[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 85 (Tuesday, June 27, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4639-H4665]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SCIENCE, STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2007

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 890 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. 5672.

                              {time}  1907


                     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. 5672) making appropriations for Science, the Departments 
of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2007, 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 earlier today, the 
bill had been read through page 2, line 8.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to 
the bill may be offered except those specified in the previous order of 
the House of today, which is at the desk.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Wolf

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  My amendment proposes to move $1 million from Justice General 
Administration in order to restore funding eliminated from the budget 
request for the Missing Alzheimer's program. This program is critical 
to supporting law enforcement efforts to find missing adults suffering 
from the terrible disease of Alzheimer's.
  This is very important because Alzheimer's is a very difficult 
situation for both the individual with Alzheimer's and the family 
members. I offer it on behalf of Mr. Mollohan, and I know Congresswoman 
Maxine Waters strongly, strongly supports the adoption of the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman intend to offer an amendment?
  Mr. WOLF. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Wolf:
       Page 2, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, the Chair must 
query

[[Page H4640]]

whether any Member raises a point of order against provisions of the 
bill addressed by the amendment but not yet reached in the reading: to 
wit, the paragraph beginning on page 22, line 18.
  If not, the gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes on 
his amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Well, I won't repeat myself. The amendment proposes to move 
$1 million from Justice General Administration in order to restore 
funding eliminated from the budget request for the Missing Alzheimer's 
program. It is a very important and very needed program.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, how is the time controlled on this 
amendment; and how much time is on the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. There are 10 minutes of debate. Nobody has claimed the 
time in opposition as of yet.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. We have no opposition, Mr. Chairman, but I will claim 
the 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent, 
notwithstanding the fact he is not opposed, to have the time in 
opposition?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise in strong support of the amendment.
  There are 4.5 million Americans suffering from this terrible disease, 
Alzheimer's, and by 2050 we are looking at over 16 million potential 
victims of this dementia disease.
  Wandering is a terrible condition and of great concern to the loved 
ones of individuals with Alzheimer's. This program addresses that and 
addresses it very effectively. I compliment the chairman for the 
amendment and compliment our colleague from California, Ms. Waters, who 
has been a champion in this field.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time on this 
side. I know my colleague has a group who want to speak.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for offering this amendment with me to restore 
funding for the Safe Return Program for Alzheimer's patients. I would 
also like to thank him and my colleague from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan) for all their hard work on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman and Members, I did become rather alarmed when I learned 
the Science, State, Justice, Commerce bill for fiscal year 2006 
reported out of the Appropriations Committee had not funded Safe 
Return, and I am just so appreciative for Mr. Wolf's leadership and Mr. 
Mollohan's leadership in agreeing to make sure that this funding was 
restored.
  An estimated 4.5 million Americans have Alzheimer's disease, 
including one in 10 individuals over 65, with nearly half of those over 
85. Sixty percent of Alzheimer's patients are likely to wander from 
their homes. Wanderers are vulnerable to dehydration, weather 
conditions, traffic hazards, and individuals who prey on those who are 
defenseless. Up to 50 percent of wandering Alzheimer's patients will 
become seriously injured or will die if they are not found within 24 
hours.
  The Safe Return Program for Alzheimer's patients is a Department of 
Justice program that helps local communities and law enforcement 
officials identify wandering Alzheimer's patients quickly and ensures 
their safe return home. Under the Safe Return Program, patients are 
enrolled in a confidential national computerized database and provided 
with an identity bracelet or other identifying materials, such as 
necklace, key chain, wallet card, or clothing labels. The identifying 
materials contain the patient's name and a toll free number to contact 
their family.
  Since its inception 10 years ago, the Safe Return Program has 
registered over 143,000 individuals who may wander, and has united over 
11, 200 wanderers with their families. The Safe Return Program was able 
to carry out its lifesaving work with an appropriation of $840,000 in 
fiscal year 2006. Unfortunately, this had, I guess, been overlooked for 
a while. But now that our colleagues have provided the leadership to 
put in $1 million, this program will remain in the budget. The Wolf-
Waters amendment would restore the funding for this critical program 
and provides $1 million in fiscal year 2007, a slight increase over the 
2006 funding level.
  I know that we are all very pleased about this, so let me just remind 
my colleagues that we have families now, working families, and 
sometimes their parents, both parents, have Alzheimer's disease. We 
have many families that are struggling to take care of their children, 
go to work every day, and take care of their parents. This program 
helps so much because they will wander away. But with this funding and 
the Alzheimer's Association, working with the Justice Department, they 
can return many of these wanderers back to their families, and of 
course keep them safe.
  I thank you so very much.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
again, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. 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. Obey:
       Page 2, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert: ``(reduced 
     by $6,736,000)''.
       Page 62, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert: 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 86, line 17, after each of the dollar amounts, insert: 
     ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply adds $25 million to the 
Legal Services Corporation, returning it to the 2003 level from which 
it has fallen since that time. We have a bipartisan letter to Chairman 
Wolf from Ranking Member Mollohan signed by 160 Members of this House 
led by Representatives Ramstad and Delahunt, calling on the committee 
to restore funding for this program.
  This bill cuts LSC by $12.7 million below last year's level. LSC-
funded programs are the Nation's primary source of legal assistance to 
women who are the victims of violence. Seventy-three percent of those 
seeking assistance under this program are women.
  This budget has declined from $400 million in 1996, and we are not 
even restoring it to that level. We are simply asking to restore $25 
million of the massive cut that has occurred since that time.
  Because of the cuts already incurred by this program, 16 field 
offices have already been closed. I don't think we want to see any more 
of that.
  The offsets are very simple. We are taking $6.7 million from the 
Department of Justice general administration funds. The account is 
below the request, but the mark funds an 18 percent rent increase for 
management.
  We would secondly take the rest of the funding out of the Department 
of State Administration of Foreign Affairs, Diplomatic and Consular 
Programs. The account includes a $76.9 million increase over the 
current year. This cut leaves in place increases for Intelligence and 
Research, Public Diplomacy, Foreign Language Training, Reconstruction 
and Stabilization and Border Security.
  Mr. Chairman, we stand on this floor every day, and we recite the 
pledge of allegiance to the flag. In the process of doing that, we 
pledge to support ``liberty and justice for all.''
  You simply cannot have justice in this country if you do not have 
adequate access to its court system. It seems to me that this amendment 
is on its face self-evident. There is no reason

[[Page H4641]]

why we cannot, with all of the money we spend for so many other 
programs, there is no reason that we cannot provide such a small 
restoration of funding for people who have nowhere else to go to be 
able to participate in what is supposed to be a system that produces 
equal justice for all.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I want to salute the gentleman. He made some 
very important points. But we have had to make some difficult decisions 
putting this bill together.
  The bill already includes $314 million for the Legal Services 
Corporation. This used to be politicized. It has not been politicized. 
It is an increase of $3 million above the President's request. That 
means we cut $3 million from some other part of the bill to increase 
funding for the Legal Services Corporation.
  There are a number of areas in the bill that we would increase 
funding for if we didn't have to restore $1.1 billion for State and 
local law enforcement.
  Unlike the Legal Services, which is funded above the request, we have 
already cut from the request of State Department's Diplomatic and 
Consular Affairs operations account by $147 million. Our bill provides 
a modest increase of $77 million or 2.1 percent to cover pay and 
inflationary costs for the Department.
  The only increases that the funding supports are new positions for 
critical posts around the world to support our national interests in 
emerging nations like India, China, Egypt and Indonesia.
  In addition, we have supported an increase for the Office of 
Stabilization and Reconstruction and for new critical language training 
positions.
  We are in a global war on terror. This amendment cuts into already 
reduced amounts to support the diplomatic side of this effort. North 
Korea has just threatened to test a nuclear weapon. Iran continues its 
efforts to develop a nuclear program.
  Further, this amendment would cut $5 million from the Department of 
Justice administration account. The bill already reduces that request 
for general administration by $25 million or 22 percent below the 
request. The Acting Assistant Attorney General for Administration has 
written us to inform us that, at the current level of funding in the 
bill, 58 positions will be eliminated at the Department of Justice 
headquarters.
  Additional cuts will hinder the Department's abilities to effectively 
manage more than $20 billion in appropriations, operate hundreds of DOJ 
facilities, manage 100,000 employees and coordinate public policy.
  We have done the best we can. We have also got the Manufacturing 
Extension Program up. We have increased drug courts by 300 percent. So 
a bill that treats the diverse accounts within our jurisdiction, I 
think, has been done as fairly as we can. Therefore, I urge the 
rejection of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. The 
gentleman's amendment would increase the Legal Services Corporation by 
$25 million. That is up to the recent high water mark of $338 million 
that was enacted in fiscal 2003.
  Since that high water mark, the funding trend for the Legal Services 
Corporation has been disappointing. It has decreased incrementally 
until this year, like a lot of other domestic discretionary programs in 
this bill, but none more important than Legal Services Corporation.
  If we are to fulfill the promise of this great Nation that everybody 
in our society has equal access to the law, obviously having the 
resources to have access to the law is extremely important. That is 
what this program does for those who are the least able to pay for 
legal services, to afford legal representation in time of need. It is 
often this group of people who have a lot of legal problems. They need 
a lot of assistance.
  This year, we see a precipitous drop in the funding as it plummets by 
$13 million below last year's level.
  Forgive me for citing West Virginia's example, but I think it is a 
good one which reflects this downward trend and what its disastrous 
effect is. Since 2003, due to the census adjustment and decreased 
funding, the program has laid off 13 to 18 staff members in my State. 
The program currently has 92 staff members, including 37 lawyers. The 
layoffs are about 16 percent of the workforce. The program has lost 
$400,000 in funding, had to close four or five services in small 
counties in southern West Virginia.
  In 2002, Legal Aid of West Virginia closed 6,145 cases. In 2005, that 
number decreased to 5,257 cases. The West Virginia program has 
estimated that it is unable to serve approximately 15,000 people a year 
due to lack of resources. That is a lot of people, Mr. Chairman, who 
are unable to access the legal system for want of resources. All of us 
can appreciate the hardship that that entails.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I will be introducing, at the 
appropriate time, a letter from the national Legal Aid & Defender 
Association that says, in part, that the LSC-funded program simply 
cannot keep up with the demand for services. Documenting the Justice 
gap, a year-long study released by the LSC in October of 2005 revealed 
that at least 50 percent of eligible clients were turned away from LSC-
funded programs due to a lack of resources.
  In other words, for every client served, at least one eligible client 
was turned away. This statistic reflects the vast unmet need and is, 
nonetheless, an underestimate and does not take into account the 
countless people, eligible people, who did not seek assistance because 
they were not aware that the LSC programs could help them.
  This letter says that we are extremely concerned that cuts to LSC-
funded programs will have a harmful effect on our judicial system, our 
economy and businesses, and our society in general.
  Mr. Chairman, it is significant that this letter is signed by 
approximately 60 general counsels of our Nation's leading corporations 
who are asking for this kind of amendment. Actually, they are asking 
for more resources, but at least this modest amendment ought to be 
adopted in response to this letter.

                                     National Legal Aid & Defender


                                                  Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 26, 2006.
     Hon. Robert C. Scott,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Scott: As the general counsel of some 
     of our nation's leading corporations, we are asking for your 
     help. The Legal Services Corporation (LSC), the primary legal 
     lifeline to millions of Americans in times of need, is in 
     jeopardy of having its already inadequate funding further 
     eroded. Today, LSC's funding is less than one-half of the 
     inflation-adjusted dollars that Congress appropriated in FY 
     1980, and ten million dollars less than the FY 2003 
     appropriation. In his FY 2007 budget request, President Bush 
     has proposed an additional 4.6 percent decrease from the 
     current $326.6 million appropriation to $310.9 million. We 
     are asking you to reverse this diminution of critical funds 
     by supporting the Corporation's FY 2007 budget request of 
     $411.8 million.
       Due to recent cuts to the LSC appropriation and rising 
     inflation rates, LSC-funded programs have struggled to help 
     the growing number of our country's impoverished. Poverty 
     statistics show that between 2002 and 2004, the number of 
     people eligible for LSC services increased from 47 million to 
     49.7 million, which is about one in every six Americans. 
     Sadly, of these nearly 50 million people, more than one third 
     of them are children. To put clients' need in perspective: a 
     family of four must earn a meager $25,000 or less to qualify.
       LSC-funded programs simply cannot keep up with the demand 
     for services. Documenting the Justice Gap, a year-long study 
     released by LSC in October 2005, revealed that at least 50 
     percent of eligible clients were turned away from LSC-funded 
     programs due to a lack of resources. In other words, for 
     every client served, at least one eligible client is turned 
     away. While this statistic reflects the vast unmet need, it 
     is, nonetheless, an underestimate and does not take into 
     account the countless eligible people who did not seek 
     assistance because they were not aware that LSC-funded 
     programs could help them.
       We are extremely concerned that cuts to LSC funding will 
     have a harmful affect on our judicial system, our economy and 
     businesses, and our society in general. While we

[[Page H4642]]

     are mindful of the severe fiscal constraints under which the 
     Congress finds itself, we ask you to act now to ensure that 
     essential civil legal services continue to make differences 
     in the lives of those in need. Please support a FY 2007 LSC 
     appropriation of $411.8 million and join us in upholding the 
     American promise of ``justice for all.''
           Sincerely,
         Kenneth C. Frazier, Merck & Co., Inc., Chair, NLADA 
           Corporate Advisory, Committee; Peter Arakas, LEGO 
           Systems, Inc.; Richard N. Baer, Qwest Communications 
           Corporation; Theodore N. Bobby, H.J. Heinz Company; 
           Paula Boggs, Starbucks Corporation; Charles Burson, 
           Esq., Monsanto Company; Carl J. Busch, Northrop Grumman 
           Corporation; Jim Carter, Nike Inc.; Robert J. Cindrich, 
           UPMC, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center; Mike 
           Cockrell, Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Bert Cornelison, 
           Halliburton Company; Julie A. Davis, Retail Ventures 
           Inc.; Morris Davis, Temple-Inland, Inc.; Dodds M. 
           Dehmer, W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company; 
           Catherine A. Lamboley, Shell Oil Company, Immediate 
           Past Chair, NLADA, Corporate Advisory Committee; Nancy 
           C. Loftin, Pinnacle West Capital Corp. and APS; Louis 
           M. Lupin, QUALCOMM Incorporated; Charles W. Matthews, 
           Jr., ExxonMobil Corporation; Ron McCray, Kimberly-Clark 
           Corporation; Kevin M. McDonald, Anadarko Petroleum 
           Corporation; John H. McGuckin Jr., Union Bank of 
           California; Lee R. Mitau, U.S. Bancorp; O. Kendall 
           Moore, U-Save Auto Rental of America, Inc.; Richard 
           Olin, Costco Wholesale Corporation; Patrick T. Ortiz, 
           PNM Resources, Inc.; Joy Lambert Phillips, Hancock 
           Bank; Thomas E. Richardson, Town Pump, Inc.; Scott E. 
           Rozzell, CenterPoint Energy, Inc.;
         Deborah Dorman-Rodriguez, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of 
           New Mexico; Paul Ehrlich, adidas International, Inc.; 
           Glenn M. Engelmann, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP; 
           Stephen F. Gates, ConocoPhillips; Craig B. Glidden, 
           Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP; Storrow Gordon, 
           Electronic Data Systems Corporation; Thomas A. 
           Gottschalk, General Motors Corporation; Andrew D. 
           Hendry, Colgate-Palmolive Company; Jim Hornstein, 
           Moldex Metric, Inc.; Michael Jines, Reliant Energy, 
           Inc.; James J. Johnson, The Procter & Gamble Company; 
           Murray L. Johnston Jr., Zachry Construction 
           Corporation; Guy Kerr, Belo Corp.; Ky Lewis, Sharp 
           HealthCare System; Mark I. Litow, Esq., Enterprise 
           Rent-A-Car Company; Dan D. Sandman, United States Steel 
           Corporation; David A. Savner, General Dynamics 
           Corporation; John Schulman, Warner Bros.; William F. 
           Schwind, Jr., Marathon Oil Corporation; Karen E. Shaff, 
           The Principal Financial Group; Lauri M. Shanahan, Gap 
           Inc.; Laura Stein, The Clorox Company; Ronald Taylor, 
           Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas; Vivian Tseng, 
           Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative; John E. Tucker, First 
           Tower Corp.; Rita Tuzon, Fox Cable Networks; Jack 
           VanWoerkom, Staples, Inc.; Jennifer L. Vogel, 
           Continental Airlines, Inc.; Michael T. Williams, Sony 
           Electronics Inc.; Wayne Withers, Esq., Emerson Electric 
           Company; Christopher J. Littlefield, AmerUs Group.

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin will be 
postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Reichert

  Mr. REICHERT. 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. Reichert:
       Page 2, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 23, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 46, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for his great work in helping local 
law enforcement officials strengthen their efforts to combat drugs in 
their communities.
  I rise today to offer an amendment to increase funding for local law 
enforcement communities to reinforce efforts to keep drugs out of our 
communities.
  During my 33 years in law enforcement, I have seen how Byrne-Justice 
Assistance Grants have help local law enforcement fight the war on 
drugs. Washington State received $9.6 million under the Byrne grant 
formula. Without this funding, our State would not have been able to 
effectively reduce violent and drug-related crimes in our communities.
  However, since 2001, funding for the Byrne-Justice Assistance Grants 
program has declined from over $1 billion in 2001 to less than $412 
million in 2006. The efforts of State and local law enforcement 
officers account for over 90 percent of all drug arrests and 
prosecutions. We cannot afford to turn our backs on law enforcement if 
we want to continue to achieve success in the fight against drugs and 
gangs.
  My amendment would increase funding for drug task forces under Byrne 
JAG grants by $25 million. The offset would be $10 million from the 
Department of Justice salaries and expense administration accounts and 
$15 million from program support, operations, research and facilities 
under NOAA.
  I have the greatest respect for the President's efforts and members 
of the Appropriations Committee to scale back government spending. 
However, adequate funding for law enforcement and anti-drug task force 
efforts are critical in order for our police officers to protect our 
communities against drugs.
  I am not alone in my efforts to increase funding for Byrne JAG grant 
funding. Many Members from both sides of the aisle have been leaders in 
the fight to fully fund our local drug task force.
  I would like to especially thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Terry) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) for their leadership 
in support of local law enforcement efforts in their fight against 
drugs and meth.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Washington for introducing this modest amendment to help families 
across the Nation that are dealing with meth issues, and not only the 
families that have to deal with them but the law enforcement community, 
the people on the front line.
  I want to thank you for your leadership, Mr. Reichert. Your 
experience and background as a law enforcement officer, somebody on the 
front line, has been instrumental to us in the United States Congress 
in this fight to empower our local police officers.
  But I also want to thank the chairman of the appropriations 
subcommittee in charge, because Chairman Wolf knows what drugs has done 
to our families. The budget that was sent over to us zeroed these out, 
eliminated them. The chairman fought to get as much put back as he 
could, but we still need more. So I appreciate your efforts.
  In Omaha, we have a real meth problem. It is affecting suburban 
housewives, teenagers, all segments and demographics of our community. 
I have personally seen how it ravages these families. I think it is 
important that we step up our efforts to rid this nasty drug from our 
communities. The only way to rid it from our communities is to empower 
the local law enforcement agencies.
  Now, we have passed a meth law in this House that allows for 
pseudoephedrine to be put behind the counter. That makes it hard to do 
the labs now. Frankly, in States like Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma and 
Missouri that have done that, they have seen the number of labs go 
down. But now we have got gangs running meth from super labs in Mexico.

                              {time}  1930

  So as we take labs down, we still get inundated in our communities 
from these drugs from gangs now. And so it is extremely important that 
those people that know the gang members, know what they are doing can 
run the task forces. And here is a chart up here that shows just with 
meth, from the task

[[Page H4643]]

forces funded by this 5.54 kilos of meth taken off.
  The National Association of Counties reports that 58 percent of 
counties ranked methamphetamine as their No. 1 drug problem in 2005, 
and CDC estimates at least 20,000 Americans die each year from drug 
abuse/overdose.
  Byrne-JAG grants incentivize multi-jurisdictional drug enforcement 
and cooperation between local, state and federal law enforcement 
agents. These grants are the primary federal funds to discourage 
domestic production of methamphetamine.
  The White House's 2007 budget request to Congress again eliminates 
funding for Byrne. In 2004, Congress provided $634 million to law 
enforcement agencies nationwide. Last year, the Senate voted to provide 
$900 million--closer to the original funding level for this program--
but the proposed bill provides just $367 million.
  Since FY01, funding has been cut from over $1 billion to less than 
$367 million in the H.R. 5672. The effect of these cuts has been clear: 
many States have been forced to cut or completely eliminate their gang 
and drug task forces.
  The $558 million reported as the funding level of Byrne-JAG includes 
$115 million in discretionary earmarks, and $75 million for Boys and 
Girls Clubs--leaving $367 million for state formula grants supporting 
drug and violent crime task forces.
  The proposed $367 million funding level would cripple the 
effectiveness of drug task forces nationwide, and jeopardize the gains 
made in reducing nationwide violent crime to a 30-year low. The 
collaborative task forces built over the past 15 years to combat drugs 
cannot be easily rebuilt.
  State and local agencies will take the brunt of meth investigations 
without federal assistance. More than 90 percent of drug arrests 
nationwide are made by state and local law enforcement.
  Tom Constantine, former head of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) 
testified that the majority of DEA cases begin as referrals from local 
and multi-jurisdictional drug investigations. He was unaware of any 
major DEA case during his tenure that did not originate from 
information gathered at the state and local level.
  Last year, Byrne task forces nationwide seized 5,600 meth labs, 
55,000 weapons, and massive quantities of narcotics, including 2.7 
million grams of meth. These results demonstrate the power of using 
federal dollars to leverage state and local partnerships.
  Nebraska will be forced to eliminate 9 of 11 task forces unless 
Byrne-JAG funding is increased; Texas has already eliminated its task 
forces due to lack of funding, and New Jersey is considering the same 
course of action. Minnesota may be forced to discontinue its rural drug 
task forces, and only three of Missouri's 28 Byrne task forces would 
survive on state funding alone.
  The fight against meth is the frontline of the Nation's war on drugs. 
The fastest-growing drug in the Nation, meth has produced a wider and 
more expensive array of problems than any other narcotic we have ever 
faced. And midwestern states such as Nebraska bear much of the brunt.
  According to Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, 60 percent of 
inmates in Nebraska jails have problems with meth. The number of people 
in Nebraska jails for possessing, selling or manufacturing meth has 
more than doubled since 1999.
  Jails are overcrowded with meth addicts, many of whom require special 
medical care. Meth labs quickly become toxic waste dumps that can only 
be cleaned up with large amounts of manpower and financial resources. 
Worst of all, children in homes where meth is used or made are more 
often violently abused and neglected, and exposed to highly toxic 
chemicals.
  Nationwide, law enforcement officers have dismantled more than 50,000 
clandestine meth labs since 2001. Nearly half of those incidents 
occurred in just nine Midwestern and Plains states, including Nebraska.
  The number of meth labs in Nebraska rose from 37 in 1999 to almost 
300 in 2004. Fortunately, my State joined a growing coalition of States 
fighting against meth by enacting a new law in September to restrict 
the sale of pseudoephedrine. Since that time, the number of meth labs 
has fallen by a phenomenal 70 percent.
  However, the problem is far from being solved since 80 percent of the 
meth in Nebraska is being trafficked from Mexico. This meth is far more 
addictive than what can be cooked in a typical ``Mom and Pop'' meth 
lab.
  Thanks to Nebraska's new law, instead of using 80 percent of their 
resources to fight the home labs that comprised only 20 percent of the 
State's meth problem, Nebraska narcotic officers can now use more of 
their time to stop the inflow of Mexican meth.
  Congress has played a role in combating the Nation's growing meth 
problem through Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grants for State and 
local law enforcement agencies. Unfortunately, these grants are 
endangered by the failure at the White House to recognize the 
significance of Byrne grants in combating meth and other illegal drugs 
nationwide.
  Byrne task forces are the underpinning of our Nation's successful 
drug control strategy that brought us the lowest violent crime rates in 
30 years. We must not turn back the clock in the war on drugs.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
not because it doesn't increase funding for a worthy program. I am 
extremely supportive of the Justice Assistance Grants Program. But 
understand that it increases the Justice Assistance Formula Grants 
Program from $367.8 million to $392.8 million, by $25 million, if my 
math is correct there. And that is all well and good.
  The difficulty is that this amendment increases a general grant 
program for which this money could go for anything. It could go for 
meth; it could go for any law enforcement purpose. And again, I repeat, 
it is all good and well. The problem is the offset. And that is the 
problem with so many of these amendments that will come forward. It is 
$10 million from the Department of Justice General Administration 
Salaries and Expenses account. Well, the Department of Justice does 
have to run these programs. It has to operate these programs and it has 
general administration and salaries and expenses costs. This 
subcommittee has very carefully looked at the needs of the General 
Administration and Salaries and Expenses Account and determined that it 
needs the amount of money that is appropriated. This is already a tight 
budget; so funding in that account is tight.
  And to then offset $15 million from the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's operations, research and facilities really 
hurts an agency that is already $514 million below fiscal year 2006-
enacted level. So we are $514 million below and we are taking another 
$15 million off that. At the current mark level, NOAA will be required 
to RIF over 700 employees; at the current mark level, program cuts are 
estimated to cost the U.S. economy $1 billion to $2 billion per year.
  The proposed reduction will only further compound these impacts to 
NOAA's critical public safety and stewardship mission. Great amendment, 
terrible offset. I would just suggest that the gentleman think about 
these tough budget decisions when this budget resolution next comes to 
the floor. We just don't have enough money in this bill. And his 
amendment is for a worthy cause. But his offsets are too damaging to 
the agencies that they hurt.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot I want to say. I don't know if 
I can say it in that much time. The gentleman's amendment would 
increase Justice Assistance grants by $25 million, reduce Justice 
General Administration by $10 million, and NOAA by 15. I understand and 
I appreciate the gentleman's passion for law enforcement. These 
programs have helped a lot. The bill already includes a $50 million 
increase for JAG, and an increase of $1.1 billion for local law 
enforcement above the request. Sometimes it doesn't matter, but it is 
above the request. And the gentleman's offsets would create some 
difficulties at Justice and NOAA.
  But the gentleman has worked. I think he has made a good point in 
crafting the amendment. I know he and others would actually prefer 
higher amendments. There were other amendments rolling around here in 
the 40 to $50 million range. Somehow, this Congress is going to have to 
deal with the issues of all of the spending that is coming on and how 
do we get control.
  Now, there will be others to come up, some that are actually good 
amendments, because they really help people. But we are going to 
devastate other programs. And it is sort of like Dietrich Bonhoffer 
with Cheap Grace. You can go into some general administration area that 
nobody understands

[[Page H4644]]

or knows anything about, and then there will be no money for general 
administrations.
  I have introduced a bill, I sent out a Dear Colleague letter asking 
people to cosponsor a national commission based on the base closing 
commission with everything on the table to deal with these issues, 
because it is fundamentally immoral for one generation to live on the 
next generation and our children and our grandchildren and the whole 
spending issue. I share what the gentleman from West Virginia said, on 
some of these amendment passes, and then there is no money for 
administration, no money for this, and no money for that.
  But there is probably not a more sincere individual on this issue, 
probably because of his work. And my father was a policeman in the city 
of Philadelphia. I understand these issues, and we want to give our law 
enforcement the resources, particularly with crime growing up.
  So I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman and 
express my gratitude to him for his leadership and hard work that his 
staff and my staff have put into this amendment, and I appreciate his 
willingness to help us and assist us and look forward to working with 
him on other issues in the coming year.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Boswell

  Mr. BOSWELL. 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. Boswell:
       Page 2, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $1,500,000)''.
       Page 26, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,500,000)''.
       Page 27, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,500,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I too would like to thank 
the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Wolf, and Mr. Mollohan for their 
hard work and leadership in these very challenging times and these 
issues.
  Once again, we find ourselves faced with a budget that is less than 
favorable, and they both have done a tremendous job in funding 
priorities when faced with this reality, and I thank them for that.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to amend something similar to what I did a year 
ago. I offered this amendment and it was accepted by the chairman and 
ranking member when the House considered fiscal year 2006 Science, 
State, Commerce, Justice appropriations bill.
  Last year I requested an increase in funding for the Criminal Records 
Upgrade Program by $2.5 million. This year, considering the budget we 
are dealing with, I am asking for even less.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment proposed to increase the Criminal Records 
Upgrade Program by $1.5 million, offsetting this increase with a 
reduction in the Department of Justice General Administration Salaries 
and Expense Account by the same amount.
  Mr. Chairman, the goal of this program is to ensure that accurate 
records are available for use in law enforcement and to permit States 
to identify, among other things, persons ineligible to hold positions 
involving children. This program helps States build their 
infrastructure to connect to the national record check systems, both to 
supply information and to conduct requisite checks.
  I firmly believe that having accurate criminal records are essential 
in a State's ability to protect children from those who wish to do them 
harm and those who have histories of causing such harm. We must 
continue to provide law enforcement agencies across the Nation with as 
much information as they need to stop sex offenders and others who have 
a history of violence and exploitation of our children.
  Mr. Chairman, there will be other amendments offered during the 
course of debate on this bill asking for tens of millions of dollars. 
But my amendment is not one of them. Times are tight when it comes to 
spending, and I am not asking to move the mountain. But anything we can 
spare to ensure that our States and our communities can have access to 
information that can be used to protect the children of our Nation must 
be spared.
  With that, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman would yield, it is a good amendment. We 
accept the amendment. I think we took it last year too, if I recall. 
And I thank the gentleman for offering it. And on this side we strongly 
accept it.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment Offered by Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida

  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. 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. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida:
       Page 2, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 20, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 40, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer 
an amendment that will increase funding for the Violence Against Women 
Act, also known as VAWA. It increases it by approximately $10 million.
  Congress has recognized the importance of these programs in bringing 
hope and a safe future to women across our great Nation by 
reauthorizing VAWA last year.
  Although the committee increased funding for this program, there are 
still a number of vital programs within it that are not going to be 
adequately funded by the bill. Such programs include funding to assist 
children exposed to domestic violence, such as the various counseling 
and education programs, the Sexual Assault Services Program, and also 
inclusion of Indian tribes in the national sex offender registry.
  As a cochair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, and also 
serving on a local shelter board, I know firsthand the reprehensible 
effects of domestic violence on a woman's dreams and success.
  Every rape crisis center and domestic violence program in my district 
has brought hope to women and children who have been devastated by 
assaults.
  As you know, domestic violence affects our most vulnerable 
constituents, battered women and their families. Evidence suggests that 
VAWA has been effective in reducing violence. For example, the rate of 
domestic violence against females over the age of 12 in the United 
States actually showed a slight decline.
  But domestic violence is not just a man-against-woman phenomenon. 
When a man hits a woman or vice versa, often children and young adults 
are left with lasting impressions of that violence. Studies show that 
men who are exposed to domestic abuse are much more likely to be 
abusers themselves in the future. And young women who see abuse are 
much more prone to be victims of abuse as adults themselves.

[[Page H4645]]

  This vicious cycle is one that we can genuinely affect through 
violence against women programs that provide education support 
networks, increased law enforcement and certainly a very important 
component of family counseling.
  It is frustrating but realistic for policymakers to know that we 
can't just wave a magic wand and eradicate violence in our society. 
Yet, I firmly believe that this amendment is a step in the right 
direction.
  The amendment takes funding from the Department of Justice's General 
Administration Fund and the Census Bureau and helps to fund the 
violence against women programs.

                              {time}  1945

  This add-on actually helps in the fight against domestic violence 
without breaking the bank or tipping the very careful balance that 
Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan crafted in the underlying 
bill.
  Chairman Wolf, you have done a great job, and Members on both sides 
of the aisle respect you and the work product that we have before us.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment to increase 
funds for VAWA programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The gentlewoman's amendment would increase funding for grants to 
prevent violence against women by $10 million by decreasing funds for 
the Justice Department's General Administration by $5 million and the 
Census Bureau by $5 million.
  I understand and appreciate the gentlewoman's passion for her efforts 
to prevent violence against women. The bill already, though, includes a 
$9 million increase for these programs, but we recognize that an 
increased investment is important.
  I just wanted to say, for the record, although it will be difficult 
for the Census Bureau, this offset will neither impact the ramp up of 
the 2010 decennial census nor the American Community Survey.
  With that understanding, I have no objection to the amendment.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman 
for his support, and I urge a favorable vote.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Inslee-Brown-Waite 
amendment which would fund three newly authorized programs under the 
Violence Against Women Act.
  Domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking are 
crimes of epidemic proportions, exacting terrible costs on individual 
lives and our communities. Nearly one in four U.S. women report that 
they have been physically assaulted by an intimate partner during their 
lifetimes and one in six have been the victims of attempted or 
completed rape.
  Without full funding for VAWA programs, families cannot access the 
services they need to escape from violence. The continued support of 
Congress is crucial to helping victims and their children find safety 
and security and build self-sufficiency.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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. Velazquez:
       Page 2, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 50, line 21, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 62, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 89, line 17, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 91, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $40,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, when we talk about targeted policies that are aimed at 
improving the economic environment for small businesses, we are talking 
about this amendment. This is a bipartisan measure that has passed the 
House for the past 2 years.
  Lowering the cost of the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan 
program is a fiscally responsible, commonsense solution that will 
result in job growth and increased revenue.
  The truth is that the program is simply too costly for this Nation's 
small businesses. The cost for start-up loans has increased by nearly 
$1,500 to $3,000, and for more established small businesses, the total 
cost can be as high as $50,000. This is money our Nation's small 
businesses are paying directly to the Federal Government.
  As a result, entrepreneurs today are getting a more expensive loan 
that is almost 50 percent smaller than what it was just a few years 
ago, limiting their ability to start and expand their ventures. In 
fact, recent SBA figures show that the program is doing $160 million 
less than it was during the same time the previous year, showing how 
these rising costs are having an impact on lending.
  This amendment would reverse this effect and would lower the cost of 
the 7(a) loan program.
  To compound the problem further, entrepreneurs are also finding that 
they have fewer places to go to access this financing. In fact, the 
number of lenders willing to offer 7(a) loans has dropped in half over 
the past several years, leaving small firms scrambling to find vital 
sources of capital.
  Today is an opportunity for us to take action to help relieve our 
small businesses of these burdens.
  Fees have been raised four times over the past 2 years and are 
already at their maximum level. If we were to see a significant 
increase in interest rates, experience an economic downturn, or a 
regional crisis like what we saw in the gulf coast, this program would 
not be able to support itself. The result would be caps, limits on loan 
sizes, and even the shutdown of the program altogether. The adoption of 
this measure will enable us to avoid this type of lending crisis in the 
future.
  This amendment is fiscally responsible and uses offsets from four 
different salaries and expense accounts so that no one agency is 
disproportionately harmed. In fact, it only takes $10 million from each 
agency, which amounts to less than 1 percent of the four S&E accounts.
  Nearly 20 prominent small business groups are in support of this 
amendment, up from 14 last year, illustrating the demand from our 
Nation's small businesses for this type of action.
  This is a program that is now doing nearly a half billion dollars 
less since the fees were raised. It is clearly not doing better, and it 
is certainly not benefiting this Nation's small businesses.
  A ``yes'' vote is a vote to help this Nation's small businesses move 
forward as the drivers of our economy. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
vote for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The 7(a) program has 
been operating at record levels without subsidy appropriations since 
the beginning of 2005. If this amendment passes, do not ever go home 
and say that you are going to balance the budget. Just forget it. This 
is the ``forget to balance the budget and get control of the budget'' 
amendment. We have had record loans with no 7(a) fees, and now we want 
to do this.
  The SBA administrator continues to assure us that the program is 
running strong. I have a letter from them confirming the success at 
redesigning the 7(a) program so it does not require a subsidy. No good 
deed goes unpunished. It does not require a subsidy, and we are going 
to spend all these millions of dollars? How would you ever explain it? 
How would you say we have got record

[[Page H4646]]

numbers, but we are going to subsidize it? Forget it. We would never, 
ever, ever, ever solve the deficit of this Nation.
  The new model has brought down the stability of the lending community 
and borrowers. This is a ``bail-out the banks'' amendment. Bail out the 
banks. Only the bankers care about this, a small portion of the 
bankers, and I do not know if the bankers are writing us about the 
deficit either.
  Demand has skyrocketed. Since lending levels are no longer tied to an 
appropriation, the program has been able to meet the demand. That, by 
not being tied, has been able to meet the demand. This is a good 
government success story.
  There is much more that I could say. It goes on and on and on, but I 
just urge Members, do not pass this amendment. This is the ``how do you 
spend $100 million without needing to spend it,'' and I guess the 
question is if we really care about the future generations of our 
children and our grandchildren. We will never get control of it. I 
mean, I cannot even believe we are out here doing this. If this were 
the Violence Against Women or some of the programs that are here that 
your heart goes out to but you do not have the money, but there is no 
need for it and they are at record numbers.
  I urge a ``no'' vote against this amendment.
                                               U.S. Small Business


                                               Administration,

                                    Washington, DC, June 27, 2006.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, the 
         Judiciary, and Related Agencies, Committee on 
         Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I want to thank you again for your 
     support of America's small businesses. I would also like to 
     take this opportunity to reiterate the Administration's 
     strong support for a zero subsidy rate for the U.S. Small 
     Business Administration's (SBA) 7(a) loan program. In what 
     will certainly be another tight appropriations cycle, a zero 
     subsidy rate for 7(a) will save the taxpayers approximately 
     $170 million, while at the same time providing unprecedented 
     stability to the program.
       In the past, some have expressed unrealized concerns that 
     zero subsidy would stifle the 7(a) loan program because of a 
     very slight fee increase required. As you can see from the 
     enclosed explanation and charts, 7(a) lending has increased 
     significantly while taxpayer dollars have been saved. 
     Further, current 7(a) fees--previously a source of 
     significant industry concern--are in line with historical 
     rates. Like other costs in business, these fees fluctuate 
     based on market conditions. In fiscal year (FY) 2007 there 
     will need to be a slight fee change of .5 basis points. This 
     equates to approximately $2.80 per month on an average loan 
     size of $160,000.
       It is also important to note that zero subsidy is not only 
     good for the taxpayer but for the stability of the program, 
     the most crucial aspect of the program according to borrowers 
     and lenders. (Zero subsidy began in FY 2001.). As you know, 
     in January 2004 the SBA was forced to temporarily close the 
     7(a) program because it had exhausted its funding under the 
     Continuing Resolution. Once the program was restarted, and 
     after Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act for 
     FY 2004, the SBA was forced to manage the program through 
     restrictive loan caps because demand continued to outpace the 
     program's funding level. Regardless of the amount Congress 
     appropriates for 7(a) in any given fiscal year, there will be 
     the chance that demand could exceed that level, forcing 
     either another shutdown or caps on loan amounts. By 
     eliminating the need for an appropriation, potential program 
     ``shortfalls'' may be avoided. Program levels in the form of 
     authorization limits would still apply, of course.
       It should also be noted that SBA's other major loan 
     programs, Section 504 Guarantee Program and Small Business 
     Investment Company (SBIC) Guarantee Program., have functioned 
     at zero subsidy for several years. This provides our lending 
     partners with what they want most from our loan programs--
     consistency and continuity.
       Mr. Chairman, zero subsidy for the 7(a) program is a 
     simple, common-sense approach that has brought the program in 
     line with our other major financial programs. Zero subsidy is 
     still the best policy for the long-term stability and growth 
     of the 7(a) loan program. We have been able to maintain 
     record lending during the past few years under zero subsidy. 
     Lending has not been hampered by appropriations shortfalls, 
     such as those that occurred in 2003 and 2004. For these 
     reasons the Administration urges you to continue the 
     successful zero subsidy policy in the FY 2007 Appropriations 
     bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                Hector V. Barreto,
                                                    Administrator.

                     Zero Subsidy--The Best Policy

       Zero subsidy is still the best policy for the long term 
     stability and growth of the Small Business Administration's 
     various loan programs. The SBA has been able to maintain 
     record lending during the past few years under the zero 
     subsidy policy. The benefits of zero subsidy also results in 
     a funding structure that adds stability and independence 
     while ensuring that the lending process is not hampered by 
     appropriations shortfalls such as those which occurred in 
     2003 and 2004.
       In FY 2005, the SBA served more small businesses than ever 
     before. In SBA's two major loan programs, they increased the 
     numbers of loans funded by 22% in one year. These record 
     level lending numbers are possible because of the zero 
     subsidy policy that was adopted at the beginning of FY 2005.
       The SBA guaranteed a record number of loans last year, with 
     double digit increases in the percentage of loans to women, 
     Hispanics, African Americans and Asian Americans. Maintaining 
     zero subsidy wi1l allow the SBA to build on the success 
     they've had in these important loan programs, and will 
     provide more businesses with the capital needed to start up 
     and expand.
       Moving to zero subsidy allowed the Agency to continue to 
     meet the financing demands of small businesses without the 
     need for taxpayer subsidy. In today's tough budget 
     environment, SBA has proven their ability to provide more 
     loans to small businesses and entrepreneurs while reducing 
     the burden on taxpayers.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), chairman of the Small Business Committee, who 
has convinced me of the merits of this.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, the 7(a) program at the Small Business 
Administration has operated on full cylinders, breaking record after 
record of program usage throughout all demographic and regional groups.
  Look at this chart and look at the number of 7(a) loan approvals. It 
is going off the charts ever since the subsidy got removed. In fact, 
there have been more 7(a) loans made thus far in the 9 months of fiscal 
year 2006 than in all of fiscal year 2001. By removing the 7(a) loan 
subsidy from the uncertainties of the annual appropriations process, 
this has produced a stable and predictable program.
  When the 7(a) program has subsidies, then it is subjected to yearly 
shutdowns when there is not enough money, as what happened in December 
of 2003. When the subsidies get removed and taxpayers save $40 to $100 
million a year, no shutdown will ever occur because the program will 
never run out of money. So why would you want to subject a good program 
to a shutdown by running out of money? It simply does not make sense.
  The noble intent of the Velazquez amendment is to reestablish a lower 
7(a) fee structure exactly as it existed in 2003 and 2004. However, 
with a higher 7(a) program level, an appropriation of $168 million 
would be required, according to the SBA. The $40 million in the 
Velazquez amendment would not result in the cutting of any fees to 
small businesses. The Velazquez amendment directs the funds to pay for 
the salaries and expenses of the employees at the SBA who work in the 
business loan division, not to the 7(a) business loan subsidy account.
  This amendment would not help any small business owner or lender. It 
does not make sense to take a program and ask the taxpayers to dig into 
their pockets for $40 million to $100 million a year on a bill that 
does not do anything. It saves no money whatsoever, and I would urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this.
  Three years ago, I was in favor of this subsidy; and then I found out 
one thing: To get rid of the subsidy, to save the taxpayers $40 to $100 
million a year, to have stability in the program costs 10 bucks a month 
per loan for the loans of under $150,000. You tell me, what small 
businessman cannot afford an extra $10 a month just to have stability 
in the program and to know that the program will never run out of 
money?
  And why are we doing this? You got me. It does not make sense. The 
small business owner has no legal or constitutional right to a 
subsidized loan by the rest of the taxpayers in this country. What kind 
of an entrepreneurial thing is that?
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Small Business Committee is saying 
that it will cost small businesses only 10 bucks a month. Well, these 
are the facts coming from the Small Business Administration: Costs have 
gone up $1,500 to $3,000, and now many small businesses are paying as 
much as $50,000 to the Federal Government.

[[Page H4647]]

Lending is down $160 million from this time last year and $400 million 
below before the fee increases were adopted. Fees are at the statutory 
limit, which means that any more costs will result in program caps or a 
shutdown.
  Today, there are only half as many lenders making 7(a) loans. The 
7(a) loans are 40 percent smaller than they were a few years ago. 
Lending last year was $2 billion below what the agency claimed they 
would do.
  Those are the facts. And the chairman keeps talking about the banks 
and how taxpayers' money is paying $50,000 to the government, 
benefiting the banks. The only greedy one here is the Federal 
Government, which has increased four times their fees in the past 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I rise in support of her amendment. I know from my own experience in 
my congressional district, which is a rural district and in need of 
loans, by small entrepreneurs, there is a disappointment in the way the 
7(a) program is being administered.

                              {time}  2000

  These fee increases particularly are causing lending to drop. Recent 
lending figures from SBA show that entrepreneurs received $160 million 
less through the 7(a) program for the first half of fiscal year 2006 
when compared to the same period the previous year. I don't know what 
you do with that statistic. They are receiving less. We are providing 
less funding, and certainly the need is not less. I can tell you in 
rural areas it is not.
  Over this same span, entrepreneurs received 1,000 fewer loans, 
demonstrating that fewer small businesses are able to benefit from the 
7(a) program. Fees increase. Businesses are responsive as consumers are 
responsive; and, of course, businesses are consumers of this program. 
When fees go up, when costs go up, people stop participating in the 
program. That is marketplace economics at work here in a government 
program.
  The damage to our economy is even more severe when you consider that 
the 7(a) program is $500 million below where it was before the fee 
hikes were imposed, another indication that the current program of 
charging fees and increasingly charging fees and continuing to charge 
fees and having increased four times in the last 2 years is resulting 
in the program not being able to be accessed the way it was in the 
past.
  The gentlewoman's amendment addresses some of these concerns, and, 
while we are in a tight budget, this is an important program.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support it.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, if I could address the statement made by 
my colleague from New York where she said up-front fees can exceed 
$50,000, the issue is how much of an increase would there be if we get 
the subsidy eliminated? Well, on a $1.5 million loan, the biggest 
increase would be $3,500, and over a period of 10 to 20 years, that sum 
is almost negligible.
  On loans over $700,000, the fees have never changed, and what is 
going on with the total amount of the dollar loan is the SBA is 
concentrating on small businesses. It is the small businesses 
themselves that are asking for the dollar amount. They are the ones 
that are driving this. So I think it is extremely important that the 
Small Business Administration concentrate on giving these loans to the 
real small businesses. In fact, those that are at $1.5 million, I am 
sure they can afford an extra $3,500 over the course of the next 10 to 
15 years.
  Now, small firms received $160 million less and 1,000 fewer loans 
through the 7(a) program from the first half of fiscal year 2006 as 
compared to the same time the previous year. But this mixes apples and 
oranges. Lending under $150,000, regardless of the exact size of the 
small business, is down slightly from FY 2005 levels, but it is 
slightly higher than the FY 2004 levels when there was no loan subsidy 
and lower fees.
  In comparing year-to-date figures, there were more than 12,300 
smaller loans made worth $212 million in fiscal year 2006 versus fiscal 
year 2004 in the under-$150,000 category. So we got rid of the loan 
subsidy and the volume goes up.
  This is a ``no'' vote. It is an easy ``no'' vote.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of the debate, the 
chairman said that only 10 bucks a month small businesses were paying. 
Now he admitted it is $3,500, at least, and the smaller small business 
loans are down.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Bean).
  Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, as a former small business owner, I am a 
strong advocate for providing entrepreneurs and small business owners 
access to affordable capital. For that reason, I rise to speak in 
support of Representative Velazquez's amendment to restore funding for 
the Small Business Administration's 7(a) Small Business Loan Program.
  Small businesses are the economic drivers of our country, providing 
the stimulus our communities need. Oftentimes, small business owners 
are unable to obtain reasonably priced financing and instead turn to 
higher priced forms of capital, such as credit cards. In an effort to 
fill this financing gap, the SBA's 7(a) loan program was created.
  The program works as a public-private partnership that combines 
financial institutions' knowledge of their communities and the 
government's ability to mitigate risk.
  The SBA's current business loan portfolio of roughly 219,000 loans 
worth more than $45 billion makes it the largest single financial 
resource of U.S. businesses in the Nation.
  During the 108th Congress, legislation was passed that terminated 
funding for the 7(a) program. As a result, small businesses and lenders 
were forced to pay the full cost of the program. This has led to a 
sharp rise in loan fees, with borrower fees doubling in 2 years and 
lender fees rising by 118 percent.
  For smaller loans, roughly $150,000 loans, fees have doubled, 
translating into nearly $1,500 to $3,000 more in up-front closing costs 
for entrepreneurs and innovators. For a larger loan, say $70,000, fees 
have been raised by approximately $3,000, and for some loans by as much 
as $50,000.
  Last year the House voted and passed a similar amendment during 
consideration of the SSJC appropriations bill to restore $79 million in 
funding for the Small Business Administration's program. Unfortunately, 
that amendment was later removed in conference.
  In the FY 2007 budget proposal, no funding has been requested again 
for the program, and a new set of fees has been proposed for 
participants, making the program even less accessible and more costly 
for small businesses.
  It is time that Congress steps forward to support the small business 
community through access to affordable capital. The Velazquez amendment 
would reduce fees to small business owners. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, where do they get this money from? $5.9 million would 
be provided to cover the cost for blast mitigation in windows at the 
Department of Commerce. So you are basically saying to the Department 
of Commerce, we don't care if there is a blast here; you can't get your 
blast windows. You can't get your windows, so you can give a subsidy to 
the banks that will give no additional loans.
  Also, this will result in RIFs at the Small Business Administration. 
So if you don't want loans to go to the small businesses, support this 
amendment, because there will be RIFs and they won't be able to make 
the loans. Zero subsidy means more loans. Loans are up almost 20 
percent from 2005 over 2004.
  I think the people at the Department of Commerce have every right to 
have the same protection that the people in this building have. They 
are not second-class citizens. They are covered by this bill. They need 
blast protection windows. Also it is not right to RIF the employees at 
the SBA to give a subsidy to bankers who don't need the subsidy.
  Lastly, don't ever give another deficit reduction speech if you vote 
for this amendment. Don't ever, ever give

[[Page H4648]]

it, because the loans are up with it; and actually the adoption of this 
may very well reduce the loans.
  So I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a point of 
clarification that the $10 million is not taken from the blast 
mitigation, but from salary and expenses.
  Mr. Chairman, today's amendment is about improving the economic 
environment for this Nation's small businesses. 7(a) loans cost twice 
as much today for small businesses, are nearly 50 percent smaller and 
the program is doing nearly a half a billion dollars less than before 
the fee increase was implemented. Women and veteran business owners 
receive $100 million less in lending this year, and rural business 
owners receive $300 million less. Just look at the numbers here. Enough 
is said.
  This amendment will change this and allow small businesses to invest 
back into the firms, and, in turn, the U.S. economy. If you believe 
that small businesses, which make up the majority of our taxpayers, 
should be able to keep their money, then you need to vote ``yes'' on 
this amendment. However, if you prefer to see our government grow, 
rather than the U.S. economy, then you should vote against this measure 
today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this measure.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to 
H.R. 5672, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2007, offered by the gentlelady from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez) that would lower the fees associated with the U.S. Small 
Business Administration's 7(a) loan program and ensure that the program 
continues as a public-private partnership. The 7(a) program is an 
important financing mechanism relied upon by entrepreneurs to gain 
access to lifeblood capital they need to strengthen, diversify, and 
expand their businesses and to hire new employees.
  Small businesses are particularly vulnerable to failure due to the 
difficulty in accessing capital, especially during a firm's formative 
stages. Most banks look upon making seed loans to small businesses as 
risky. Entrepreneurs, as a result, are left without the resources to 
afford to buy new equipment, hire new employees, and make other 
necessary operational investments in their businesses. These are the 
investments that are necessary to strengthen and grow businesses.
  The 7(a) program was designed and has been implemented specifically 
to address this gap in access to capital for American entrepreneurs. 
The program provides funding to underwrite loans made by local banks to 
small businesses. Funds provided through the 7(a) program relieved 
banks of the risks associated with lending to start-up small firms. In 
turn, small business gained access to important capital markets.
  Integral to the 7(a) program was the approximately $79 million 
provided annually to offset a large portion of the fees charged to 
small business borrowers associated with their loans. These fees are 
paid upfront during the loan process. These fees present small 
businesses, especially cash-strapped start-ups, with a potentially 
prohibitive cost to accessing capital. The Administration has zeroed 
out this aspect of the 7(a) program in its budget proposals for fiscal 
years 2005, 2006 and 2007. Entrepreneurs wishing to borrow under the 
7(a) program now pay the full amount of the fees associated with their 
loans, raising the barrier to capital for at-need companies.
  In fact, small businesses on Guam paid $17,862 more in fee costs on 
the 57 loans made to them during fiscal year 2005. This is nearly 
$18,000 above what they would have paid during fiscal year 2004 on the 
same 57 loans. This additional amount is the direct result of the 
Administration cutting this aspect of 7(a) program funding. That 
is almost $18,000 dollars that small businesses in my district were 
unable to invest in equipment, training, salaries and other necessary 
operating costs.

  The amendment before us today would restore $40 million of the 
approximately $79 million previously needed to offset fees associated 
with loans made under the authorities of the 7(a) program. This amount 
would significantly reduce the amounts small business owners are paying 
to receive 7(a) program loans. This amendment would not, however, 
reduce fee amounts to fiscal year 2004 levels. The U.S. Small Business 
Administration budget has been reduced significantly under the current 
Administration. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find offsets 
within the lean U.S. Small Business Administration budget to pay for 
necessary amendments such as this one.
  Congress has shown bipartisan support for similar amendments in 
previous years. I urge my colleagues' support again this year. By 
supporting this amendment you will help ease the financial burdens on 
American small businessmen and women, so that they can continue their 
hard work driving our country's economy, producing innovative goods and 
services, and creating good jobs for America's talented workers.
  I urge my colleagues' support for the Velaquez amendment.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Congresswoman 
Velazquez's amendment to the SSJC Appropriations to restore funding to 
the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan program. This amendment 
would enable us to lower the costs--in turn, opening up access to 
affordable capital for small businesses.
  For the last two years, the House overwhelmingly voted in a 
bipartisan fashion to provide funding for this amendment. This 
amendment proposes to use offsets from four different Salary and 
Expense accounts--Justice, Commerce, State and SBA. There will be $10 
million taken from each S&E account to equal $40 million, an amount 
that will ease the burden on small businesses.
  Unfortunately, due to recent changes, the 7(a) loan program is 
falling short of its ability to serve as an affordable source of 
capital for small businesses. In the last two years, the fees small 
businesses pay to secure a loan through the SBA's 7(a) program have 
doubled. For small loans this translates into nearly $1,500 to $3,000 
more in upfront closing costs for entrepreneurs--and can grow to a 
total cost of as much as $50,000. Without this amendment, my district, 
the U.S. Virgin Islands, can potentially see an average increase in 
loan fees of $13,901 for 7(a) loans. In 2005, the total 7(a) loans made 
to U.S. Virgin Islands small business was approximately $3 million.
  Funding for the 7(a) program has garnered wide support from the small 
business community. Without funding the 7(a) program, small businesses 
will be negatively impacted. The Velazquez amendment will allow us to 
restore stability to the 7(a) program once again so that economic 
changes will no longer threaten the viability of the initiative--and 
most importantly the lending for small businesses.
  I urge my colleagues to once again vote for the Velazquez amendment 
to restore funding to the 7(a) loan program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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 will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 justice information sharing technology

       For necessary expenses for information sharing technology, 
     including planning, development, deployment and Departmental 
     direction, $125,000,000, to remain available until expended.

      tactical wireless communications for federal law enforcement

       For the costs of conversion to narrowband communications 
     and the Integrated Wireless Network, including the cost for 
     operation and maintenance of Land Mobile Radio legacy 
     systems, $89,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2008: Provided, That the Attorney General shall transfer to 
     this account all funds made available to the Department of 
     Justice for the purchase of portable and mobile radios: 
     Provided further, That any transfer made under the preceding 
     proviso shall be subject to section 605 of this Act.

                   administrative review and appeals

       For expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and 
     clemency petitions and immigration-related activities, 
     $229,152,000.

                           detention trustee


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Detention Trustee, 
     $1,331,026,000, of which $5,000,000 shall be derived from 
     prior year unobligated balances from funds previously 
     appropriated, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That any unobligated balances available in prior years from 
     the funds appropriated under the heading ``Federal Prisoner 
     Detention'' shall be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriation under the heading ``Detention Trustee'' and 
     shall be available until expended.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $70,558,000, including not to exceed $10,000 to meet 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character.

                    United States Parole Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Parole 
     Commission as authorized, $11,500,000.

[[Page H4649]]

                            Legal Activities

            salaries and expenses, general legal activities

       For expenses necessary for the legal activities of the 
     Department of Justice, not otherwise provided for, including 
     not to exceed $20,000 for expenses of collecting evidence, to 
     be expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for 
     solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; and 
     rent of private or Government-owned space in the District of 
     Columbia, $668,739,000, of which not to exceed $10,000,000 
     for litigation support contracts shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     not to exceed $1,000 shall be available to the United States 
     National Central Bureau, INTERPOL, for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding section 105 of this Act, upon a determination 
     by the Attorney General that emergent circumstances require 
     additional funding for litigation activities of the Civil 
     Division, the Attorney General may transfer such amounts to 
     ``Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities'' from 
     available appropriations for the current fiscal year for the 
     Department of Justice, as may be necessary to respond to such 
     circumstances: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant 
     to the previous proviso shall be treated as a reprogramming 
     under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for 
     obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. 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. Nadler:
       Page 4, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.
       Page 10, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $40,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases funding for the FBI by $40 
million to conduct security background checks. Since the attacks of 
September 11, the FBI's National Name Check Program has remained 
dangerously underfunded and has accumulated a significant backlog of 
uncompleted required security checks. Backlogs in security checks 
requested by the Immigration Service have led to major delays in the 
processing of immigration applications and, therefore, to a very real 
national security risk.
  If some of these applicants pose a genuine national security risk, 
they need to be found, arrested and deported immediately. Instead, 
there is a backlog of over 116,000 applications for permanent residency 
in the New York district office alone awaiting FBI background checks.
  In fiscal year 2006, the National Name Check Program received 3.3 
million requests for background checks, but it has only 125 people to 
process them and an anemic operating budget of $12.4 million. The 
program does charge fees, but the fee structure was set prior to 9/11 
and falls far short of covering the program's cost.
  Program employees have to search FBI files, often manually, in over 
265 different locations across country. Having to spend so much of its 
resource on background checks dilutes the FBI's responsiveness, limits 
information sharing, and hampers counterintelligence and 
counterterrorism work.
  People who are here legally seeking residency or citizenship are 
prevented from renewing work or travel documents while awaiting the 
okay from the FBI. Those receiving Social Security face termination of 
their benefits if they don't become citizens within 7 years, even 
though their citizenship applications cannot be processed while 
awaiting the FBI report.
  Last year, the committee included report language directing the FBI 
to conduct a review of the fee structure for background checks done for 
the Immigration Service. As far as I know, the FBI has yet to send this 
review to Congress.
  This year the committee report says it ``expects the FBI to work with 
these agencies to ensure that sufficient resources are made available 
to eliminate the backlog as soon as possible.''

                              {time}  2015

  ``The committee expects the FBI to set the Name Check fee at a level 
that adequately covers the cost to conduct requested background 
checks.''
  This is not an adequate fix to this problem. Congress should do more 
than tell the FBI it expects it to do more. That is why I am offering 
this amendment. CRS estimates that $40 million is needed to eliminate 
the backlog. This amendment will enable the FBI to create a centralized 
records repository where all of its paper files can be located and to 
develop, design, implement the system to store its active files 
electronically.
  It will reduce the burdens on people who are here legally seeking 
permanent residency and citizenship, and it would get would-be 
terrorists out of America swiftly.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, our Members should know that this cuts the Justice 
Department litigating division by $40 million. The bill already cuts 
this account by $16 million below the level requested. This account 
that they are cutting funds critical justice litigating activities such 
as the criminal division. Wow, this is good news for the criminals, 
because they will not be litigated; we are going to cut the funding.
  To combat gangs. Gangs are spreading. MS-13 are spreading around the 
Nation. But we cut it. Prosecute intellectual property rights crimes. 
Wow. Are you going to cut Katrina fraud cases. No way. The civil rights 
division prosecution of human traffickers. Women and children are being 
trafficked. Justice prosecutes, but we are going to cut the money so 
they cannot do it.
  For all of you who care about the environment, the environmental and 
natural resources division prosecution of organizations that violate 
our environmental laws go away. The tax division prosecution of tax 
fraud, impacted. This account also funds the U.S. dues for Interpol. We 
are in a global war on terror. We need to work with Interpol. So we cut 
them.
  The Name Checks that the gentleman is concerned about are funded 
through a fee. There is a backlog in the Name Checks Program because 
the fees the FBI charges are not sufficient to adequately cover the 
cost of the program.
  In the fiscal year 2006 report, we directed the FBI to review this 
fee structure and submit a report to the Committee. The fee review is 
ongoing and a report is estimated to be submitted in August. In 
addition to this year's bill, we also include additional report 
language in this bill directing the FBI to work with the agencies that 
request these background checks to ensure that sufficient resources are 
made available to eliminate the backlog.
  The gentleman is on the authorizing committee that oversees the FBI 
and immigration issues. If he wants to address the issue, he would go 
to the Judiciary Committee that he serves on, introduce a bill, try to 
convince Mr. Sensenbrenner to deal with it.
  This amendment also would cut 200 employees; we just added Justice 
Assistance grants here not too long ago, because we are concerned about 
crime. This would cut more than 200 employees working to combat crime 
such as organized crime, gangs, human traffickers, Katrina fraud, and 
environmental crimes in order to fund the FBI Name Checks that are fee-
funded.
  This would be a blow to the Justice Department litigating capacity. 
If you wanted to say do not prosecute organized crime, do not worry 
about the environmental convictions you have to go after, do not worry 
about the tax frauds, how will you do it then? You cannot say you are 
going to go after them and take their money away.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.

[[Page H4650]]

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the distinguished chairman makes a good point. If we 
were not splurging all of our money trying to get rid of the estate 
tax, we could put $40 million more into the Department of Justice. That 
would be preferable. But the fact is, we are limited to the amount we 
are, and I have to take an offset from somewhere.
  This $40 million will enable people not to lose their Social Security 
because their time limit runs out while they are waiting for the FBI 
background check. It will enable this country to be safer because we 
will find out about some would-be terrorists while they are still 
within the clutches of the law.
  That makes sense. Yes, it will take money away from the rest of the 
Justice Department. And the account that it will take the money away 
from will go from $669 million to $629 million, a 5.9 percent cut. Yes, 
we are cutting the rest of the Justice Department by 5.9 percent to 
fund this crucial area of the FBI.
  Now, the gentleman says that it is fee-based, that he asks for a 
report to the fee. But where is that report? If they increase the fees, 
if the FBI increases the fees, they are still taking the money from the 
other agencies within the Departments of Justice or Homeland Security. 
The immigration service would pay a bigger fee.
  Other agencies within DOJ that are asking the FBI for the background 
check would pay a bigger fee. It is all the same pot of money. So the 
question is, Do we want to be able to catch would-be terrorists and get 
their names by getting the background check on time?
  Do we want people who are legal immigrants to be able to get their 
citizenship processed and not wait 7, 8, 9, 10 years? Yes, it would be 
most preferable if we did not have to rob Peter to pay Paul. But 
because of what that side of the aisle is doing, we have to rob Peter 
to pay Paul. I submit we ought to pay Paul here and Peter can afford it 
better than Paul can, because we are reducing a $669 million account, 
which is an important account, by 5.9 percent; but we will get justice 
done on time.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
think that the committee has looked very carefully at this. And the 
committee has, in its report language, if the gentleman who is offering 
the amendment would look, stated that the committee expects the FBI to 
set the Name Check fee at a level to adequately cover the cost to 
conduct the requested background checks.
  So the provision that allows them to move forward and to be funded is 
contained in our report, number one. Number two, the gentleman sits on 
the committee that could address this issue in an authorization, and 
obviously he is not in the majority so he would have to go to the 
majority to have this issue addressed. But I would suggest that that 
might be a good way to approach it if he wants to change the way that 
the appropriations committee has dealt with the issue.
  Secondly, the offsets coming from the criminal division, the civil 
rights division, and the office of immigration litigation are difficult 
offsets. And again I go back to comments in the opening statements 
before this committee, before general debate, when we considered 
general debate on this bill. There are going to be a lot of good 
amendments. I wish there were more money. We have tried to provide for 
how this function would be funded by directing the FBI to set a 
reasonable fee.
  But the offsets here are difficult offsets. And they cut programs 
that are important programs. So regrettably, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment on that basis.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, since the committee had the same language 
in last year's report, do we have any reason to expect the FBI will, in 
fact, change the fee structure this year?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think that is an 
interesting question. I think that is a question that the authorizing 
committee in the first instance has the responsibility to explore with 
the FBI.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. 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 New York will be 
postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, for reimbursement of expenses of the 
     Department of Justice associated with processing cases under 
     the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to 
     exceed $6,292,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Trust Fund.


           salaries and expenses, national security division

       For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the 
     National Security Division, $66,970,000; of which not to 
     exceed $5,000,000 shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding section 105 of this Act, upon 
     a determination by the Attorney General that emergent 
     circumstances require additional funding for the activities 
     of the National Security Division, the Attorney General may 
     transfer such amounts to this heading from available 
     appropriations for the current fiscal year for the Department 
     of Justice, as may be necessary to respond to such 
     circumstances: Provided further, That any transfer pursuant 
     to the previous proviso shall be treated as a reprogramming 
     under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for 
     obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.

               salaries and expenses, antitrust division

       For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and 
     kindred laws, $145,915,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, fees collected for premerger notification filings 
     under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 
     1976 (15 U.S.C. 18a), regardless of the year of collection 
     (and estimated to be $129,000,000 in fiscal year 2007), shall 
     be retained and used for necessary expenses in this 
     appropriation, and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the 
     general fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections 
     are received during fiscal year 2007, so as to result in a 
     final fiscal year 2007 appropriation from the general fund 
     estimated at $16,915,000.

             salaries and expenses, united states attorneys

       For necessary expenses of the Offices of the United States 
     Attorneys, including inter-governmental and cooperative 
     agreements, $1,664,400,000: Provided, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $8,000 shall be available 
     for official reception and representation expenses: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended.

                   united states trustee system fund

       For necessary expenses of the United States Trustee 
     Program, as authorized, $223,447,000, to remain available 
     until expended and to be derived from the United States 
     Trustee System Fund: Provided, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, deposits to the Fund shall be 
     available in such amounts as may be necessary to pay refunds 
     due depositors: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, $223,447,000 of offsetting 
     collections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 589a(b) shall be retained 
     and used for necessary expenses in this appropriation and 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That the 
     sum herein appropriated from the Fund shall be reduced as 
     such offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 
     2007, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2007 
     appropriation from the Fund estimated at $0.

      salaries and expenses, foreign claims settlement commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the 
     Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $1,431,000.

                     United States Marshals Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals 
     Service, $825,924,000; of which not to exceed $6,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses; 
     of which $4,000,000 for information technology systems shall 
     remain available until expended; of which not less than 
     $9,425,000 shall be available for the costs of courthouse 
     security equipment, including furnishings, relocations, and 
     telephone systems and cabling, and shall remain available 
     until expended; and of which $3,282,000 shall be available 
     for construction in space controlled, occupied or utilized by 
     the United States Marshals Service in United States 
     courthouses and Federal buildings, and shall remain available 
     until expended.

                     fees and expenses of witnesses

       For fees and expenses of witnesses, for expenses of 
     contracts for the procurement and

[[Page H4651]]

     supervision of expert witnesses, for private counsel 
     expenses, including advances, and for expenses of foreign 
     counsel, such sums as are necessary, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That not to exceed $10,000,000 may 
     be made available for construction of buildings for protected 
     witness safesites: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 may be made available for the purchase and 
     maintenance of armored vehicles for transportation of 
     protected witnesses: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $9,000,000 may be made available for the purchase, 
     installation, maintenance and upgrade of secure 
     telecommunications equipment and a secure automated 
     information network to store and retrieve the identities and 
     locations of protected witnesses.

           salaries and expenses, community relations service

       For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service, 
     $9,882,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section 105 of 
     this Act, upon a determination by the Attorney General that 
     emergent circumstances require additional funding for 
     conflict resolution and violence prevention activities of the 
     Community Relations Service, the Attorney General may 
     transfer such amounts to the Community Relations Service, 
     from available appropriations for the current fiscal year for 
     the Department of Justice, as may be necessary to respond to 
     such circumstances: Provided further, That any transfer 
     pursuant to the previous proviso shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming under section 605 of this Act and shall not be 
     available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.

                         assets forfeiture fund

       For expenses authorized by 28 U.S.C. 524(c)(1)(B), (F), and 
     (G), $21,202,000, to be derived from the Department of 
     Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund.

                      Interagency Law Enforcement

                 interagency crime and drug enforcement

       For necessary expenses for the identification, 
     investigation, and prosecution of individuals associated with 
     the most significant drug trafficking and affiliated money 
     laundering organizations not otherwise provided for, to 
     include inter-governmental agreements with State and local 
     law enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and 
     prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug 
     trafficking, $498,457,000, of which $50,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That any amounts 
     obligated from appropriations under this heading may be used 
     under authorities available to the organizations reimbursed 
     from this appropriation.

                    Federal Bureau of Investigation

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation for detection, investigation, and prosecution 
     of crimes against the United States; including purchase for 
     police-type use of not to exceed 3,500 passenger motor 
     vehicles, of which 3,000 will be for replacement only, 
     $5,959,628,000; of which not to exceed $150,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended; and of which $2,307,994,000 
     shall be for counterterrorism investigations, foreign 
     counterintelligence, and other activities related to our 
     national security: Provided, That not to exceed $210,000 
     shall be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses.


            Amendment Offered by Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. 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 Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut:
       Page 10, line 18, after the first dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $3,300,000)''.
       Page 39, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $3,300,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Mrs. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman for crafting a bill that very 
effectively addresses so many of our national priorities and includes 
critical funding for increases in the COPS program, the Byrne Justice 
Assistance Grants, the National Science Foundation, and many other 
initiatives, key to making our communities safer and preparing our 
young people to succeed in a competitive global economy.
  I also respect, Mr. Chairman, the commitment that you have shown in 
this bill to programs that protect our children from exploitation and 
abuse. However, I think we must do more to safeguard our children from 
the growing threat imposed by online sex predators.
  Last Friday, I visited the FBI's Innocent Images Task Force in New 
Haven, Connecticut, and was astonished and disturbed to see the shear 
number of predators trolling the Internet for young girls and boys, the 
explicit nature of their online interaction, and the ease with which 
they contacted our children.
  Despite the 2,000 percent increase in the number of these sexual 
exploitation cases opened in the past decade, Congress has not 
allocated funding commensurate with either the menace or the workload. 
The FBI is currently dedicating twice as many agents to tracking online 
sex predators as they have the resources for.
  As the Internet has exposed our children to new dangers by allowing 
these predators to invade our homes, law enforcement has not been given 
the tools to adequately combat this epidemic of sexual stalking and 
abuse of our children.
  My amendment will provide the FBI's Innocent Images Program, the 
nucleus of the Federal efforts to pursue and prosecute online sex 
predators and curtail the distribution of child pornography, with an 
additional $3.3 million offsetting these funds from the Bureau of the 
Census which received an $87.7 million increase over last year.
  When combined with the resources the committee has already provided, 
we will better enable the Innocent Images Program to meet the challenge 
of the explosion of sexual predators pursuing our children on the 
Internet.
  I urge support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Fitzpatrick), the coauthor of this amendment and a strong advocate 
for our children.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer 
this amendment with my friend from Connecticut to increase by $3.3 
million the FBI's Innocent Images Task Force.
  This vital FBI program targets a real and growing problem. Sexual 
predators are increasingly taking to the Internet to victimize our 
Nation's kids. The FBI's Innocent Images Task Force is the focal point 
of our Federal law enforcement's efforts to combat online sexual 
predators.
  While they do great work, our field agents are being overburdened by 
the rapidly increasing caseload they find in the Internet's target-rich 
environment. In the past 10 years alone, Mr. Chairman, the FBI has seen 
a 2,000 percent increase in its caseload of crimes involving online 
sexual predators.
  As a father of six children, I recognize the dangers of the Internet, 
especially with social networking sites. As a result, I introduced the 
Deleting Online Predators Act to protect our children from these sites 
while they are at school or in the public libraries.
  Recognizing that chat rooms and social networking sites represent a 
clear and present danger to millions of children, I believe that a key 
component of protecting our children is to crack down on these online 
predators. That means we must provide law enforcement with the tools 
necessary to track these criminals down.
  I want to commend the leadership of Chairman Wolf for his efforts to 
increase funding for a number of programs in the Department of Justice 
to protect our children both on- and offline.

                              {time}  2030

  I reached out to Chairman Wolf, requesting his assistance in securing 
increased funding for a number of law enforcement programs, and I am 
pleased to see that he has taken the initiative to include that 
language to do just that.
  Through Chairman Wolf's leadership, this legislation comes to the 
floor with increased funding not only for the Innocent Images Task 
Force but also for other vital law enforcement programs like the 
Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces and the National Center 
for Missing and Exploited Children. This bill also includes funds to 
add 26 new U.S. attorneys to prosecute these crimes.
  I requested Chairman Wolf's assistance in increasing funding for 
these programs, and I am grateful for his work to provide the necessary 
funding to protect our Nation's children while on the Internet.
  The Johnson amendment to fund law enforcement will protect children 
and will save lives. Congress must act to

[[Page H4652]]

make the Internet a safer place for kids, not a virtual hunting ground 
for child predators. This amendment will help accomplish this goal, and 
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment. The committee, 
working with Mr. Mollohan, has tried to increase this as much as 
possible. I would urge any Member that has not been out to the Center 
for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, that they ought to 
go. As a father of 11 grandchildren, I commend both of you and thank 
you very much and think we should accept the amendment.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I thank you, but I thank you also for a 
very thoughtful bill in very tough times, truly one that does support 
safer communities and one that does help prepare our young people for a 
global environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to claim the time in opposition? 
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                              construction

       For necessary expenses to construct or acquire buildings 
     and sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law 
     (including equipment for such buildings); conversion and 
     extension of Federally-owned buildings; and preliminary 
     planning and design of projects; $80,422,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which $2,000,000 shall be 
     available for equipment and associated continuing costs for a 
     permanent central records complex.

                    Drug Enforcement Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character pursuant 
     to 28 U.S.C. 530C; expenses for conducting drug education and 
     training programs, including travel and related expenses for 
     participants in such programs and the distribution of items 
     of token value that promote the goals of such programs; and 
     purchase of not to exceed 1,134 passenger motor vehicles, of 
     which 1,004 will be for replacement only, for police-type 
     use, $1,751,491,000; of which not to exceed $75,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended; and of which not to exceed 
     $100,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses.

          Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
     Firearms and Explosives, including the purchase of not to 
     exceed 822 vehicles for police-type use, of which 650 shall 
     be for replacement only; not to exceed $40,000 for official 
     reception and representation expenses; for training of State 
     and local law enforcement agencies with or without 
     reimbursement, including training in connection with the 
     training and acquisition of canines for explosives and fire 
     accelerants detection; and for provision of laboratory 
     assistance to State and local law enforcement agencies, with 
     or without reimbursement, $950,128,000, of which not to 
     exceed $1,000,000 shall be available for the payment of 
     attorneys' fees as provided by 18 U.S.C. 924(d)(2); and of 
     which $10,000,000 shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That no funds appropriated herein shall be 
     available for salaries or administrative expenses in 
     connection with consolidating or centralizing, within the 
     Department of Justice, the records, or any portion thereof, 
     of acquisition and disposition of firearms maintained by 
     Federal firearms licensees: Provided further, That no funds 
     appropriated herein shall be used to pay administrative 
     expenses or the compensation of any officer or employee of 
     the United States to implement an amendment or amendments to 
     27 CFR 478.118 or to change the definition of ``Curios or 
     relics'' in 27 CFR 478.11 or remove any item from ATF 
     Publication 5300.11 as it existed on January 1, 1994: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated herein 
     shall be available to investigate or act upon applications 
     for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 
     925(c): Provided further, That such funds shall be available 
     to investigate and act upon applications filed by 
     corporations for relief from Federal firearms disabilities 
     under section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code: 
     Provided further, That no funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used to transfer the functions, missions, or 
     activities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
     Explosives to other agencies or Departments in fiscal year 
     2007: Provided further, That no funds appropriated under this 
     or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used 
     to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace 
     System database maintained by the National Trace Center of 
     the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or 
     any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to 
     section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, or required 
     to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (7) of such 
     section 923(g), to anyone other than a Federal, State, local, 
     or foreign law enforcement agency or a Federal, State, or 
     local prosecutor solely in connection with and for use in a 
     bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution and then only 
     such information as pertains to the geographic jurisdiction 
     of the law enforcement agency requesting the disclosure and 
     not for use in any civil action or proceeding other than an 
     action or proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or a review of such an 
     action or proceeding, to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 
     of such title, and all such data shall be immune from legal 
     process and shall not be subject to subpoena or other 
     discovery, shall be inadmissible in evidence, and shall not 
     be used, relied on, or disclosed in any manner, nor shall 
     testimony or other evidence be permitted based upon such 
     data, in any civil action pending on or filed after the 
     effective date of this Act in any State (including the 
     District of Columbia) or Federal court or in any 
     administrative proceeding other than a proceeding commenced 
     by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to 
     enforce the provisions of that chapter, or a review of such 
     an action or proceeding; except that this proviso shall not 
     be construed to prevent the disclosure of statistical 
     information concerning total production, importation, and 
     exportation by each licensed importer (as defined in section 
     921(a)(9) of such title) and licensed manufacturer (as 
     defined in section 921(a)(10) of such title): Provided 
     further, That no funds made available by this or any other 
     Act shall be expended to promulgate or implement any rule 
     requiring a physical inventory of any business licensed under 
     section 923 of title 18, United States Code: Provided 
     further, That no funds under this Act may be used to 
     electronically retrieve information gathered pursuant to 18 
     U.S.C. 923(g)(4) by name or any personal identification code: 
     Provided further, That no funds authorized or made available 
     under this or any other Act may be used to deny any 
     application for a license under section 923 of title 18, 
     United States Code, or renewal of such a license due to a 
     lack of business activity, provided that the applicant is 
     otherwise eligible to receive such a license, and is eligible 
     to report business income or to claim an income tax deduction 
     for business expenses under the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986: Provided further, That in fiscal year 2007, the 
     Attorney General may establish and collect fees of not less 
     than one-half cent per pound of explosive material 
     manufactured in, or imported into, the United States by 
     licensed manufacturers and licensed importers, pursuant to 
     regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, which fees 
     shall be credited as offsetting receipts to the ``ATF 
     Regulatory Activities Fund'' established by the Attorney 
     General: Provided further, That of the amount so credited, 
     not to exceed $30,000,000 shall be available for carrying out 
     chapter 40 of title 18, United States Code.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the two 
provisions on page 15, line 18, through page 16, line 4. The provisions 
constitute legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 
2, rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there Members who wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rose for the same point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point of 
order? The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, this is a provision that the chairman and 
I understand the dilemma which he is in.
  For the last 2 years, the President, when he has submitted his budget 
request, has proffered this tax increase on the commercial explosives 
industry, which is particularly oppressive.
  Mr. Chairman, in West Virginia, as a matter of fact, of course we use 
explosives in mining and extraction and for road building purposes, and 
this would have a very injurious effect on the customers of explosives 
in my State, costing a tremendous amount of money.
  As I say, the President has requested this for the last 2 years in 
order to fund BATF functions. It constitutes a tax, and the committee 
appropriately disapproved this request from the President last year.
  This year, the chairman, in an effort to make the point I think, and 
certainly from my standpoint to make the point, that this is an 
inappropriate way to try to fund the functions of the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and making the request and not knowing 
that it probably would not be approved by the Congress, makes a huge 
hole in our bill.

[[Page H4653]]

  The chairman is putting it into the bill at a much lower level, and I 
do not know whether he anticipated this particular action, and I am not 
going to speak for him on that, but this I think demonstrates to the 
administration that this kind of a tactic, knowing that the 
administration, relying on the fund and the Congress not approving it, 
and then have to take the money out of some other account, we are just 
not going to continue do that.
  So, by striking it, I hope that what results is that there is a hole 
in BATF's budget at the end of the year, and making the point that this 
is probably not a good idea for the administration to do if they, in 
fact, want all of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearm programs 
to be funded into the future.
  So I hope after this is struck that this hole remains and that the 
point is made in a telling way.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Iowa wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this point of order is raised 
appropriately, and I concur with the gentleman from West Virginia in 
that it is legislation on an appropriations bill. It is actually a 
taxation. It is a revenue generator. It levies a tax on explosives and 
on firearms ammunition, and it is a way to generate revenue, perhaps as 
much as $130 million in this appropriations bill, in order to protect 
the interests of the firearms industry, the explosives industry, the 
people that are very closely regulated today and do not need to have 
additional regulation.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important that the section be struck out, but it 
is also important that we maintain our standard here and avoid 
legislating on an appropriation bill.
  So, with that, I again suggest that this point of order is one that 
is very solid on the policy of not legislating on appropriation bills, 
and I urge the Chair to sustain that point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. If no further Member wishes to be heard on the point of 
order, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this provision includes language conferring 
authority. The provision, therefore, constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and 
the provision is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         Federal Prison System

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary of the Federal Prison System for the 
     administration, operation, and maintenance of Federal penal 
     and correctional institutions, including purchase (not to 
     exceed 670, of which 635 are for replacement only) and hire 
     of law enforcement and passenger motor vehicles, and for the 
     provision of technical assistance and advice on corrections 
     related issues to foreign governments, $4,987,059,000: 
     Provided, That the Attorney General may transfer to the 
     Health Resources and Services Administration such amounts as 
     may be necessary for direct expenditures by that 
     Administration for medical relief for inmates of Federal 
     penal and correctional institutions: Provided further, That 
     the Director of the Federal Prison System, where necessary, 
     may enter into contracts with a fiscal agent/fiscal 
     intermediary claims processor to determine the amounts 
     payable to persons who, on behalf of the Federal Prison 
     System, furnish health services to individuals committed to 
     the custody of the Federal Prison System: Provided further, 
     That not to exceed $6,000 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided further, That 
     not to exceed $50,000,000 shall remain available for 
     necessary operations until September 30, 2008: Provided 
     further, That, of the amounts provided for Contract 
     Confinement, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain available 
     until expended to make payments in advance for grants, 
     contracts and reimbursable agreements, and other expenses 
     authorized by section 501(c) of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980, for the care and security in the 
     United States of Cuban and Haitian entrants: Provided 
     further, That the Director of the Federal Prison System may 
     accept donated property and services relating to the 
     operation of the prison card program from a not-for-profit 
     entity which has operated such program in the past 
     notwithstanding the fact that such not-for-profit entity 
     furnishes services under contracts to the Federal Prison 
     System relating to the operation of pre-release services, 
     halfway houses or other custodial facilities.


                Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

       Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Stearns:
       Page 16, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 67, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $500,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have an amendment that Mr. McCotter and Mr. King of Iowa have 
indicated they support this idea. So it is similar to H.R. 5476, 
legislation which I introduced to withhold the U.S. share of the U.N. 
Human Rights Council's budget from our regular U.N. dues. It transfers 
funding from the Council to hire more prison guards in the Federal 
Prison System.
  Let me just speak briefly I think before I get into the meat of it, 
to just talk to you about the U.N. Human Rights Council.
  Forty-one years ago this past Monday, 50 nations signed the United 
Nations Charter. A year later, former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt 
became the first chairwoman of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, to 
monitor and prevent the abuse of human rights throughout the world.
  Her chairmanship was the last for the U.S. on the Human Rights 
Commission, which has failed to uphold even the most basic ideals 
iterated in the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration on Human 
Rights. It quickly lost any credibility and allowed tyrannies like 
Cuba, Sudan, Libya, Belarus, China and Zimbabwe to shield themselves 
from criticism for their human rights violations.
  Over the life of the Commission, it failed to act or speak out 
against egregious human rights abuses like the atrocities committed in 
many of the Communist blocs and the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur. It 
also failed to condemn countries that sponsor terrorism, including 
Iran, Syria and North Korea. Instead, the Human Rights Commission 
repeatedly castigated Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, 
while overlooking horrific human rights abuses throughout that same 
Middle East. At least 30 percent of all country-specific resolutions of 
the Commission critical of human rights were directed at that very 
small country, Israel. None targeted persistent violators like former 
Burma, which is now Myanmar, Syria and Zimbabwe and, of course, early 
on, China.
  The U.N. recently replaced the discredited Commission with a Human 
Rights Council. For all the superficial changes, it will fail just as 
miserably as its predecessor. The reforms advocated by democratic 
nations were rejected, and that is why the United States declined to 
seek membership this year.
  The Council cannot even prevent human rights violators from being 
elected to the Council itself. The only supposed protection, that a 
country can be suspended if two-thirds of the members of the General 
Assembly agree, is useless since less than half of the General Assembly 
could agree that Sudan was guilty of human rights violations. The new 
Council only reduced the number of seats on the Council from 53 to 47, 
not enough to make the Council more efficient or effective. It also 
retained geographic quotas that will allow countries like Iran, 
Venezuela, Sudan and Zimbabwe repeated chances to run for membership.
  This new U.N. Human Rights Council is littered with abysmal human 
rights abusers. The newly elected membership includes nine countries 
that the democracy watchdog Freedom House designates as not free: 
China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Pakistan, Tunisia, Algeria, Cameroon 
and Azerbaijan. According to the Geneva-based human rights monitor U.N. 
Watch, almost half of the new members fail to meet accepted democratic 
standards.
  The U.S. cannot fund such a human rights sham while our own Federal 
Prison System needs the money. The Federal Prison System requested a 
$500 million increase in fiscal year 2007. The

[[Page H4654]]

committee report falls $400 million short of that request. This unmet 
increase is vital to grapple with a growing prison population.
  More than 188,000 inmates are confined in the correctional 
institutions of the Federal Prison System today. As a result, the 
Federal Prison System is operating 41 percent over capacity, up from 32 
percent as of January, 2000. The number of Federal correctional 
officers cannot keep pace. In the 1990s, when inmate populations were 
approximately half as large, the prisons were at 95 percent staffing 
levels. Today, it has less than that. This has resulted in a 
significant increase in inmate assaults on correctional staff.
  According to the Federal Prison System data, assaults against 
correctional staff increased by 75 percent, and assaults against 
correctional staff with weapons increased by 61 percent. These are 
alarming statistics.
  This particular statistic concerns me because we have in my district 
the largest prison system, Coleman Correctional Facility.
  So my amendment is significant. I ask support of it. It is symbolic. 
It is important to pass it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman stated that this bill was below the Administration's 
request. We are above the Administration's request for prisons. We are 
not below.
  Secondly, our Subcommittee last year put together what they called a 
Gingrich-Mitchell Commission, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich 
and former Minority Leader Mitchell, to look at the U.N. reform, and 
they have come up with a good package, and they are working on this 
issue.
  The State Department opposes this amendment. John Bolten up at the 
State Department says, and I quote, ``We must determine whether the 
U.N. Human Rights Council will be a body that the world will respect 
and take seriously.'' Its status is no longer characteristic of the 
U.N. Commission on Human Rights.
  That said, the United States will work cooperatively with other 
member states to make the Council as strong and effective as it can be. 
We will be supportive of efforts to strengthen the Council and look 
forward to a serious review of the Council structure and work.
  I have been as critical as anybody else, and I will stipulate perhaps 
more than anybody else, on the whole issue of the Human Rights 
Commission with regard to China, with regard to Sudan and with regard 
to these others, but this would complicate the Administration's 
efforts.
  The Secretary of State, Secretary Rice, is opposed to this. The State 
Department is opposed to this. The Administration is opposed to this.
  Change it by dealing with it through the Gingrich-Mitchell Task Force 
and put pressure on them, but do not complicate the life of John Bolten 
and Secretary Rice up there.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan).

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
am not sure exactly what the gentleman is attempting to achieve here, 
but I really find myself in disagreement at both ends.
  I find myself in disagreement with the offset, certainly. However 
imperfect the U.S. Human Rights Council and its memberships may or may 
not be, I am not sure that taking this money from that organization for 
that purpose, even if it were to come from that account, would address 
the problem.
  I might point out that Chairman Wolf is extremely sensitive to human 
rights, and has been for a long time; and when he addresses human 
rights issues in this bill, he is very conscious about them. I really 
feel confident in the way that he has treated the overall State 
Department accounts, particularly as any of that account might be 
contributing to the U.N. Human Rights Council budget, if that is the 
focus of this offset, even though it comes from the international 
organizations, account which is a much broader account.
  On the other side of it, to increase funding for the Bureau of 
Prisons by $500,000, I am really pleased that the gentleman recognizes 
that we do need additional dollars within the Bureau of Prisons, and I 
agree that to a large extent the Bureau of Prisons is underfunded. It 
is underfunded in a lot of areas. If we are concerned about assaults on 
guards, if we are concerned about those kinds of issues, then maybe we 
ought to be looking for those types of programs that could be funded, 
but it would cost a lot more than $500,000 in the Bureau of Prisons, to 
would address education, training, and those kinds of programs that 
would be remedial with regard to prisoners; and we could reduce the 
concerns that he is trying to address with this offset.
  So on both ends, Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I close by saying let us do what we did in 
the Gingrich-Mitchell thing. The U.N. has made a lot of mistakes. John 
Bolten is no wallflower. I support what John Bolten is trying to do up 
there, and I don't think we should complicate the administration's life 
by doing this.
  I yield to the gentleman if he would like to say something.
  Mr. STEARNS. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want you to know that I realize 
you are doing a wonderful job in your position here, and this, in a 
larger sense, is symbolic to show to the United Nations where our 
priorities are and to give an opportunity for some Members, like 
myself, to voice their concerns about this Human Rights Commission, and 
I thank you for your courtesy.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. 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 Florida will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        buildings and facilities

       For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new 
     facilities; purchase and acquisition of facilities and 
     remodeling, and equipping of such facilities for penal and 
     correctional use, including all necessary expenses incident 
     thereto, by contract or force account; and constructing, 
     remodeling, and equipping necessary buildings and facilities 
     at existing penal and correctional institutions, including 
     all necessary expenses incident thereto, by contract or force 
     account, $88,961,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which not to exceed $14,000,000 shall be available to 
     construct areas for inmate work programs: Provided, That 
     labor of United States prisoners may be used for work 
     performed under this appropriation.

                federal prison industries, incorporated

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

   limitation on administrative expenses, federal prison industries, 
                              incorporated

       Not to exceed $2,477,000 of the funds of the corporation 
     shall be available for its administrative expenses, and for 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, to be computed on an 
     accrual basis to be determined in accordance with the 
     corporation's current prescribed accounting system, and such 
     amounts shall be exclusive of depreciation, payment of 
     claims, and expenditures which such accounting system 
     requires to be capitalized or charged to cost of commodities 
     acquired or produced, including selling and shipping 
     expenses, and expenses in connection with acquisition, 
     construction, operation, maintenance, improvement, 
     protection, or disposition of facilities and other property 
     belonging to the corporation or in which it has an interest.

                    Office on Violence Against Women

       violence against women prevention and prosecution programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance for the prevention and prosecution of violence 
     against women, as authorized by the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) (``the 1968 
     Act''); the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

[[Page H4655]]

     Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) (``the 1994 Act''); the 
     Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (``the 1990 Act''); the 
     Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the 
     Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-
     21); the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act 
     of 2000 (Public Law 106-386) (``the 2000 Act''); and the 
     Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 (``the 2005 Act''); $390,296,000, 
     including amounts for administrative costs, to remain 
     available until expended as follows--
       (1) $11,897,000 for the court-appointed special advocate 
     program, as authorized by section 217 of the 1990 Act;
       (2) $2,287,000 for child abuse training programs for 
     judicial personnel and practitioners, as authorized by 
     section 222 of the 1990 Act;
       (3) $174,500,000 for grants to combat violence against 
     women, as authorized by part T of the 1968 Act, as amended by 
     section 101 of the 2005 Act, of which $2,477,000 shall be for 
     the National Institute of Justice for research and evaluation 
     of violence against women;
       (4) $14,808,000 for transitional housing assistance grants 
     for victims of domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault 
     as authorized by section 40299 of the 1994 Act, as amended by 
     section 602 of the 2005 Act;
       (5) $63,075,000 for grants to encourage arrest policies as 
     authorized by part U of the 1968 Act, as amended by section 
     102 of the 2005 Act;
       (6) $39,166,000 for rural domestic violence and child abuse 
     enforcement assistance grants, as authorized by section 40295 
     of the 1994 Act, as amended by section 203 of the 2005 Act;
       (7) $4,958,000 for training programs as authorized by 
     section 40152 of the 1994 Act, as amended by section 108 of 
     the 2005 Act, and for related local demonstration projects;
       (8) $2,962,000 for grants to improve the stalking and 
     domestic violence databases, as authorized by section 40602 
     of the 1994 Act, as amended by section 109 of the 2005 Act;
       (9) $9,054,000 for grants to reduce violent crimes against 
     women on campus, as authorized by section 304 of the 2005 
     Act;
       (10) $42,000,000 for legal assistance for victims, as 
     authorized by section 1201 of the 2000 Act, as amended by 
     section 103 of the 2005 Act;
       (11) $4,540,000 for enhancing protection for older and 
     disabled women from domestic violence and sexual assault, as 
     authorized by section 40802 of the 1994 Act, as amended by 
     section 205 of the 2005 Act;
       (12) $13,894,000 for the safe havens for children program, 
     as authorized by section 1301 of the 2000 Act, as amended by 
     section 306 of the 2005 Act; and
       (13) $7,155,000 for education and training to end violence 
     against and abuse of women with disabilities, as authorized 
     by section 1402 of the 2000 Act, as amended by section 204 of 
     the 2005 Act.

                       Office of Justice Programs

                           justice assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the Missing Children's 
     Assistance Act, including salaries and expenses in connection 
     therewith, the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end 
     the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Public Law 
     108-21), the Justice for All Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
     405), the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162), and the 
     Victims of Crime Act of 1984, $215,575,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

               state and local law enforcement assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) (``the 1994 
     Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (``the 1968 Act''); the Trafficking Victims Protection 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-164); the 
     Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162); and the 
     Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 
     (Public Law 106-386); and other programs; $1,103,492,000 
     (including amounts for administrative costs, which shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the ``Justice Assistance'' 
     account): Provided, That funding provided under this heading 
     shall remain available until expended as follows--
       (1) $558,077,000 for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 
     Assistance Grant program as authorized by subpart 1 of part E 
     of title I of the 1968 Act, as amended by section 1111 of 
     Public Law 109-162 (except that the special rules for Puerto 
     Rico under section 505(g) of the 1968 Act, as amended by 
     section 1111 of Public Law 109-162, shall not apply for 
     purposes of this Act), of which--
       (A) $115,225,000 is for discretionary grants, 
     notwithstanding the provisions of section 505 of the 1968 
     Act; and
       (B) $75,000,000 is for Boys and Girls Clubs in public 
     housing facilities and other areas in cooperation with State 
     and local law enforcement, as authorized by section 401 of 
     Public Law 104-294 (42 U.S.C. 13751 note);
       (2) $405,000,000 for the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
     Program, as authorized by section 241(i)(5) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)(5)), as 
     amended by section 1196 of Public Law 109-162;
       (3) $30,000,000 for the Southwest Border Prosecutor 
     Initiative to reimburse State, county, parish, tribal, or 
     municipal governments only for costs associated with the 
     prosecution of criminal cases declined by local offices of 
     the United States Attorneys;
       (4) $21,488,000 for activities authorized under sections 
     201 and 204 of Public Law 109-164;
       (5) $40,000,000 for Drug Courts, as authorized by section 
     1001(25)(A) of title I of the 1968 Act, as amended by section 
     1142 of Public Law 109-162;
       (6) $10,000,000 for a prescription drug monitoring program;
       (7) $22,943,000 for prison rape prevention and prosecution 
     programs, as authorized by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 
     2003 (Public Law 108-79), of which $2,175,000 shall be 
     transferred to the National Prison Rape Elimination 
     Commission for authorized activities;
       (8) $5,000,000 for grants for residential substance abuse 
     treatment for State prisoners, as authorized by part S of the 
     1968 Act;
       (9) $2,000,000 for a program to improve State and local law 
     enforcement intelligence capabilities including antiterrorism 
     training and training to ensure that constitutional rights, 
     civil liberties, civil rights, and privacy interests are 
     protected;
       (10) $2,000,000 for a capital litigation improvement grant 
     program;
       (11) $5,000,000 for mental health courts and adult and 
     juvenile collaboration program grants, as authorized by parts 
     V and HH of title I of the 1968 Act; and
       (12) $1,984,000 for the National Sex Offender Public 
     Registry:
     Provided, That, if a unit of local government uses any of the 
     funds made available under this title to increase the number 
     of law enforcement officers, the unit of local government 
     will achieve a net gain in the number of law enforcement 
     officers who perform nonadministrative public safety service.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Mollohan

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. 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. Mollohan:
       Page 23, lines 4 and 9, after each of the dollar amounts, 
     insert ``(increased by $341,923,000)''.
       Page 38, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $67,077,000)''.
       Page 55, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $100,000,000)''.
       Page 55, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $75,000,000)''.
       Page 55, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
       Page 86, line 17, after each of the dollar amounts, insert 
     ``(increased by $81,000,000)''.
       Page 89, line 17, after each of the dollar amounts, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 107, after line 23, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 629. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess of 
     $1,000,000, for calendar year 2007 the amount of tax 
     reduction resulting from the enactment of Public Laws 107-16, 
     108-27, and 108-311 shall be reduced by 1.45 percent.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I rise in support of my amendment. But before I describe 
the amendment, let me first note that Chairman Wolf has done a 
tremendous job with the narrow allocation he had.
  However, the reductions and the eliminations proposed by the 
administration are really undermining our ability to protect our 
communities, to assist the neediest in our country, and to invest in 
cutting-edge innovations. All of those programs, addressing those 
concerns and those community needs are under the jurisdiction of this 
bill. This amendment takes a step to correcting those underfundings and 
those deficiencies.
  First, Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide an increase of $341 
million to State and local law enforcement grants, restoring these 
grants to the full authorization level of $900 million. Federal 
assistance to State and local law enforcement has been cut by about $2 
billion since 2001, and violent crime rates are up 2.5 percent, the 
largest percentage increase since 1992.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, let me emphasize this. This is State and local law 
enforcement. This is the program the Federal Government has that 
assists State and local law enforcement in performing the protective 
function that

[[Page H4656]]

they have on a daily basis, dangerous job; and they don't have the 
resources. The Federal Government has recognized that State and local 
law enforcement does not have the resources to do its job. We have 
recognized that for a number of years, and we have programs to 
supplement their resources to ensure that they are able to do that.
  But this bill, and the President's request over the last number of 
years, has by attrition cut by nearly $2 billion since 2001 Federal 
assistance to State and local law enforcement. Those are real cuts, and 
they have had real impacts. And the impact is best measured by the 
increase in violent crime by 2.5 percent since 1992.
  Mr. Chairman, second, this amendment would provide an increase of $67 
million to the Economic Development Administration, bringing the 
funding level up to the $327 million request. This would provide EDA 
with a $44 million increase above last year's enacted level to better 
provide for economically distressed regions with high unemployment and 
low incomes.
  Third, this amendment provides an increase of $81 million to the 
Legal Services Corporation, bringing the amount near the fiscal year 
1995 high water mark of $415 million. The bill currently provides $313 
million to Legal Services Corporation, an increase of $3 million above 
the President's request, but a dramatic $12.7 million reduction from 
last year's enacted level.
  Legal Services Corporation's budget has suffered cuts in each of the 
last three fiscal years, despite a steadily rising poverty rate. Need 
going up, funding going down for this program.
  Fourth, this amendment provides $10 million to the Small Business 
Administration for microloans, which were zeroed out in the President's 
budget. However, during full committee, the chairman accepted an 
amendment to partially restore the funding. An additional $10 million 
is needed to fully fund the microloan program, which is the single 
largest source of funding for microenterprise development in the 
Nation, and helps high-risk business owners who seek grants of $35,000 
or less, helping the neediest of our small business entrepreneurs.
  Fifth, Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides an increase of $100 
million for NASA science and education. Of this amount, $25 million 
would be for NASA education to reverse the trend of damaging cuts that 
we have seen in the past few years, restoring the funding to the fiscal 
year 2005 funding level of $178.9 million. The remaining $75 million is 
available to increase important science programs that have been cut 
seriously or eliminated.
  In the NASA budget, as the President emphasizes space exploration, 
deemphasizes science and research, this amendment would change that, 
providing that additional funding, the amount cut, from science 
programs.
  All this would be accomplished by an offset that would nick the 
average tax break for those with incomes of more than $1 million by 
1.45 percent, or $1,657. Now, to a lot of taxpayers, and to the average 
American, $1,657 is a lot of money. But the average tax break before 
this amendment, for those with incomes more than $1 million, is 
$114,172. Voting for this amendment, if the amendment were made in 
order, would have invested $600 million back into law enforcement, low 
income, and millionaires would still receive a $112,000 tax break, just 
suffering $1,600 to do all that good, Mr. Chairman.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment 
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation 
in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. 
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order? 
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment changes the application of 
existing law, and the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. 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. Kennedy of Minnesota:
       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $532,148,000)''.
       Page 23, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $532,148,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  (Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, in the last 5 years, funding 
for the grants under the consolidated Byrne-JAG formula have been cut 
by almost two-thirds. At the same time, we have had two consecutive 
attempts by the administration to eliminate this program entirely. I 
don't know about my colleagues, but my police officers in my district 
don't understand this.
  The minimum this program should be funded at is $900 million, which 
is what 162 Members of this House requested in a letter to the Budget 
Committee earlier this year and that was recommended by the Budget 
Committee in the report accompanying the fiscal year 2007 budget 
resolution.
  I realize how tight this bill is and how much the chairman and the 
committee have worked to give as much as they can, and I realize tough 
choices have been made; but we must do better for our law enforcement 
officers, and our Members will have a chance to do that here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this 
bipartisan amendment. For years, the Bush administration has been 
talking tough on drugs and law enforcement while slashing the funding 
that makes law enforcement possible. The big drops in crime during the 
Clinton years were made possible by programs like Byrne that put 
dollars where they are needed: in the hands of local police departments 
and task forces.
  Since 2001, however, funding has been cut again and again, from over 
$1 billion to less than $367 million in this year's bill. These cuts go 
against everything we know to be true about drug policy. Ninety percent 
of drug arrests are made by State and local law enforcement, and local 
drug task forces are our first and best line of defense against the 
growing problem of meth in our communities. Now more than ever, we need 
to support the work that our local law enforcement officers are doing.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, later today, some of our colleagues plan 
to offer amendments to this bill that would divert money from the 2010 
Census. Many of them have good intentions and would send the money to 
other worthwhile programs. However, I would like to strongly urge those 
colleagues to consider the damage that would be done--not just to this 
Nation, but perhaps even to the very district they represent--should 
the Census be depleted. It a program with an enormous impact and should 
never be carved up and handed out like a Thanksgiving turkey.
  Five years from now, if Members begin complaining about problems with 
Census and the count in their States, we will only have ourselves to 
blame. If members want to take money from Census, perhaps they should 
volunteer their States for inaccurate counts.
  Just because the actual survey takes place in 2010 doesn't mean that 
cutting the Census in 2006 is irrelevant. Initial planning is ongoing 
and the Census Bureau is gearing up for the largest peace-time 
mobilization in American history. The Census doesn't just appear in an 
instant and then disappear every ten years, it is a constant, massive 
effort that never stops.
  Some might try to divert money from the Census to other programs in 
this bill in the name of law enforcement. But they should keep in mind 
that the Census is a critical tool for fighting crime. Crime mapping, 
after all, relies on accurate demographic and housing data to help 
police determine where to deploy manpower, equipment and other 
resources.
  Furthermore, imagine the impact of an inaccurate Census on the Byrne 
Memorial Justice

[[Page H4657]]

Assistance Grant Program. The distribution of this money is based on 
population and crime statistics, both of which are based on Census 
statistics.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope our colleagues understand that the Census 
affects much of what we do, from billions upon billions in federal 
dollars that could assist our districts to our States' representation 
in Congress. It is especially important for areas that are undercounted 
and underserved. It is not a throwaway program--in many ways it is the 
lifeblood of this government.

                              {time}  2100


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I do. I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman makes a point of order. The gentleman 
will state his point of order.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the 
amendment, that it is in violation of section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The Committee on Appropriations filed a suballocation of the budget 
for fiscal year 2007 on June 6, 2006, House Report 109-488. The 
adoption of this amendment would cause the subcommittee's suballocation 
for budget authority made under section 302(b) to be exceeded and is 
not permitted under section 302(f) of the act.
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order? 
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair is authoritatively guided under section 312 of the Budget 
Act by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget that an amendment 
providing any net increase in new discretionary budget authority would 
cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such authority.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota would increase 
the level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill. As such, 
the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Barrow

  Mr. BARROW. 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. Barrow:
       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 24, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 67, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BARROW. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank 
Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan for their work on this 
important bill.
  Mr. Chairman, since I joined Congress last year, illegal immigration 
has been debated, discussed and voted on a lot in this House, and it is 
the number one concern with a lot of folks that I represent back home 
in Georgia.
  We all know that the explosion of illegal immigrants is imposing a 
huge cost on local schools and local hospitals, but it is also imposing 
a huge new cost on local law enforcement as well. Local police 
departments are already stretched to the limit financially in dealing 
with home-grown crime. Despite that, most do an outstanding job of 
serving the public without all the resources they already need.
  But because we still haven't secured our borders, we have caused 
local law enforcement to have to do more. We have asked them to do 
more, and yet the Federal Government is not helping them to deal with 
that part of the crime problem that the Federal Government has actually 
created.
  Since 9/11, Congress hasn't helped. We have given local law 
enforcement more to do, but less to do it with. We have expanded State 
and local law enforcement's authority to investigate, arrest and jail 
undocumented criminal aliens.
  When we expand the responsibilities of State and local police, when 
we ask them to do more, we have an obligation to give them the 
resources that they need in order to do more.
  In 1994, Congress created the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
Program, the SCAAP program, and since then it has provided over $4.1 
billion in financial assistance to States, reimbursing State and local 
police for the cost of jailing undocumented criminal aliens.
  In the last fiscal year alone, my home State of Georgia received $1.8 
million in SCAAP funding for our State and local police. This year, 
funding for SCAAP was zeroed out in the President's budget. 
Fortunately, this bill will reinstate some funding for this program, 
but the amount is still far short of the amount that is authorized of 
the amount that is needed.
  My amendment would provide an additional $10 million to the SCAAP 
program.
  Frankly, we have enough home-grown crime to deal with already without 
having to deal with the crime that we are literally importing from 
other countries. As a result, my amendment pays for an increase in 
SCAAP funding through an \8/10\ of 1 percent decrease in funding from 
the account that pays membership fees to international organizations.
  Earlier this year, the President addressed the Nation and announced 
he would be sending National Guard troops to our southern border to 
help stem the flood of illegal immigrants flowing into the United 
States. National Guard troops on the border may help stem the flow of 
new illegal immigrants, but they do nothing to deal with the criminal 
element that has already gotten through.
  With an estimated is 11 million illegal immigrants already living in 
the United States, our local law enforcement agencies continue to serve 
as our first line of defense in dealing with the criminal element that 
has already entered the country. That is why we need to provide State 
and local police with the resources that they need to do the job that 
we impose upon them.
  I therefore urge my colleagues to help State and local law 
enforcement deal with undocumented criminals and support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment on this side.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. 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. Kennedy of Minnesota:
       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 23, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $50,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 50 seconds to my 
friend from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, a methamphetamine epidemic is 
plaguing America, as we know. It has become the leading drug problem in 
my home State of Kansas. The Byrne-JAG program is a critical tool for 
Kansas drug and law enforcement as they fight this methamphetamine 
abuse production and trafficking. It is especially true of rural 
communities who have fewer resources and live and die by these Federal 
grants.
  Today, I spoke to Cristi Cain, a meth prevention organization leader. 
Here is her quote: Reduced funding means reduced enforcement, which 
means increased addiction, increased trafficking, increased 
manufacturing, which means more injured and killed children, more fires 
and more explosions, more crime to support the addiction. In short, an 
endangered Kansan.
  I urge adoption of the Kennedy amendment.

[[Page H4658]]

  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 50 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being offered the time.
  In my three decades of public service, I have never seen a problem as 
pervasive or as damaging as the meth epidemic faced by my home State of 
Oregon. Talking to law enforcement leaders about the meth problem, I 
have heard one message loud and clear. Local law enforcement lacks the 
money needed to extinguish this wildfire.
  The Byrne-JAG program is an effective partnership between Federal 
authorities and State and local law enforcement. It enables State and 
local leaders to leverage resources in key areas and facilitates 
collaboration among law enforcement, treatment and prevention programs. 
Last year, the Byrne task forces nationwide seized 5,600 meth labs, 
55,000 weapons, and massive quantities of narcotics, including 2.7 
million grams of methamphetamine.
  Many States have already been forced to cut or completely eliminate 
their gang and drug task forces. If we don't increase funding for the 
Byrne-JAG program, those cuts will only be deeper. I urge my colleagues 
to support the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if you were to listen to this debate, you 
would assume that this bill has zero in it for meth. I urge Members to 
turn to page 11. I know nobody reads the reports here, and it is pretty 
obvious, but in order to help Federal, State and local law enforcement 
address the meth epidemic, the recommendation provides $367 million for 
the Justice Assistance Grants which the administration proposed to 
eliminate, $99 million for meth specific grants, which is the 
authorized level, and $58 million above the budget request, $40,000 for 
drug core programs, an increase of $30 million with regard to that.
  You act as if we haven't done anything on meth. This amendment will 
devastate the census. I mean, no good deed goes unpunished in this 
institution sometimes. The administration zeros all this out. We met 
with every Member. Every Member that approached the committee, we tried 
to sit down and work it out with them to the best of it, to no avail.
  Then we just accepted the Reichert amendment. God bless Mr. Reichert 
for his efforts. He has probably forgotten more about this than most 
other Members, $25 million more that has just been accepted. Now we 
come out with another 50, 50, 50.
  Then, where does he get the money from? I think in the Constitution 
they talk about the census. It is my sense that that is in the census 
in the Constitution. At this stage, a reduction of this magnitude to 
the 2010 decennial census programs will impact fundamental missions of 
the Census Bureau, reapportionment, the funding that goes out to 
different localities. A complete and accurate count in 2010 will not be 
able to be achieved, particularly when they look for the dress 
rehearsal.
  The immediate ramifications are a disproportionate impact on 
vulnerable populations, irretrievable loss of testing opportunities to 
identify the problems. What can you say? Forget the census, blow it 
off, and put this in, even though the committee has increased it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I join Chairman Wolf in opposing this 
amendment.
  The amendment would increase Byrne grants by $50 million. That is the 
good news. No question about it. We would like to have more money for 
law enforcement. The offset would be a corresponding reduction to the 
2010 decennial census by $50 million.
  It is totally unacceptable, Mr. Chairman. I go back to my original 
statement where I say that we are going to oppose a lot of amendments 
today that are good amendments except for the offset.
  This is really the wrong place for this offset, which I might add is 
still totally inadequate to Census Bureau funding to meet the needs of 
our communities, not to mention that the law enforcement uses census 
data to determine how to allocate manpower and equipment.
  An article by the Brookings Institute fellow Andrew Reamer speaks to 
this point, and I quote, crime mapping has emerged as a critical tool 
in ensuring that these scarce resources are used to the best effect. 
Crime mapping applications at the State and local level rely heavily on 
the Census Bureau's demographic and housing data.
  For State and local crime mappers, the Census Bureau has the single 
most important population and housing data at the neighborhood level. 
This bill has been carefully crafted. Fifty million dollars out of the 
Census Bureau is a lot of money, which we cannot afford.
  Remember, folks, we are moving to 2010 when we are going to do a new 
decennial census. Taking money out of the census today means that we 
are not able to do a good job with that tomorrow. I can remember when 
we had to do an emergency funding for the Census Bureau in the last 
census. I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 40 seconds to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. First, I want to thank the chairman for upping up the 
administration's attempt to zero out the Byrne grants, but, in fact, 
they have gone down from $600 million to $400 million and some, this 
year to $371 million. It will gut so many of our drug task forces 
around the United States.
  But I also spent many years in my life here in Congress on the Census 
Subcommittee. Sometimes you have to prioritize. Right now, we need more 
help on the streets with crime than we do in the Census Bureau. The 
mandate for every 10 years is every 10 years.
  The Census Bureau has taken on all kinds of other tasks, which some 
of the private sector can, quite frankly, pay for if they need it, 
rather than shut down our drug task forces. Because this is roughly 
almost a 67 percent cut over the last 6 years, not based on inflation, 
a 60 percent cut.
  I know this chairman has fought to put this back in. This 
administration's drug enforcement budget is an abomination and 
embarrassment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I don't know how often we have to watch Members pose 
for political holy pictures on these issues before we start to gag. 
Well, I am at that point.
  You have Members coming to this floor creating a great commotion, 
trying to create the impression that they are oh so much a champion of 
this program or that program.
  On this amendment, it is the Byrne grant. On some other amendments, 
it is another program. My question to you, sir, is how did you vote on 
the budget resolution? Because if you voted for that budget resolution, 
you put this committee and this House into a position in which they 
have no choice but to cut one of these programs or the other.
  Now you can parade around as a wonderful conservative, but the fact 
is, don't come to this floor with crocodile tears crying about what is 
happening to the Byrne grants or any other program if you voted for 
that budget resolution.
  At least half the amendments being offered in this House, tonight and 
tomorrow, are cover-your-tail amendments, Mr. Chairman. They are here 
because Members who voted for the budget resolution are now trying to 
escape their responsibility because they want to have a roll call in 
their pocket that they can go to their constituents saying I didn't 
mean to cut that program.
  But when you cut programs, there is not a line item in the budget for 
waste, fraud and abuse. When you cut the money, as you did in the 
budget, you are willing to sacrifice everything in order to provide $50 
billion this year in tax cuts to people who make $1 million a year.

                              {time}  2115

  That is the real action. And half this other stuff is phony as a $3 
bill.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 50 seconds to the 
gentleman from Nebraska, Congressman Fortenberry.

[[Page H4659]]

  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of this amendment 
as well offered by my colleague, Mr. Kennedy.
  In every congressional district throughout the country, narcotics 
does take on a sinister but very unique face. In rural communities that 
span the First District of Nebraska, that ugly face is methamphetamine 
abuse, production, and trafficking.
  Throughout my district, local law enforcement agencies are using as 
much as 85 percent of their resources to battle meth. Broken families, 
child abuse, gang violence, and environmental decay are other 
consequences that this poison imposes on our communities. In other 
districts maybe the problem isn't meth, but perhaps something just as 
sinister like cocaine or heroin.
  But no matter what face narcotics takes in any particular district, I 
would like to remind my colleagues that we must, in good conscience, 
support the men and women of local law enforcement. These are the 
courageous men and woman who risk their lives daily to better the 
communities, and they deserve our gratitude, but also our efforts to 
assist them in the difficult and dangerous work they do.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 50 seconds to the 
gentleman from Utah, Congressman Matheson.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy 
amendment. Every time I meet with anyone in law enforcement in my 
State, county sheriff, police chief, I hear about the effectiveness of 
the Byrne grant program, and I also hear the concern about potential 
cuts in funding the Byrne grants. I don't think that that experience is 
unique to my congressional district. I suspect that that would be the 
case throughout this country.
  This is a situation where we are making difficult choices, but when 
it comes to the impact of drug use in our society and the effectiveness 
of the Byrne grant program, I think that we need to pay attention to 
the fact that this is a program that works. So many people question 
programs in the government that may not work so well. This is one that 
has a track record. It works.
  I encourage people to vote for this amendment, and I thank Mr. 
Kennedy for his leadership on the issue.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I yield 50 seconds to the 
gentleman from the great State of Minnesota, Congressman Ramstad.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, as cochair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, 
I believe it is short-sighted and counterproductive to underfund Byrne 
grants for law enforcement.
  I have seen in my home State of Minnesota firsthand the importance of 
Byrne grants to local police in reducing crime and improving public 
safety. They have funded overtime pay, task forces to fight the war on 
drugs, equipment, and buy money to enforce our drug laws.
  We must never forget our cops are on the front lines in the war on 
crime and fighting drug dealers and protecting our homeland. And before 
we bleed too much for our Census Bureau, I think we should remember, 
this agency in this bill already receives a $72 million increase. We 
are talking about funding cops, the war on drugs, homeland security, or 
$72 million more for the Bureau of Census. To me that is a no-brainer: 
we fund Byrne grants, which every law enforcement official in America 
is pleading for.
  I urge adoption of the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, Edmund Burke once said the most important reason we 
have government is to keep people safe.
  The Edward Byrne Memorial Grant program is a key component of the 
federal efforts to make our communities safe.
  Named for a fallen New York City police officer, the Byrne Grant 
program has been a vital tool since 1988 in helping state and local law 
enforcement fight violent and drug-related crime.
  Although I respect the difficult job our Appropriations Committee is 
faced with when setting spending priorities, we cannot afford to 
shortchange public safety.
  As co-chair of the Law Enforcement Caucus, Mr. Chairman, I believe 
it's short-sighted and counter productive to underfund Byrne Grants for 
law enforcement.
  This amendment would increase funding for the Byrne-JAG program by 
$50 million and is offset by a reduction to the Bureau of the Census--
an agency that already receives a $72 million increase in this bill!
  Byrne Grants have been essential to better coordination between local 
and federal law enforcement in protecting our homeland. They have been 
key to providing personnel, equipment, training and technical 
assistance in the war on drugs.
  They have bolstered prosecution efforts. And they have been used to 
administer critical programs--multi-jurisdictional drug enforcement 
teams, anti-drug education, treatment and alternative sentencing, such 
as drug courts.
  In my home state of Minnesota, I've seen, firsthand, the importance 
of Byrne Grants to local police in reducing crime and improving public 
safety. They have funded overtime pay, task forces, equipment and 
``buy'' money to enforce our drug laws.
  We must never forget our cops are on the front lines--in the war on 
crime, fighting drug dealers and protecting our homeland.
  As Chris Matthews of MSNBC said after the attacks of September 11: 
``Before the attacks on our homeland, America's heroes were the rich 
and famous. Since Sept. 11, America's heroes are the cops and 
firefighters. And that's good for America.''
  Today, America's heroes are counting on us. Congress owes it to these 
brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day they put 
on the badge. Our Nation's law enforcement officers need all the tools 
Congress can provide.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to increase the 
maximum funding levels for Byrne Grants. It's time to honor the 
sacrifices made each and every day by our Nation's law enforcement 
community and give our Nation's finest the support they need.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. In my last 10 seconds, I would just 
compliment and applaud the committee and the chairman for the great 
work that they have done in trying to offset the cut by the 
administration, but say with a two-thirds cuts in Byrne grants funding, 
this amendment is absolutely necessary. And I urge my colleagues to 
support its passage.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I tried, the committee tried. Every Member who spoke to 
me on either side, we really made a really sincere effort to address 
it.
  I went to Nebraska. I went out to Nebraska. The gentleman from 
Nebraska is right: they have a real, real problem.
  But if you would just kind of listen to this debate, you would 
automatically, if you were just tuning in in Dubuque or Des Moines, you 
would assume that there was nothing in here, that we had just been 
stone deaf, that we had not even listened. We added also, to keep in 
mind, we just added, under the Reichert amendment, $25 million.
  But in the committee report, on page 11, after really searching, I 
was very moved when I went out to Nebraska. I thought we want to do 
everything. And I have talked to Mr. Souder. And every time, I thought 
I have tried to do everything I could.
  Now, as Mr. Obey said, the budget resolutions come down, and the 
deficits are important and we talk. But here is what the conference 
report says:
  ``In order to help the Federal, State and local law enforcement 
address the meth epidemic, the recommendation provides $367 million for 
the Justice Assistance Grants program,'' they were wiped out, ``which 
the administration proposed to eliminate; $99 million for meth-specific 
grants, which is the authorized level, and $58 million plus above the 
budget request; $40,000 for Drug Court programs, which is $30 million 
above the current year, $5 million for State Prison Drug Treatment 
programs, which the administration proposed to eliminate, and also $15 
million above the request for DEA.''
  But if I had just listened to this debate, I would assume that this 
guy, Wolf, he was AWOL. He had no interest in meth. He was insensitive.
  Of course, my father was a policeman. I have five kids. I have 11 
grandkids. I think the deficit is a problem. I sit in Republican 
conferences, and I even hear people talk about it.
  The Constitution requires that we do the census. It requires it. It 
isn't optional. We will use it to reapportion. And so I think what is 
taken here, you go to the weakest and the most vulnerable. There is not 
a lobby downtown for the Census Bureau. It just is not.

[[Page H4660]]

  It is an easy vote. I am going to call for a roll call vote. We will 
have a roll call vote. But there is no support for the census, except 
in the Constitution. This guy named Jefferson and Washington and 
Madison and Monroe, they thought it was important.
  But now we are going to take $50 million. I am sort of baffled. I 
guess it would have been almost easier to sometimes just not kind of go 
up anytime and try to listen, and then come down and take amendments on 
the floor that you were almost going to take.
  I think I am going to lose this amendment. But I believe that I am 
right. And I believe for us to take this money out of the Census 
Bureau, I think they could have probably found another spot. But one 
spot has a strong lobby downtown; probably a lot of registered 
lobbyists are working on that area. Another, are there any registered 
lobbyists for the Census Bureau? Zero. Zip.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
gentleman for all he has done in the area of providing more drug 
treatment, more work in terms of interdiction of drugs. This chairman 
has done more than anyone else in his position could ever do on the 
meth epidemic or anything else.
  All of us care about the census because we are not going to get back 
in our districts the entitlements for veterans, for those who are 
children, for education, if we don't have an accurate census. It is the 
process by which all substance goes through.
  If we don't have money for our districts that comes through a proper 
accounting, we are losing money in our districts. If you can't 
understand that the census is the key to making sure our districts' 
needs get met, then I don't think you have actually been looking at why 
we have a census. That is the reason we have it, so a portion in 
government, the money can go to where it ought to go to those who need 
it most.
  And, again, the chairman has done more than anyone else to try to 
make sure this meth epidemic has been tackled, and I support him 
wholeheartedly in opposing this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, constitutional requirement, article I, 
section 2, we are required to take the decennial census. We ramp up to 
it. There has been controversy on this legislation. I say, God bless 
the Members that offered this. If you really feel so strong, vote for 
it. And I hope the money goes for the good. But I think when I look at 
this, I kind of feel, looking at this, as we work this bill through, I 
just don't understand. And I don't see how we can just take it from 
there. Patton, Boggs and Blow doesn't represent the census. Aiken Gump 
doesn't represent the census. They represent the Chinese, but not the 
census.
  So we are going to go to the weakest, most vulnerable. Article I, 
section 2 of the Constitution.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would rise to strike the last word and I don't intend 
to take 5 minutes. But I do want to make this point. You know, this is 
chickens coming home to roost.
  If you voted for these budget resolutions that increasingly cut the 
allocation to the Appropriations Committee, and in turn the full 
appropriations committee gives smaller and smaller allocations to the 
subcommittees, this is where we get. We get to this point. I mean, 
there is a real relationship between voting for a budget resolution. 
The whole budget process, the hearings and making a budget, coming 
forth with a budget resolution, the whole process, in my opinion, is 
not real except that it does set the cap on domestic discretionary and 
defense spending. And that has gone down and down and down.
  So now we are at the point that we have 100-about amendments offered 
here today, a lot of them from the majority side, a lot of them from 
the minority side, looking at the consequences of budget resolutions 
that don't provide adequate allocation. Everybody's looking at programs 
saying, oh, my goodness, you mean we are cutting law enforcement 
programs like this? You mean the President comes forward and zeroes out 
State and local law enforcement; the chairman comes back and tries to 
restore it but, boy, it is not enough. And Byrne grant programs. Golly, 
the allocation is not enough. Well, surprise. Budget resolutions mean 
something at the allocation level. The whole process gets down to how 
much money do we have for domestic discretionary.
  Some folks are very concerned about NASA. Some folks are very 
concerned about science spending. Some folks are very concerned about 
law enforcement. Some people are concerned about the Bureau of Prisons.
  Well, if you voted for the budget resolution, this is what you get, 
chickens coming home to roost. There is not enough money for these 
programs.
  And I just want to make the point that when you get down to a really 
small pie, then you start cannibalizing good programs.
  Are you suggesting that really that we don't need this $50 million 
for census programs? I mean, do we not need that?
  The subcommittee went through a rigorous process of hearings. We went 
through a rigorous process with the majority staff, the chairman of the 
committee, coming forward with this bill. It is the best bill that can 
come forward given our allocation. We cut these census programs and the 
Justice Department isn't going to have the information it needs in 
order to spend its dollars wisely. You cut the census program, come 
2010, we are not going to be able to conduct a proper census, decennial 
census. That is the consequences of it. You can cut it now. You can cut 
census program, you can try to cut some of these other programs, these 
unacceptable offsets. But there is a consequence for it. And what you 
are really acknowledging here tonight is that you shouldn't have voted 
for that budget resolution. You shouldn't have voted for a budget 
resolution that does not provide for an adequate allocation for us to 
do our job for law enforcement.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. SOUDER. Does our unanimous consent agreement give the majority 
subcommittee chairman the ability to speak for 5 minutes whenever he 
wants, plus the ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, 
plus the subcommittee on any motion in front of the House, plus the 5 
minutes to oppose an amendment?

                              {time}  2130

  The CHAIRMAN. When an amendment is pending, the order of the House of 
today allows the subcommittee chairman and ranking minority member and 
the committee chairman and ranking minority member the right to strike 
the last word.
  Mr. SOUDER. So if I understand what the chairman said, the rest of 
the House only gets 5 minutes, even if it represents the majority 
position of the House, but the combined Appropriations Committee can 
take 25 minutes to oppose our amendment, and our only recourse is to 
object to unanimous consent agreements?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SOUDER. My parliamentary inquiry is, the only way to have stopped 
this was to have objected to the unanimous consent agreement?
  The CHAIRMAN. The order of the House was propounded by unanimous 
consent and was accepted.
  Mr. SOUDER. In the future, I will be objecting if that is going to be 
the order of the House.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
and his party have 5 additional minutes to make their case.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee may extend time on equal terms where both 
sides would have the equal time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that both sides 
give the opposition the same time so that the gentleman from Indiana 
and the gentleman from Minnesota and others have equal time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Will the chairman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, we were restricted to 50 seconds. Most 
people

[[Page H4661]]

have gone through the process, but many Members did not come over who 
could have spoken.
  I have a general concern that the Appropriations Committee on all the 
amendments can gang up, as we saw here, on a 5-minute rule; and I have 
concern about these unanimous consent agreements. I do not think we 
need to hold the House further here. We already went through our 
different statements. I could debate for 30 minutes on the census and 
other things, but I think we should move to a vote at this point. But I 
have a real problem about this intimidation by the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yielded back my time, but I would ask 
unanimous consent to claim any time I had remaining and to yield it to 
the gentlemen.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are you asking unanimous consent to reclaim your time, 
which is 2 minutes, and have the ability to yield that time?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection?
  Mr. SOUDER. I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am only trying to yield it to the gentlemen.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. 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 Minnesota will be 
postponed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I found the last comment from the gentleman from 
Indiana to be very interesting.
  The fact is that the unanimous consent agreement was agreed to as a 
courtesy by the minority to the majority. It is, very frankly, not in 
the political interest of the minority party in this House to assist 
the majority party in moving its appropriation bills through the House. 
We have done so on every occasion as a matter of legislative courtesy 
to the majority.
  Now, if members of the majority do not like that, then I guarantee 
you there will never be another unanimous consent request provided from 
the minority side of the aisle. If that is the way you want it, you are 
going to be here a long time struggling with every appropriation bill 
from here on out.
  The minority accepted the unanimous consent request with this 
provision because there are many times when the majority party and the 
minority party have a different view of amendments. This is not one of 
those times, but that happens most of the time on these amendments. And 
so the unanimous consent request is not any conspiracy between members 
of the Appropriations Committee. It is simply an effort to move the 
House's vote along.
  We have 100 amendments. Without this unanimous consent request, we 
would still be on number 2 or number 3. You would not get halfway 
through this bill before you go home for the July 4 recess. Now, if 
that is what you want, I am perfectly happy to give it to you.


              Amendment Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. 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. Millender-McDonald:
       Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 24, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Today, I am offering an amendment to increase funding for the 
Department of Justice drug court programs. My amendment would raise 
allocated funding to drug court programs in the bill from $40 million 
to $45 million.
  Mr. Chairman, we Members of Congress recognize that substance abuse 
not only has devastating effects on the abuser but also on the entire 
community. The total estimated cost of drug abuse to American 
communities in 2000 was $160.7 billion, mostly from health care costs 
and productivity losses.
  Also troubling is the rise in drug-related crime. Between 1984 and 
1999, the number of defendants charged with a drug offense in Federal 
court increased by 247 percent. In 2001, substance abusers accounted 
for more than half of all sentenced Federal inmates.
  However, many drug-related offenses are nonviolent, and incarceration 
will not prevent repeated drug use. Treatment is the key.
  Drug courts are a proven, unique tool in the war against substance 
abuse. These special courts were developed to curb dependency at the 
local level by reflecting the unique strengths of each community and 
using comprehensive supervision, drug testing, and treatment services.
  To date, there are nearly 1,800 drug court programs that serve more 
than 70,000 participants with impressive recovery results. The program 
allows for the full weight of interveners to be brought to bear on the 
offender, compelling him or her to deal with the substance abuse 
problem.
  The treatment represents a viable long-term solution with long-term 
results as opposed to incarceration, a short-term course of action that 
fails to treat the addiction problems.
  I am proud that while he served as our Nation's Drug Czar, Asa 
Hutchinson came to my district and visited my drug court in Compton, 
California. He went away believing it was a model for others 
nationwide. It is clear that these courts make a difference, Mr. 
Chairman, and deserve sufficient funding levels.
  I wish to recognize Chairman Lewis, Chairman Wolf, and Ranking Member 
Mollohan for their dedication to drug courts and thank them for 
increasing this account by 300 percent from last year.
  With the understanding that Chairman Wolf and Chairman Lewis will 
fight in conference to increase drug court funding to $45 million, I 
have agreed to withdraw my amendment, and I defer to the chairman at 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, though I am not in opposition since the gentlewoman has 
withdrawn the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I pledge to do everything we can in 
conference, and I know Mr. Mollohan feels the same way and we have had 
the conversation with other members, to keep the figure at this number. 
It is a 300 percent increase. Drug courts are very, very important. So 
I will do everything I can, and I know Mr. Mollohan will also agree, to 
keep this in. And I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  I do recognize you will use all of your efforts to try to increase 
this. I appreciate your commitment to this successful program.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin.
  Amendment by Ms. Velazquez of New York.

[[Page H4662]]

  Amendment by Mr. Nadler of New York.
  Amendment No. 22 by Mr. Stearns of Florida.
  Amendment by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 185, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 326]

                               AYES--237

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--185

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Brady (PA)
     Cannon
     Carson
     Evans
     Herger
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Ortiz
     Radanovich
     Strickland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  2209

  Messrs. PETRI, LATHAM, GREEN of Wisconsin, SHERWOOD and GOHMERT 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no''.
  Messrs. EDWARDS, OWENS, BOOZMAN, ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, McCOTTER, 
SCHWARZ Of Michigan, LaHOOD, JOHNSON of Illinois and Ms. HART changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, 
noes 207, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 327]

                               AYES--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul

[[Page H4663]]


     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     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
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--207

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Brady (PA)
     Cannon
     Carson
     Evans
     Herger
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Ortiz
     Radanovich
     Strickland
     Whitfield


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 1 minute 
remains in this vote.

                              {time}  2214

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176, 
noes 243, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 328]

                               AYES--176

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gallegly
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--243

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Brady (PA)
     Cannon
     Carson
     Costa
     Evans
     Herger
     Hyde

[[Page H4664]]


     Johnson, Sam
     Ortiz
     Radanovich
     Rush
     Strickland
     Whitfield


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2218

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


                Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163, 
noes 257, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 329]

                               AYES--163

     Akin
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Otter
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NJ)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Wamp
     Weiner
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--257

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Brady (PA)
     Cannon
     Carson
     Culberson
     Evans
     Herger
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Ortiz
     Radanovich
     Strickland
     Whitfield


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 
minute remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2222

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


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) 
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 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 291, 
noes 129, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 330]

                               AYES--291

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy

[[Page H4665]]


     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watson
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--129

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Biggert
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Burgess
     Campbell (CA)
     Capuano
     Carter
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Granger
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matsui
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Petri
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Solis
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Boehner
     Brady (PA)
     Cannon
     Carson
     Evans
     Herger
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Ortiz
     Radanovich
     Strickland
     Whitfield


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2229

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Messrs. RAHALL, MARKEY, MEEHAN and 
NEAL of Massachusetts changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
McCaul of Texas) 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. 5672) making appropriations for Science, the Departments of 
State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________