activities, but also specifically for the 
     Chinese government's more effective implementation of its 
     program of coercive abortion.


                               conclusion

       Both China and UNFPA have been willing to engage with the 
     United States on approaches to eliminating coercion in 
     China's birth planning law and policy. We welcome this 
     dialogue and efforts by China to move forward in this 
     important area and we will continue our engagement. We 
     congratulate China and UNFPA on the elimination of targets 
     and quotas in UNFPA counties and reduction of the incidence 
     of maternal mortality. Unfortunately, coercive birth 
     limitation measures in law and policy continue in counties in 
     which UNFPA assists China.

  Excerpts From Country Reports on Human Rights Practices China, 2003

       Authorities continued to reduce the use of targets and 
     quotas, although over 1,900 of the country's 2,800 counties 
     continued to use such measures. Authorities using the target 
     and quota system require each eligible married couple to 
     obtain government permission before the woman becomes 
     pregnant. In many counties, only a limited number of such 
     permits were made available each year, so couples who did not 
     receive a permit were required to wait at least a year before 
     obtaining permission. Counties that did not employ targets 
     and quotas allowed married women of legal child-bearing age 
     to have a first child without prior permission.
       The country's population control policy relied on 
     education, propaganda, and economic incentives, as well as on 
     more coercive measures such as the threat of job loss or 
     demotion and social compensation fees. Psychological and 
     economic pressure were very common; during unauthorized 
     pregnancies, women sometimes were visited by birth planning 
     workers who used the threat of social compensation fees to 
     pressure women to terminate their pregnancies. The fees were 
     assessed at widely varying levels and were generally 
     extremely high. Reliable sources reported that the fees 
     ranged from one-half to eight times the average worker's 
     annual disposable income. Local officials have authority to 
     adjust the fees downward and did so in many cases. Additional 
     disciplinary measures against those who violated the limited 
     child policy by having an unapproved child or helping another 
     to do so included the withholding of social services, higher 
     tuition costs when the child goes to school, job loss or 
     demotion, loss of promotion opportunity, expulsion from the 
     Party (membership in which was an unofficial requirement for 
     certain jobs), and other administrative punishments, 
     including in some cases the destruction of property. These 
     penalties sometimes left women little practical choice but to 
     undergo abortion or sterilization. Rewards for couples who 
     adhered to birth limitation laws and policies included 
     monthly stipends and preferential medical and educational 
     benefits. In the cases of families that already had two 
     children, one of the parents was usually pressured to 
     undergo sterilization.
       In March, the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) concluded a 4-
     year pilot project in 32 counties. Under this program, local 
     birth

[[Page H4599]]

     planning officials emphasized education, improved 
     reproductive health services, and economic development, and 
     they eliminated the target and quota systems for limiting 
     births. However, these counties retained the birth limitation 
     policy, including the requirement that couples employ 
     effective birth control methods, and enforced it through 
     other means, such as social compensation fees. Subsequently, 
     800 other counties also removed the target and quota system 
     and tried to replicate the UNFPA project by emphasizing 
     quality of care and informed choice of birth control methods. 
     In April, a new UNFPA program began in 30 counties. Under 
     this program, officials defined a list of ``legitimate rights 
     of reproduction according to law,'' including the rights to 
     choose contraception and right to legal remedies, among 
     others.

         Jiangsu Province Birth Limitation Regulations Excerpts


                     chapter 1  general principles

     Article 5
       Local people's governments at all levels within the 
     province shall take integrated measures to control the size 
     of the population and to improve its quality, and shall 
     implement population and family planning programs. . . .
     Article 7
       Citizens have the right to reproduce and the obligation to 
     practice family planning in accordance with the law. . . .


                    chapter 3  fertility regulation

     Article 21
       A man and a woman who have been legally registered as 
     married may have one child, provided that neither has had a 
     child previously.
     Article 22
       Married couples meeting any of the following conditions may 
     apply to give birth to one additional child:
       The couple has only one child, and that child is certified 
     by a pediatric illness and disability authentication 
     institution to have a disability, other than a serious 
     genetic disability, that cannot at present be treated, or 
     that despite systematic treatment will prevent that child 
     from developing into a normal worker or seriously affect that 
     child's future marriageability.
       Either spouse is a member of the armed forces, armed 
     police, or public security police or is a `Good Samaritan' 
     and that spouse has sustained a Class 2, Grade 2 or higher 
     disability in the exercise of duty; or either spouse is the 
     only child of a [revolutionary] martyr and [the couple] has 
     only one child.
       One spouse has been widowed and the other spouse has never 
     had a child.
       One spouse is divorced and has either had only one child or 
     has legally had two children and the other spouse has never 
     had a child.
       Neither spouse has had a child and, after having legally 
     adopted a child, the wife becomes pregnant.
       One spouse is a second-generation only child, or both 
     spouses are only children, and [the couple] has only one 
     child.
       One spouse has been occupied in downhole operations for a 
     continuous period of five years or longer, is currently 
     occupied in downhole operations, and [the couple] has only 
     one child which is a daughter.
     Article 23
       Apart from the provisions of Article 22 of these 
     regulations, married couples may apply to give birth to one 
     additional child if the wife is a rural resident and any of 
     the following conditions is met:
       One spouse is an only child, and [the couple] has only one 
     child.
       Only one child has been had, and the brother(s) of the 
     husband is/are unable to have a child.
       The husband has moved his residence to the place of 
     residence of the wife and is supporting the parents of the 
     wife, who has no brothers, and [the couple] has only one 
     child which is a daughter. This rule shall apply to only one 
     sister on the wife's side.
       The man has no brothers and only one sister, and [the 
     couple] has only one child which is a daughter.
       The couple permanently resides in a coastal reclamation 
     area with population density not greater than one person per 
     five mu of land (calculated on a per village basis), and has 
     only one child which is a daughter.
       One spouse has been continuously occupied in ocean fishing 
     for five years or more, is currently employed in ocean 
     fishing, and the couple has only one child which is a 
     daughter.


                      chapter vi  legal liability

     Article 44
       A couple that gives birth to a child not in accordance with 
     these regulations shall pay the social compensation fee. . . 
     .
       For urban residents, social compensation fees shall be 
     calculated by taking as the basic standard the per capita 
     annual disposable income of urban residents in the 
     municipality with districts or in the country (city) in the 
     year prior to the child's birth. For rural residents, social 
     compensation fees shall be calculated by taking as the basic 
     standard the per capita annual net income of rural residents 
     in the township (town in the year prior to the child's birth. 
     . . .
       The specific standards for the social compensation fees to 
     be paid in accordance with paragraph one of this article are:
       Those who have had one additional child not in accordance 
     with the provisions of these regulations shall pay social 
     compensation fees in the amount of four multiples of the 
     basic standard.
       Those who have had two or more additional children not in 
     accordance with the provisions of these regulations shall pay 
     social compensation fees in the amount of five to eight 
     multiples of the basic standard.
       Those who have had one child outside of marriage shall pay 
     social compensation fees in the amount of 0.5 to 2 multiples 
     of the basic standard.
       Those who have had two or more children outside of marriage 
     shall pay social compensation fees in the amount of five to 
     eight multiples of the basic standard.
       Those who have had a child in a bigamous marriage shall pay 
     social compensation fees in the amount of 6 to 9 multiples of 
     the basic standard.

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I 
thank Congresswoman Maloney, along with Congressman Shays and 
Congressman Israel, for joining me in support of this important issue.
  This amendment is simple. If you support the good work UNFPA does 
around the world, in approximately 150 countries, supporting women's 
health programs, fighting HIV/AIDS, and improving child health--then 
you will vote for the Maloney/Crowley amendment.
  This Congress has consistently voted to fund UNFPA. But the 
Administration refuses to release that money. They hide behind the fact 
that UNFPA works in China, helping move that country away from its 
abhorrent one-child policy.
  Of course, when the President sent over an investigative team, it 
reported that there was no coercion in the Chinese program and that 
UNFPA should be funded. Moreover, Congress has put into law that, if 
the U.S. contributes to UNFPA, it will deduct $1 for every $1 spent in 
China. Clearly, the China issue is simply meant to muddy the waters of 
this debate.
  But one thing that remained abundantly clear to me during my trip to 
see the impact of the recent tsunami--UNFPA funding is nothing short of 
critical.
  I recently visited tsunami-affected sites that, with UNFPA funding, 
often serve as the first line of support for women and families in 
need. But it is not only the important work they do in disaster zones, 
it is the work they do day in and day out to help women in the 
developing world.
  And while USAID is involved in related initiatives, the fact remains 
that the USAID is only in approximately 50 countries while UNFPA is in 
approximately 150.
  Let's focus on the facts. UNFPA saves lives, UNFPA brings dignity to 
those in need, and UNFPA helps women. UNFPA does not coerce. UNFPA does 
not provide abortion, and no U.S. money will go to China.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back all of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee Of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6, rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceeding were postponed 
in the following order: amendment No. 11 offered by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Paul), amendment No. 4 by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Hefley), an amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), 
amendment No. 19 by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), 
amendment No. 18 by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), an 
amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), an amendment 
by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), amendment No. 6 by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Paul

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) 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.

[[Page H4600]]

                             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 65, 
noes 357, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 259]

                                AYES--65

     Akin
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bonner
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Cannon
     Coble
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Foley
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Lewis (KY)
     Manzullo
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Platts
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Ryun (KS)
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Tiberi
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--357

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bono
     Chandler
     Cox
     Cuellar
     Davis, Tom
     McCrery
     McKinney
     Oberstar
     Pryce (OH)
     Sessions
     Woolsey


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1428

  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. CROWLEY 
and Ms. HOOLEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. CUBIN, and Messrs. EVERETT, SHUSTER and DEAL of Georgia changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 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 91, 
noes 336, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 260]

                                AYES--91

     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Costello
     Cox
     Cubin
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gohmert
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sodrel
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--336

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski

[[Page H4601]]


     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     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
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     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
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bono
     Conyers
     Cuellar
     Oberstar
     Pitts
     Sessions


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1438

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) 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 415, 
noes 8, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 261]

                               AYES--415

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--8

     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Davis (KY)
     Feeney
     Graves
     Hayes
     Mica
     Westmoreland

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
       Hayworth
       

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bono
     Buyer
     Cantor
     Cuellar
     Kirk
     Oberstar
     Rogers (MI)
     Sessions
     Waters


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1446

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 261 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
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.

[[Page H4602]]

                             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 204, 
noes 222, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 262]

                               AYES--204

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carter
     Case
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bono
     Cuellar
     Foley
     Hunter
     Oberstar
     Sessions
     Tierney


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1454

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 262 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) 
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 106, 
noes 322, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 263]

                               AYES--106

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilirakis
     Boozman
     Boren
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Case
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cox
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Drake
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Istook
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     King (IA)
     LoBiondo
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Ney
     Norwood
     Otter
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Wamp
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--322

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)

[[Page H4603]]


     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pickering
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bono
     Cuellar
     Delahunt
     Oberstar
     Sessions


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1502

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


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) 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 183, 
noes 244, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 264]

                               AYES--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     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
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--244

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bono
     Cuellar
     McDermott
     Oberstar
     Rush
     Sessions


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1510

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


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) 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.

[[Page H4604]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 149, 
noes 278, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 265]

                               AYES--149

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Frank (MA)
     Gilchrest
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--278

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bono
     Cuellar
     Green, Gene
     Oberstar
     Oxley
     Sessions


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1518

  Mr. CASTLE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mrs. Maloney

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on amendment No. 6 offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) 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 192, 
noes 233, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 266]

                               AYES--192

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--233

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     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
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth

[[Page H4605]]


     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bono
     Conyers
     Cuellar
     Delahunt
     Hinchey
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Oberstar
     Sessions


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1526

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, the Clerk will read 
the last three lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Science, State, Justice, 
     Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006''.

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, each year, funding for essential 
programs under this bill is drastically cut. The National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Association, the Community Oriented Policing Services, and 
the Public Telecommunications Facilities and Planning Account are all 
examples of successful and important programs that have been 
continually under-funded. While I have supported this appropriations 
bill in the past, the cumulative affect of these cuts has reached a 
point where I can no longer support the legislation.
  I was heartened to see the Sanders amendment pass which will repeal 
some of the most dangerous provisions of the PATRIOT Act. This is a 
common sense step to restore some of our civil liberties. I was also 
pleased that the Committee did not include the Administration's 
proposed initiative under the Commerce Department, which would have 
obliterated Community Development Block Grants as well as other 
valuable community development programs. 
  These victories, however, are not enough to compensate for the 
unacceptable cuts to community policing programs, public broadcasting, 
and economic development programs, along with many other programs that 
positively contribute to the livability of our communities. I cannot 
support a bill that fails to support these basic needs of our Nation.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Foley) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, 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 directed him to report 
the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 314, the 
previous question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on amendment No. 
28 offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.

                              {time}  1530

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment on which a separate vote has been demanded.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title), the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. (a) For expenses necessary for enforcing 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 642 of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1373), $1,000,000.
       (b) The amount otherwise provided in this Act for 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Legal Activities--salaries and 
     expenses, general legal activities'' is hereby reduced by 
     $1,000,000.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 208, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 267]

                               AYES--218

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

                               NOES--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)

[[Page H4606]]


     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     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
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bono
     Cuellar
     Hinchey
     McDermott
     Oberstar
     Sessions
     Waters


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1547

  Mr. Udall of Colorado changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 267, the King of Iowa 
Amendment, I inadvertently voted ``no''. I meant to vote ``aye.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on passage of 
H.R. 2862 will be followed by 5-minute votes on ordering the previous 
question on H. Res. 315, and on adoption of H. Res. 315, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 418, 
nays 7, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 268]

                               YEAS--418

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     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
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--7

     Cooper
     Duncan
     Flake
     Hefley
     Matheson
     Miller (FL)
     Paul

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Barton (TX)
     Bono
     Cuellar
     Delahunt
     Lee
     Oberstar
     Sessions
     Whitfield


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1603

  Mr. TANCREDO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 268 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

[[Page H4607]]



                          ____________________