[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.
____________________