[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]]
____________________