[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 28, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4689-H4701]
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} 1109
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 on Tuesday,
[[Page H4690]]
June 27, 2006, the amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Kennedy) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page
25, line 22.
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment
to the bill may be offered except those specified in the previous order
of the House of that day, which is at the desk.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Reyes
Mr. REYES. 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. Reyes:
Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 24, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 62, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(decreased by $10,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The amendment before us would increase funding for the Southwest
Border Prosecution Initiative, which is designed to reimburse
prosecutors for the cost of prosecuting Federal drug crimes. As we all
know, many federally initiated drug cases are referred to local courts
for prosecution. These drug crimes are committed at U.S. ports of entry
and communities along our U.S.-Mexico border.
This program has previously been funded at as much as $50 million to
help alleviate the financial burden that the Federal Government was
placing on local prosecutors in the 24 southwest border counties. The
Department of Justice has expanded eligible jurisdictions to not only
include 24 counties of the border but all 360 counties of all four
border States: Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.
While the number of eligible jurisdictions has increased, annual
appropriations have continued to decrease. The Fiscal Year 2006
Appropriations Act provided only $30 million for the program, which
does not come close to meeting the existing needs. My amendment would
add an additional $10 million, which would come closer to providing
local governments with resources to carry out this Federal
responsibility.
Last year, I received a letter from the District Attorney of El Paso,
Texas, notifying me that he would cease to accept federally referred
drug cases for State prosecution due to the excessive local financial
burden that the lack of reimbursement was placing on the El Paso
community. With help from the U.S. Attorney and our State senators, we
were able to prevent this stoppage. If local prosecutors cease
accepting these cases, many of these drug cases could not be
adjudicated at all.
As we are all aware, the U.S.-Mexico border remains a main corridor
for the entry of illegal drugs, and despite much success in
interdiction and the prosecution efforts of many, harmful drugs
continue to be a problem in our country. Our border counties and States
are committed to providing assistance in prosecuting Federal drug
cases, but Congress needs to be equally committed to funding this
important program.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1115
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and ranking
member for accepting this very vital and important amendment to our
border communities, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. 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 Texas will be postponed.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
community oriented policing services
For activities authorized by the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322), the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968
Act''), the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162), and the USA
PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act (Public Law 109-
177) (including administrative costs), $570,545,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That of the funds
under this heading, not to exceed $2,575,000 shall be
available for the Office of Justice Programs for reimbursable
services associated with programs administered by the
Community Oriented Policing Services Office: Provided
further, That any balances made available through prior year
deobligations shall only be available in accordance with
section 605 of this Act. Of the amount provided--
(1) $20,000,000 is for the matching grant program for armor
vests for law enforcement officers, as authorized by section
2501 of part Y of the 1968 Act;
(2) $99,000,000 is for grants to address public safety and
methamphetamine manufacturing, sale, and use in hot spots as
authorized by section 754 of Public Law 109-177, including
research on a methamphetamine vaccine;
(3) $100,000,000 is for law enforcement technologies and
interoperable communications;
(4) $4,936,000 is for an offender re-entry program;
(5) $4,873,000 is for grants to upgrade criminal records,
as authorized under the Crime Identification Technology Act
of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 14601);
(6) $175,568,000 is for a DNA analysis and capacity
enhancement program, and for other local, State, and Federal
forensic activities, of which not less than $151,000,000
shall be for reducing and eliminating the backlog of DNA
samples and for increasing State and local DNA laboratory
capacity;
(7) $31,065,000 is for improving tribal law enforcement,
including equipment and training;
(8) $54,808,000 is for Project Safe Neighborhoods, of which
$40,000,000 is for a national program to reduce gang
violence;
(9) $3,997,000 is for training and technical assistance;
(10) $49,348,000 is for the Office of Weed and Seed
Strategies, as authorized by section 103 of the 1968 Act, as
amended by section 1121 of Public Law 109-162; and
(11) not to exceed $26,950,000 is for program management
and administration.
juvenile justice programs
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (``the 1974 Act''), the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act''), the
Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162), and other
juvenile justice programs, including salaries and expenses in
connection therewith to be transferred to and merged with the
appropriations for Justice Assistance, $280,739,000, to
remain available until expended as follows--
(1) $706,000 for concentration of Federal efforts, as
authorized by section 204 of the 1974 Act;
(2) $75,000,000 for State and local programs authorized by
section 221 of the 1974 Act, including training and technical
assistance to assist small, non-profit organizations with the
Federal grants process;
(3) $59,872,000 for demonstration projects, as authorized
by sections 261 and 262 of the 1974 Act;
(4) $65,000,000 for delinquency prevention, as authorized
by section 505 of the 1974 Act, of which--
(A) $10,000,000 shall be for the Tribal Youth Program;
(B) $20,000,000 shall be for a gang resistance education
and training program; and
(C) $25,000,000 shall be for grants of $360,000 to each
State and $6,640,000 shall be available for discretionary
grants to States, for programs and activities to enforce
State laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to
minors or the purchase or consumption of alcoholic beverages
by minors, prevention and reduction of consumption of
alcoholic beverages by minors, and for technical assistance
and training;
(5) $992,000 for Project Childsafe;
(6) $14,808,000 for the Secure Our Schools Act, as
authorized by part AA of the 1968 Act, as amended by section
1169 of Public Law 109-162;
(7) $15,000,000 for programs authorized by the Victims of
Child Abuse Act of 1990; and
(8) $49,361,000 for the Juvenile Accountability Block
Grants program as authorized by part R of the 1968 Act, as
amended by section 1166 of Public Law 109-162 and Guam shall
be considered a State:
Provided, That not more than 10 percent of each amount may be
used for research, evaluation, and statistics activities
designed to benefit the programs or activities authorized:
Provided further, That not more than 2 percent of each amount
may be used for training and technical assistance: Provided
further, That the previous two provisos shall not apply to
demonstration projects, as authorized by sections 261 and 262
of the 1974 Act: Provided further, That section 702(a) of
Public Law 88-352 shall apply to any grants
[[Page H4691]]
for World Vision described in the report accompanying this
Act and awarded by the Attorney General.
public safety officers benefits
To remain available until expended, for payments authorized
by part L of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq.) (``the 1968
Act''), such sums as are necessary, as authorized by section
6093 of Public Law 100-690 (102 Stat. 4339-4340); and
$4,821,000, to remain available until expended for payments
as authorized by section 1201(b) of the 1968 Act; and
$4,007,000 for educational assistance, as authorized by
subpart 2 of part L of title I of the 1968 Act.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to return to
that portion of the bill so he can offer his amendment?
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will designate the
amendment.
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
Page 23, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 23, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 67, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, before I begin, let me commend Chairman Wolf and the
ranking member as well for all of the hard work and energy that goes
into this and the battle as well to bring this bill to the floor and to
conclusion.
I come to the floor this morning to offer an amendment that, in
essence, is very similar to one that I offered last year; and at that
time the chairman gracefully accepted the amendment. My amendment
simply seeks to take a small portion of the U.S. assessed contributions
to the United Nations and give those funds to local law enforcement
agencies, and it does that through the Byrne Memorial State Law
Enforcement Assistance Grants Program, a program that has been talked
about on this floor just last night.
Mr. Chairman, this is a program that is basically a partnership
between the Federal Government, the State government and local
communities, working together to create stronger and safer communities.
It awards grants to States and local government entities so they can
work together to create a strong criminal justice system, with emphasis
on violent crime and serious offenders.
Mr. Chairman, since September 11, this grant program has also been
utilized by local officials to boost their preparedness in case of
terrorist attack. Living as I do in the Fifth District overlooking
Ground Zero, the people in our area know about terrorism and the need
to fight violent crime.
The total sum of this transfer is very small, only $2 million, and
the United Nations' annual budget is almost $2 billion. This amounts to
a fraction of 1 percent of the overall U.N. budget. It is my hope that
this money will come directly from the United States contributions to
the U.N.'s Information Center, which is based right here in Washington,
D.C.
Mr. Chairman, I see no reason whatsoever that U.S. tax dollars should
be going to the U.N. to have the U.N. lobby this Congress. They are a
bloated and overfunded agency as it is, and they should not be using
our dollars to come and lobby us.
The stated purpose of this Information Center is to ``raise awareness
about the organization's work and foster relations with the American
public, U.S. Government officials and NGOs.''
Really? To foster relations?
Recently, a very highly publicized speech regarding the relationship
between the United States and the U.N. was made by Deputy Secretary-
General Mark Malloch Brown. In that speech, he chastised the American
public and government officials such as us, saying we ``lack judgment
and are unwittingly subject to manipulation by U.N. detractors.'' Then
this very same U.N. Information Center took that speech and spread it
around in a wide array of congressional and executive offices.
Again, I personally do not feel that the American public needs to be
lectured by someone from an institution with the high rate of
corruption and failed promises as the U.N. We should not be having our
tax dollars go to an organization to attack us maliciously with false
attacks. If the U.N. wants to repair its relationship with the U.S.
Congress, it should spend less of its efforts and money on lobbying
these Halls and more on cleaning up its own halls and operations.
Mr. Chairman, I will conclude at this point by reiterating how badly
our law enforcement agencies need these funds and how aware we are of
all the inefficiencies at the U.N. It was just yesterday with the Oil-
for-Food Program that they were going through with the first
prosecution in that matter. We are all familiar with the reform efforts
that this House has tried to pass for the U.N., and the U.N. has
blocked them at every count. We are all aware also that U.N. cannot
even give us a definition of what genocide is, and we all know what is
going on in Darfur. That is a genocide. Finally, we are all too aware
that the U.N. cannot even give us a definition of what terrorism is.
Let me say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the law enforcement community
and the citizens of the Fifth Congressional District who live in the
shadows of 9/11 and Ground Zero, we are all too aware of what terrorism
is, and we do not want our money to go to an organization such as the
U.N. We would rather it go to fight terrorism.
Again, I thank the chairman for working with us on this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. We accept
the amendment.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. 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 Jersey will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lynch
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to return to
that portion of the bill so he can offer his amendment?
Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will designate the
amendment.
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lynch:
Page 26, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $12,000,000)''.
Page 26, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $12,000,000)''.
Page 67, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I would like to thank Chairman Wolf and also Ranking
Member Mollohan for accepting this amendment.
This amendment is being offered by myself and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Fossella). It basically restores $12 million to the
Bulletproof
[[Page H4692]]
Vest Partnership Program and also reduces contributions to the
International Organization funds within this bill by a corresponding
amount.
Since the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Program's inception, over
11,500 jurisdictions have participated in purchasing over 450,000
bulletproof vests nationwide. Almost every congressional district
across this Nation has benefited from this program. I know in
Massachusetts alone law enforcement agencies have purchased over 34,000
vests since its inception.
Mr. Chairman, there is some urgency here on this matter because,
unfortunately, it is estimated now that over 200,000 vests may need to
be replaced that were previously issued due to the results of tests
showing that a substance called Zylon has been used in previous vests
and those have been shown to fail. So there is the need to get out and
replace those vests that are now in service.
Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that, according to President Tom Nee
of the National Association of Police Organizations, almost 3,000 law
enforcement officers have survived shootings thanks to bulletproof
vests. We know that body armor can save lives. The problem is that many
towns and cities in our districts and across the Nation are struggling
with the costs. With budgetary constraints at the State and local
levels, many communities are simply unable to purchase this life-saving
equipment on their own.
With this program, by sharing that cost with the Federal Government,
communities do have the opportunity to buy bulletproof vests for their
law enforcement officers and thereby provide some protection for those
in dangerous professions.
Mr. Chairman, Members on both sides of the aisle understand that our
State and local law enforcement professionals should be fully equipped,
and that is why I ask my colleagues in the House to support this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Fossella).
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Lynch) for this bipartisan effort to help law enforcement.
We know the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Program provides the
necessary funding to protect local law enforcement officials. In my
hometown of New York City, we received 10 percent of the money they
spent on bulletproof vests over the last 2 years from the program,
especially in Staten Island and Brooklyn, which I am proud to call
home. We have probably more active and retired police officers than any
other county in the country.
Mr. Chairman, we know full well, whether it is in Staten Island,
Massachusetts or anywhere else in the country, that the line between
this great country and anarchy is our police department. Even more
devastating is when we hear from time to time, and it happens, when a
police officer is shot and killed because he did not have the
protection necessary.
Recently, we had an officer in New York City, Officer Dillon Stewart,
shot during a high-speed chase. The bullet hit him just under his arm,
just a fraction of an inch above his bulletproof vest, which eventually
killed him. That is the horror, not only for the people who really
appreciate the sacrifice of law enforcement, but for the Stewart family
and so many others, who probably question if he just had a little more
protection.
That is what this bulletproof vest program does. It allows cities
like New York, Boston and all cities across the country to step up and
get the resources to provide our law enforcement men and women with the
tools they need. When we hear of a high-speed chase or we hear of a
shooting, we can rest a little better knowing that we have done in
Congress a good thing for them by giving them the protection that they
deserve, expect and, frankly, need.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you in advance for accepting this
amendment and giving the $12 million. I know you have a lot of
difficult choices to make in this appropriations process, but in this
case I think you are doing what is right for the American people and
law enforcement.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. My father
was a policeman in the City of Philadelphia for 20-some years, and I
know how important this is.
I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and the
gentleman from New York City (Mr. Fossella). We accept the amendment.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. 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 Massachusetts will be
postponed.
Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. George Miller of California
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move that the
Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 37,
noes 352, not voting 43, as follows:
[Roll No. 332]
AYES--37
Capps
Capuano
Case
Clay
Conyers
Cummings
DeFazio
Doyle
Emanuel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Hastings (FL)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Miller, George
Napolitano
Owens
Pastor
Pelosi
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schakowsky
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Thompson (CA)
Towns
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--352
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Capito
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
[[Page H4693]]
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--43
Abercrombie
Alexander
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Cardoza
Costa
Cubin
Davis (FL)
Edwards
Engel
Evans
Grijalva
Higgins
Holden
Hunter
Hyde
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Kilpatrick (MI)
Marchant
Matsui
Miller (NC)
Murtha
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Payne
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Poe
Sabo
Sanders
Schwartz (PA)
Sherwood
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1159
Messrs. OTTER, NADLER, BARRETT of South Carolina, BOSWELL, RANGEL and
WALSH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California changed her vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the motion to rise was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1200
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
General Provisions--Department of Justice
Sec. 101. In addition to amounts otherwise made available
in this title for official reception and representation
expenses, a total of not to exceed $60,000 from funds
appropriated to the Department of Justice in this title shall
be available to the Attorney General for official reception
and representation expenses.
Sec. 102. None of the funds appropriated by this title
shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the
life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were
carried to term, or in the case of rape: Provided, That
should this prohibition be declared unconstitutional by a
court of competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null
and void.
Sec. 103. None of the funds appropriated under this title
shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate
in any way the performance of, any abortion.
Sec. 104. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the
obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to
provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to
receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided,
That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect
of section 103 intended to address the philosophical beliefs
of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
Sec. 105. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the Department of
Justice in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any
transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 106. The Attorney General is authorized to extend
through September 30, 2008, the Personnel Management
Demonstration Project transferred to the Attorney General
pursuant to section 1115 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002, Public Law 107-296 (6 U.S.C. 533) without limitation on
the number of employees or the positions covered.
Sec. 107. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Justice in this Act may be used for the purpose
of transporting an individual who is a prisoner pursuant to
conviction for crime under State or Federal law and is
classified as a maximum or high security prisoner, other than
to a prison or other facility certified by the Federal Bureau
of Prisons as appropriately secure for housing such a
prisoner.
Sec. 108. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be used by Federal prisons to purchase cable television
services, to rent or purchase videocassettes, videocassette
recorders, or other audiovisual or electronic equipment used
primarily for recreational purposes.
(b) The preceding sentence does not preclude the renting,
maintenance, or purchase of audiovisual or electronic
equipment for inmate training, religious, or educational
programs.
Sec. 109. Any funds provided in this Act under ``Department
of Justice'' used to implement E-Government Initiatives shall
be subject to the procedures set forth in section 605 of this
Act.
Sec. 110. None of the funds made available under this title
shall be obligated or expended for SENTINEL, or for any other
major new or enhanced information technology program having
total estimated development costs in excess of $100,000,000,
unless the Deputy Attorney General and the investment review
board certify to the Committees on Appropriations that the
information technology program has appropriate program
management and contractor oversight mechanisms in place, and
that the program is compatible with the enterprise
architecture of the Department of Justice.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice
Appropriations Act, 2007''.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES
Trade and Infrastructure Development
RELATED AGENCIES
Office of the United States Trade Representative
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States
Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $46,207,000, of which $1,000,000
shall remain available until expended: Provided, That not to
exceed $124,000 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided further, That negotiations
shall be conducted within the World Trade Organization
consistent with the negotiating objectives contained in the
Trade Act of 2002, Public Law 107-210: Provided further, That
not less than $2,000,000 provided under this heading shall be
for negotiating, implementing, monitoring, and enforcing
trade agreements with China.
International Trade Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the International Trade
Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, and
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed
$2,500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$62,575,000, to remain available until expended.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
operations and administration
For necessary expenses for international trade activities
of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and for
engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including
expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose
of promoting exports of United States firms, without regard
to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 3703; full medical coverage for
dependent members of immediate families of employees
stationed overseas and employees temporarily posted overseas;
travel and transportation of employees of the United States
and Foreign Commercial Service between two points abroad,
without regard to 49 U.S.C. 40118; employment of Americans
and aliens by contract for services; rental of space abroad
for periods not exceeding 10 years, and expenses of
alteration, repair, or improvement; purchase or construction
of temporary demountable exhibition structures for use
abroad; payment of tort claims, in the manner authorized in
the first paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise
in foreign countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official
representation expenses abroad; purchase of passenger motor
vehicles for official use abroad, not to exceed $45,000 per
vehicle; obtaining insurance on official motor vehicles; and
rental of tie lines, $424,782,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2008, of which $13,000,000 is to be derived
from fees to be retained and used by the International Trade
Administration, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided,
That $47,328,000 shall be for Manufacturing and Services;
$40,806,000 shall be for Market Access and Compliance;
$61,367,000 shall be for the Import Administration of which
not less than $3,000,000 is for the Office of China
Compliance; $249,791,000 shall be for the United States and
Foreign Commercial Service; and $25,490,000 shall be for
Executive Direction and Administration: Provided further,
That the provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f)
and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c))
shall apply in carrying out these activities without regard
to section 5412 of the Omnibus Trade
[[Page H4694]]
and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4912); and that
for the purpose of this Act, contributions under the
provisions of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange
Act of 1961 shall include payment for assessments for
services provided as part of these activities.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Wolf
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Wolf:
Page 36, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the
following ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 62, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 62, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding and also for your
cooperation in allowing this amendment.
I have two other amendments with much larger amounts that I wanted to
shift into our United States Foreign Commercial Service and Trade
Development Agency, but I am not going to offer those amendments. I
have agreed to a smaller amount, some $5 million, which would come from
the State Department's public diplomacy programs over at the State
Department, again to promote United States business interests in
international trade and through that administration in the Department
of Commerce.
Yesterday, I think from the other side of the aisle, we took some $25
million from State and moved it into Legal Services. I can stand before
you today, my colleagues, and say that probably nothing we do in this
bill, as far as the Department of Commerce and our efforts to promote
international trade and U.S. business and selling U.S. products abroad
and creating jobs in the United States, is more important than this
small shift of funds.
Today, we have a $724 billion trade deficit, and adding some $5
million to bolster our efforts and give us the tools and the resources
we need to compete in these international markets and sell U.S.
products abroad is so important. So that is what this amendment does.
And let me just commend Mr. Wolf, his staff, and the minority staff
for the difficult task they have in moving these funds around in these
very important projects. But this is a priority for me, it is a
priority, I believe, for our Nation, and it is a priority for creating
jobs and selling our products abroad.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
Page 36, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the
following ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, when I was first elected to Congress
in 1992, the United States trade deficit with the People's Republic of
China for the whole year was $18 billion. This year, our trade deficit
with China approached $18 billion by the end of January. By April, our
year-to-date trade deficit with China topped $64 billion. At that pace,
our trade deficit with China is growing 10 percent faster this year
than last year, and last year's China trade deficit shattered all kinds
of records by exceeding $201 billion.
It is not because China's companies are better than ours. It is not
because people of China are smarter or more dedicated or more
hardworking than American workers. We all know how China is able to do
so well in the game of international trade: they cheat.
China's track record includes oppressive labor policies, currency
manipulation, wholesale disregard for and theft of intellectual
property, and dumping and counterfeiting of manufactured goods. These
and other unfair China trade practices are a real source of concern for
Members of Congress on this side of the aisle and some on that side of
the aisle, and these practices are a real economic threat to the U.S.
economy.
Believe me, I see the consequences all over Ohio in signs from
Marietta to Toledo, from Youngstown to Hamilton; signs that read
``going out of business,'' ``everything must go,'' or just simply
``closed.'' Manufacturers in Ohio and all over the United States have
closed their doors, have shipped jobs overseas because China refuses to
compete fairly and because we haven't done enough to force China to
play by the rules.
Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan understand the problem. I
commend them for their work on this critical issue. Because of their
leadership, the bill before us today specifically sets aside $3 million
in International Trade Administration funding for the ITA's Office of
China Compliance, which is responsible for monitoring imports from
China and, importantly, initiating enforcement when it detects illegal
dumping of Chinese goods.
My amendment builds on the foundation the committee has laid by
increasing the set-aside for the Office of China Compliance from $3
million to $6 million.
American workers, American companies, especially small manufacturers,
a machine shop in Akron or a tool and die maker in Dayton, these
companies deserve a level playing field with China. Only with vigorous
and well-funded trade monitoring and enforcement can we begin to
provide that level playing field and allow U.S. manufacturers to
compete.
My amendment improves funding for this critical work, and I urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, our subcommittee created this office in 2004 after
having a hearing. We have $3 million currently in the bill for China
compliance. It is a very, very important issue.
We have also required there be a position in Beijing, and so I thank
the gentleman for the amendment. We accept it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be
postponed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise now because of the reference to China in the
previous amendment. I had intended to give a 1-minute speech this
morning on this issue, before I was cut off by a motion, but let me
simply make an observation about China.
I am one of those Members of the House who wants the administration
to track bank records and financial transactions of terrorist groups or
individuals who are suspected of belonging to terrorist groups. That is
why, while I had great misgivings about the original PATRIOT Act, I
voted for it because I wanted to see a tightening up of our ability to
go after those records. But I wanted it to be done in a legal fashion,
in a way which guarantees the privacy and civil liberties of people who
do not fall into that category.
[[Page H4695]]
I note the fact that there is a very strong similarity between the
Communist Chinese Government and our own administration in one respect.
I have two headlines in my hand here. One says, ``GOP Measure Slams New
York Times for Bank Story.'' The other says, ``China May Fine News
Media to Limit Coverage.''
I would simply note that the Chinese Government appears to have
something more in common with our administration in addition to their
desire to undercut American wages through trade agreements with slave
and cheap labor coming out of China. I would note that both the Chinese
Communist Government and our own administration appears to be
interested in doing almost anything in order to prevent legitimate news
organizations from reporting activities of the people who govern each
country.
Now, I do not know the details of The New York Times revelations with
respect to banking transactions, but I do know that the administration
and some of their supporters in Congress have been extremely interested
in embarrassing The New York Times since The New York Times uncovered a
number of other activities that were being conducted by the
administration which, in my judgment, are illegal, and those have
nothing to do with the banking transactions that we saw referenced the
other day.
{time} 1215
So I just thought it might be of interest to note the similarity
between these two headlines, one an administration from supposedly a
democratic country and another a government from a communist country,
both of whom seem to be eager to clamp down as much as possible on
their journalistic critics. I would hope that those similarities would
decline in the future.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Bureau of Industry and Security
operations and administration
For necessary expenses for export administration and
national security activities of the Department of Commerce,
including costs associated with the performance of export
administration field activities both domestically and abroad;
full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate
families of employees stationed overseas; employment of
Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; payment
of tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first
paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign
countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation
expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under
the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by
22 U.S.C. 401(b); and purchase of passenger motor vehicles
for official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use
with special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase
without regard to any price limitation otherwise established
by law, $76,806,000, to remain available until expended, of
which $14,767,000 shall be for inspections and other
activities related to national security: Provided, That the
provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f) and all of
section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural
Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall
apply in carrying out these activities: Provided further,
That payments and contributions collected and accepted for
materials or services provided as part of such activities may
be retained for use in covering the cost of such activities,
and for providing information to the public with respect to
the export administration and national security activities of
the Department of Commerce and other export control programs
of the United States and other governments.
Economic Development Administration
economic development assistance programs
For grants for economic development assistance as provided
by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, and
for trade adjustment assistance, $230,741,000, to remain
available until expended.
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of administering the economic
development assistance programs as provided for by law,
$29,700,000: Provided, That these funds may be used to
monitor projects approved pursuant to title I of the Public
Works Employment Act of 1976, title II of the Trade Act of
1974, and the Community Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1977.
Minority Business Development Agency
minority business development
For necessary expenses of the Department of Commerce in
fostering, promoting, and developing minority business
enterprise, including expenses of grants, contracts, and
other agreements with public or private organizations,
$29,641,000.
Economic and Information Infrastructure
Economic and Statistical Analysis
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, of economic
and statistical analysis programs of the Department of
Commerce, $79,880,000, to remain available until September
30, 2008.
Bureau of the Census
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for collecting, compiling,
analyzing, preparing, and publishing statistics, provided for
by law, $190,067,000, of which $19,200,000 is for the Survey
of Income and Program Participation.
periodic censuses and programs
For necessary expenses related to the 2010 decennial
census, $511,767,000, to remain available until September 30,
2008: Provided, That of the total amount available related to
the 2010 decennial census, $258,328,000 is for the Re-
engineered Design Process for the Short-Form Only Census,
$179,765,000 is for the American Community Survey, and
$73,674,000 is for the Master Address File/Topologically
Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER)
system.
In addition, for expenses to collect and publish statistics
for other periodic censuses and programs provided for by law,
$182,325,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008,
of which $90,193,000 is for economic statistics programs and
$92,132,000 is for demographic statistics programs: Provided,
That regarding construction of a facility at the Suitland
Federal Center, quarterly reports regarding the expenditure
of funds and project planning, design and cost decisions
shall be provided by the Bureau, in cooperation with the
General Services Administration, to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided in this or any other Act under the heading ``Bureau
of the Census, Periodic Censuses and Programs'' shall be used
to fund the construction and tenant build-out costs of a
facility at the Suitland Federal Center: Provided further,
That none of the funds provided in this or any other Act for
any fiscal year may be used for the collection of Census data
on race identification that does not include ``some other
race'' as a category.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, as provided for by law, of the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), $17,837,000, to remain available until September 30,
2008: Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1535(d), the
Secretary of Commerce shall charge Federal agencies for costs
incurred in spectrum management, analysis, and operations,
and related services and such fees shall be retained and used
as offsetting collections for costs of such spectrum
services, to remain available until expended: Provided
further, That the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to
retain and use as offsetting collections all funds
transferred, or previously transferred, from other Government
agencies for all costs incurred in telecommunications
research, engineering, and related activities by the
Institute for Telecommunication Sciences of NTIA, in
furtherance of its assigned functions under this paragraph,
and such funds received from other Government agencies shall
remain available until expended.
public telecommunications facilities, planning and construction
For the administration of prior year grants, recoveries and
unobligated balances of funds previously appropriated may be
available for the administration of open grants.
United States Patent and Trademark Office
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office provided for by law, including defense of
suits instituted against the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office, $1,771,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That the sum herein
appropriated from the general fund shall be reduced as
offsetting collections assessed and collected pursuant to 15
U.S.C. 1113 and 35 U.S.C. 41 and 376 are received during
fiscal year 2007, so as to result in a fiscal year 2007
appropriation from the general fund estimated at $0: Provided
further, That during fiscal year 2007, should the total
amount of offsetting fee collections be less than
$1,771,000,000, this amount shall be reduced accordingly:
Provided further, That not less than 716 full-time
equivalents, 745 positions and $90,532,000 shall be for the
examination of trademark applications; and not less than
6,564 full-time equivalents, 6,920 positions and
$1,084,025,000 shall be for the examination and searching of
patent applications: Provided further, That not more than 311
full-time equivalents, 333 positions and $49,797,000 shall be
for the Office of the General Counsel: Provided further, That
not more than 95 full-time equivalents, 98 positions and
$30,500,000 shall be for the Office of the Administrator for
External Affairs: Provided further, That any deviation from
the full-time equivalent, position, and funding designations
set forth in the preceding four provisos shall be subject to
the procedures set
[[Page H4696]]
forth in section 605 of this Act: Provided further, That from
amounts provided herein, not to exceed $1,000 shall be made
available in fiscal year 2007 for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 1353 of title 31, United States Code,
no employee of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
may accept payment or reimbursement from a non-Federal entity
for travel, subsistence, or related expenses for the purpose
of enabling an employee to attend and participate in a
convention, conference, or meeting when the entity offering
payment or reimbursement is a person or corporation subject
to regulation by the Office, or represents a person or
corporation subject to regulation by the Office, unless the
person or corporation is an organization exempt from taxation
pursuant to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986: Provided further, That in fiscal year 2007, from the
amounts made available for ``Salaries and Expenses'' for the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), the amounts
necessary to pay: (1) the difference between the percentage
of basic pay contributed by the PTO and employees under
section 8334(a) of title 5, United States Code, and the
normal cost percentage (as defined by section 8331(17) of
that title) of basic pay, of employees subject to subchapter
III of chapter 83 of that title; and (2) the present value of
the otherwise unfunded accruing costs, as determined by the
Office of Personnel Management, of post-retirement life
insurance and post-retirement health benefits coverage for
all PTO employees, shall be transferred to the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund, the Employees Life Insurance
Fund, and the Employees Health Benefits Fund, as appropriate,
and shall be available for the authorized purposes of those
accounts: Provided further, That sections 801, 802, and 803
of Division B, Public Law 108-447 shall remain in effect
during fiscal year 2007.
Science and Technology
Technology Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the Under Secretary for
Technology, $2,000,000.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
scientific and technical research and services
For necessary expenses of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, $467,002,000, to remain available
until expended, of which not to exceed $9,450,000 may be
transferred to the ``Working Capital Fund''.
industrial technology services
For necessary expenses of the Hollings Manufacturing
Extension Partnership of the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, $92,000,000, to remain available until
expended.
construction of research facilities
For construction of new research facilities, including
architectural and engineering design, and for renovation and
maintenance of existing facilities, not otherwise provided
for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as
authorized by 15 U.S.C. 278c-278e, $67,998,000, to remain
available until expended.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
operations, research and facilities
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of activities authorized by law for
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
including maintenance, operation, and hire of aircraft and
vessels; grants, contracts, or other payments to nonprofit
organizations for the purposes of conducting activities
pursuant to cooperative agreements; and relocation of
facilities, $2,375,464,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2008: Provided, That fees and donations
received by the National Ocean Service for the management of
national marine sanctuaries may be retained and used for the
salaries and expenses associated with those activities,
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided further, That in
addition, $3,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the
fund entitled ``Coastal Zone Management'' and in addition
$77,000,000 shall be derived by transfer from the fund
entitled ``Promote and Develop Fishery Products and Research
Pertaining to American Fisheries'': Provided further, That of
the $2,466,464,000 provided for in direct obligations under
this heading $2,375,464,000 is appropriated from the general
fund, $80,000,000 is provided by transfer, and $11,000,000 is
derived from recoveries of prior year obligations: Provided
further, That no general administrative charge shall be
applied against an assigned activity included in this Act or
the report accompanying this Act: Provided further, That the
total amount available for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration corporate services administrative
support costs shall not exceed $183,775,000: Provided
further, That payments of funds made available under this
heading to the Department of Commerce Working Capital Fund
including Department of Commerce General Counsel legal
services shall not exceed $34,425,000: Provided further, That
any deviation from the amounts designated for specific
activities in the report accompanying this Act, or any use of
deobligated balances of funds provided under this heading in
previous years, shall be subject to the procedures set forth
in section 605 of this Act: Provided further, That the
Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration may engage in formal and informal education
activities, including primary and secondary education,
related to the agency's mission goals.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas:
Page 46, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $2,700,000)''.
Page 50, line 21, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,700,000)''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 27, 2006, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson)
and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would
increase the appropriations for the National Weather Service by $2.7
million. The current appropriation for the weather service is at $882.3
million. My amendment would increase that amount to a total of $885
million, which I think was the original recommendation from the budget
office. I want to thank my colleagues on the Science Committee for
assisting me.
Mr. Chairman, in recent years, both in Texas and around the Nation,
we have suffered catastrophic hurricanes. The Midwest is tormented by
tornados, as well as Texas. The West lives with a threat of a doomsday
scenario, earthquakes, tsunamis. So weather predictions are very, very
important. We have determined that the weather predictions have saved
lives. We have not been able to save materials, so much, but they have
saved lives.
We all saw what happened with the hurricanes of Katrina and Rita.
Although the National Weather Service did its job in accurately
predicting the magnitude and the path of the storms, city, State and
local Federal officials were slow to act. Traffic was snarled, and all
of us know exactly what happened after that.
The good work of the National Weather Service is at the root of an
effective natural disaster preparedness, and the .3 percent
appropriations increase will strengthen support for the weather service
to help it perform even better. We do not want to discourage them by
cutting their budget when we need their services so accurately. The
timely and accurate information provided by the National Weather
Service is a testament to its effectiveness.
On the front page of the weather service's Web site is a map of
America depicting current weather conditions, as well as storm watches
and warnings. We can click on any region of the country and get instant
access to weather and climate news for that area. The National Weather
Service also pulls real-time information on flood warnings, and it
collects hourly data on temperatures throughout the day.
There is a wonderful section on weather safety that provides sound
guidance on issues such as heat, lightning, hurricanes, tornados,
floods and even topics like FEMA and the Red Cross. In Dallas, we are
sensitive to the issue of flooding. Downtown Dallas relies on an
antiquated 30-mile levee system to keep it dry from the Trinity River
and its floods.
It is getting worse because of extensive development in the counties
west and north of the city. The 50-year-old levees may not be able to
handle all the runoff that they were designed to contain. So this is
extremely important for that area. The flooding that would take place
as predicted in Dallas would flood all of downtown and all executive
offices, hospitals, medical centers and what have you.
I feel this is a modest amount of money to place back with NOAA and
the weather service, and it comes out of the general Department of
Commerce administrative funds. I hope that I can get support.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. We accept
the amendment.
[[Page H4697]]
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded
vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gilchrest
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest:
Page 46, line 11, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $441,000,000)''.
Page 47, line 7, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $89,000,000)''.
Page 48, line 7, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $253,000,000)''.
Page 55, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $783,000,000)''.
Page 55, line 23, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $783,000,000)''
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to make
a comment on the chairman and the ranking member of this committee,
that they have done a stunning job given the allocation.
What I would like to do with this amendment is to explain why it is
important to take $738 million out of the space exploration program in
NASA, that is the program that will send the man to the Moon and a man
to Mars, and put that money into the National Ocean Service, the
National Marine Fisheries Service and the Ocean Atmospheric Research
Service of NOAA.
The Ocean Commission, commissioned by Congress, the members were
appointed by the present President, Mr. Bush, recommended 200 items to
be done with the world's oceans as ocean policy for the United States.
They recommended that we put in $3.9 billion to implement those
recommendations.
Well, we know that the budget is tight. The problem, though, is this
particular appropriations bill provides for $300 million below the
President's request for 2007, $300 million below the President's
request, not even coming anywhere near, not even approaching the $3.9
billion. If you look at the budget for NOAA in 2005, we are, with this
bill, with this budget, putting in $800 million less than the 2005
budget.
With the 200 recommendations to be implemented with the $3.9 billion
that this commission recommended, we are attempting to resolve the
issue of most of the world's largest fish, like you see here, 90
percent of their population is gone, 90 percent.
By the year 2050, the coral reefs that are healthy in the upper
picture will look like the below picture. By the year 2050, we could
have 60 percent of the coral reefs completely diminished. That doesn't
even come close to the severe problems along U.S. coastal areas, the
Gulf of Mexico, around Florida, the south Atlantic.
In this picture you see the dead zone, which is about a third of the
area of the Chesapeake Bay. Our coastal areas are being depleted. I
urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment to take $738 million out of the
manned space program to Mars and the Moon and put that amount of money
into the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Mr. Gilchrest for making a
very powerful point with regard to the oceans. I refer Members to the
newest issue of the National Geographic, The Health of the Coast. It
validates so much of what Mr. Gilchrest has said. That is not the place
to take it from, so I strongly oppose the amendment.
But I want to acknowledge that Mr. Gilchrest is right with regard to
the oceans, and this administration and this Congress should be doing
more in this regard. I think the gentleman understands that we can't
take funding from there. I want to commend him and urge Members to
validate what Mr. Gilchrest said with regard to the National
Geographic.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I, too, want to commend my good friend from Maryland for his
standing up for this important issue. I represent a coastal area, and
certainly I would be willing to work with him as we move forward
through the conference process.
This is obviously a very devastating amendment to NASA. I think this
amendment would seriously jeopardize the plan to complete the
International Space Station and jeopardize our obligations to the
international partners.
We have entered into agreements with the Japanese and the Europeans
to pursue completion of the space station. Obviously, it would also
seriously jeopardize our plan to phase out the space shuttle and
replace it with a crew exploration vehicle.
We are going to be getting into a phase in the early part of the next
decade where we will not have a man-rated vehicle, where the Chinese
will, and they plan to put people on the Moon. NASA is clearly a
priority for this administration. It has been a priority for this
Congress for years.
This amendment would cause personnel reductions. It would cause
slippages in schedule.
I would strongly encourage all of my colleagues to oppose the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the gentleman from West Virginia would
still seek to be recognized on this issue, but I would be very happy to
yield time to my good friend from West Virginia on this very important
topic.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate the gentleman yielding time. I rise in
opposition to the amendment as well. Obviously, cuts of this kind in
the science accounts anywhere in order to transfer money over to other
science accounts is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. I think that
illustrates where we are with the allocation that we have in this bill.
One of the real purposes of consolidating the science accounts into
this subcommittee was to be able to look at science across the board
and be able to fund it adequately. Well, it hasn't turned out to be
that way, and this amendment is a great example of why. Here we are
trying to take money from one science account and move it over to
another science account.
I support the funding of the gentleman's amendment. I have to oppose
the offset of the gentleman's amendment. In all of NASA's accounts, it
was science that was hurt most.
{time} 1230
Program after program after program, I don't have it at the moment to
recite it, but the President has either eliminated or cut seriously
science programs, one right after the other in the NASA account.
Well, we are very proud of increases to the National Science
Foundation. Although we haven't met the authorization targets, we are
very proud about increasing funding to the National Institutes of
Health, and that has been funded very robustly over the last number of
years.
But there are those science accounts and, particularly, NASA, a great
science agency, that is not getting adequate funding now. That is about
$500 million, I believe, short of where it should be.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I just wanted to give you some specifics. This
is a tight budget year, as we all know. And just to cite one of the
accounts that this amendment would obviously devastate, we have already
reduced the lunar precursor robotics program by $20 million. There is a
$16 million reduction in the constellation systems, $115 million
reduction in the exploration systems research technology.
[[Page H4698]]
Total reduction already in this bill, $151 million from the President's
request; and, obviously, a huge cut like this would devastate it
further. So I would recommend a ``no'' vote on the Gilchrest amendment.
But I applaud the gentleman for his passion on this issue.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, as a cochair of the House Oceans Caucus, I
rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest to increase
the base funding for NOAA.
Both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the independent Pew
Commission have called on Congress to increase NOAA's budget to more
than $6 billion. Yet this bill funds NOAA at roughly half that, $3.4
billion, a cut of more than $500 million below last year.
Relative to their size and economic value, funding for ocean research
and management pales in comparison to other natural resource programs,
like management of public lands and space exploration. When we derive
so much from our oceans, how can we invest so little in the
understanding of them?
This amendment will allow us to better manage our fisheries,
institute an integrated ocean observation system based on what we
already have in the Gulf of Maine, and protect our coast from erosion
and pollution. I urge support of the Gilchrest amendment.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if I have any other
speakers on the floor. I would simply say that, out of about
approximately $16 billion that is spent on NASA and less than $4
billion spent on ocean issues, that is a pretty big disparity.
We need to spend the $16 billion on NASA, and probably a lot more.
But, in my judgment, the Moon will be there for a long time. Mars will
be there for a long time. And I don't want to take the money out of
needed science programs, but the world's oceans are being degraded.
They are being degraded in a number of ways by human activity that is
not compatible with nature's design and the bulging population and
acidic problems in the ocean. Because of burning of fossil fuel, the
coastal areas are being inundated with our populations and being
polluted. It is time that this country looked at this world, this
Nation, and came up with a comprehensive, well-funded ocean program.
I want to thank the gentleman from Maine for speaking on behalf of
this amendment. I want to thank the chairman for the time and his
comments.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment.
NOAA is our lead ocean agency, overseeing programs to promote healthy
oceans, coastal areas and communities. The U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy highlighted the need for new and sustained investments in ocean
and coastal programs to meet our current and future challenges. Failing
to make these investments will jeopardize the economic and ecological
benefits our Nation receives from its oceans and coasts.
Although I understand difficult decisions must be made in the limited
budget available for fiscal year 2007, H.R. 5672 would decimate funding
for our coastal programs including cooperative fisheries research;
coastal and estuarine land conservation; ocean exploration and undersea
research; oil spill response and restoration; and our National
Estuarine Research Reserves. These programs provide important, on-the-
ground benefits to our coastal communities at relatively little Federal
expense.
Cuts to our Coastal Zone Management Program in New Jersey would
result in the elimination of their coastal hazards training program to
assist our communities prepare and respond to hurricanes. They would
also be forced to eliminate their Clean Marina program. These are just
a few examples of what would be lost if this level of funding remains.
Our Nation has put 16 men on the surface of the Moon and only sent
two to the bottom of the ocean. It is time we put Earth first--we can
go to other planets later.
I urge my colleagues to support the Gilchrest amendment and restore
NOAA funding to the fiscal year 2005 level.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment
offered by Congressman Gilchrest. While I fully support funding for
NOAA, I stand opposed to efforts to reduce funding for NASA.
It is important to note that the bill reported out of the
Appropriations committee already reduces funding for NASA by $151
million. If this amendment is accepted, it would further reduce NASA
beyond the administration's request.
NASA is at a critical crossroads. Over the next few years, the agency
must complete the International Space Station, retire the Space
Shuttle, develop a new space vehicle, and maintain needed science and
aeronautics programs. Further cuts to NASA will only deepen the gap in
human space flight capability and force our nation to rely more heavily
on international partners. At a time when the United States is
concerned about global competitiveness, cutting NASA funding would send
our country in the wrong direction.
Mr. Chairman, NASA is a good investment. Over the last 10 years,
NASA's budget has decreased or remained flat while overall domestic
spending grew substantially. Fully funding the space exploration vision
represents only .7 percent of the Federal budget and yet this small
investment yields large returns in health care, public safety, and
telecommunications. Space exploration technologies have produced
advanced semiconductors that power our businesses, materials employed
by our military to keep our men and women safe, and software that aids
our law enforcement personnel in fighting crime and detecting illegal
drugs.
The Appropriations Committee has done a commendable job balancing our
national needs with our budget realities. They have preserved vital
funding for critical areas, including science initiatives, and I would
urge the House to support the underlying bill and vote against efforts
to cut NASA funding. Vote ``no'' on the Gilchrest amendment.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Appropriations Committee,
I recognize Chairman Wolf's hard work on the SSJC bill, H.R. 5672.
However, as one of six co-chairs of the House Oceans Caucus, I was
deeply concerned when I saw the degree to which NOAA was grossly under-
funded, especially its wet programs within the National Ocean Service
(NOS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research (OAR). The reductions proposed in the bill are
about 31 percent compared to FY06 and 36 percent compared to FY05
enacted levels, totaling about $783 million over the last 2 funding
cycles. The House mark represents a major setback in protecting our
Nation's ocean and coastal resources. Given that NOAA is the lead
Federal agency for ocean-related management and activities, this void
will not be filled elsewhere.
The direct and indirect impacts the oceans and coasts have on our
lives and livelihoods are paramount. They are, by far, our greatest
natural resource and the life support of our only planet. Yet, we fail
to see the ocean for the waves when we cut more than half a billion
dollars from the NOAA budget. Over half of the U.S. population lives in
coastal states. Coastal and marine waters support over 2.8 million jobs
and produce one-third of the nation's GDP. The culture, economy, and
security of our Nation depend on the health and sustainability of these
assets, yet we are not sufficiently managing and protecting them.
Though the budget this year is more constrained than ever, the decision
not to make ocean funding a priority will cost the U.S. economy more
than $1 billion in direct losses, and even more indirectly. Instead, an
increased and sustained investment now would enhance the benefits we
reap in the future, a need highlighted by the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy (USCOP) in their 2004 report and by the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative in their recent list of ocean policy priorities for
Congress.
Along those lines, I want to emphasize the invaluable services and
programs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the
lead federal agency for ocean-related management and activities. Among
these are the National Marine Sanctuary Program, the Integrated Ocean
Observing Program, the National Sea Grant College Program, and the
Protected Species Research and Management Program, just to name a few.
Combined, the many NOAA activities support necessary ocean protection,
research, exploration, and education. Therefore, the significant cuts
that are proposed in this bill are unacceptable and would seriously
impair the efficiency and effectiveness of the agency. To allow cuts
would be a step in the wrong direction and would sustain the ``failing
grade'' received on this year's U.S. Ocean Policy Report Card released
by the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative.
Furthermore, it is about time for the ``blue'' of our world's oceans
to get at least as much attention as the ``blue'' above us. After all,
our planet of more than 70 percent water is largely unexplored. The
amendment being offered by Mr. Gilchrest on behalf of the House Ocean
Caucus is one way to start showing recognition for our need to
reprioritize. The amount requested here ($783 million) would come out
of NASA's Exploration Systems which was marked to more than $3.8
billion--more than NOAA's entire budget for the year! The cost of just
one NASA mission could restore 2 years worth of funding cuts to all of
NOAA, without compromising basic science and research conducted by
NASA.
[[Page H4699]]
I cannot emphasize enough the need to show our ocean stewardship
now--and stewardship for our own planet--so we can turn the tide on the
dire consequences facing our oceans. Therefore, I wholly support the
amendment offered by Mr. Gilchrest. I would hope that the House of
Representatives would take a position that makes oceans more of a
priority by supporting funding for NOAA programs that are of critical
importance to our nation and beyond. This step would give us a better
platform as we move into Conference negotiations with the Senate. Let
us start to make the necessary investments in the FY07 cycle or the
losses will be greater and more irreparable the longer we wait.
Attached are (1) a summary of the NOAA Impact Statement and (2) a
copy of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative letter in regards to H.R.
5672.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION IMPACT OF HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE FY 2007 MARK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2006 Enacted w/o FY 2007 President's House Mark vs. FY House Mark vs. FY 2006
Supp. Budget FY 2007 House Mark 2006 PB Enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORF................................................................ $2,813.5 $2,678.8 $2,466.5 ($212.3) ($347.0)
PAC................................................................ 1,119.5 1,026.5 998.7 (27.8) (120.8)
Other.............................................................. 70.5 68.8 22.3 (46.5) (48.2)
Finance............................................................ (92.0) (90.0) (90.0) -- (2.0)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................................................... 3,911.5 3,684.1 3,397.5 (286.6) (514.0)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: The House Appropriations Committee Mark provides a
total of $3.39B for NOAA, a reduction of about eight percent
from the FY 2007 President's Budget. The Mark provides
sufficient funds to operate the National Weather Service and
maintain satellite continuity. However, the House Mark
proposes major reductions in a number of critical fisheries,
protected species, and ocean related activities. Overall, the
House Mark represents a major setback in protecting our
Nation's ocean and coastal resources.
The House Mark includes a reduction of over $150M from the
request level for the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMIS), jeopardizing basic regulatory and management
responsibilities needed to sustain marine fisheries. The
House Mark would force NOAA to close critical fisheries, and
terminate protected species programs and the seafood quality
and safety program, costing billions in economic losses and
increasing the cost of seafood to U.S. consumers. Of
particular note, the House Mark reduces funding for Alaska
fisheries by over 50 percent from the President's request,
terminates funding for the 4th Fisheries Survey Vessel, and
reduces the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund by over 70
percent.
The House Mark reduces funding for the National Ocean
Service (NOS) by over $90M from the request level. The House
Mark reduces funding for basic mapping and charting
activities needed to ensure safe marine transportation within
U.S. waters. The House Mark also proposes reductions to the
disaster response and restoration program, coastal services
and research programs, and the National Marine Sanctuary
Program. In addition, the House Mark cuts funding for ocean
exploration and research programs such as Sea Grant, National
Undersea Research Program and Invasive Species. The House
Mark does not provide the necessary funds to sustain NOAA's
infrastructure or support the pay raise for NOAA employees.
Overall, NOAA estimates the House Mark could require a
Reduction in Force (RIF) of over 300 current NOAA employees
and the termination of 400 contract employees, and could cost
the U.S. economy over $lB in unnecessary economic losses.
NOAA has outlined four priority areas of concern within the
House Mark, including Sustaining Our Nation's Fisheries,
Critical Ocean & Coastal Activities, Weather Warnings and
Forecasts, and Critical Mission Support.
____
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative
Hon. Jerry Lewis,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Frank Wolf,
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on
Science, State, Commerce, Justice, and Related Agencies,
U.S. House of Representatives, Capital Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. David Obey,
Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Alan B. Mollohan,
Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on
Science, State, Commerce, Justice, and Related Agencies,
House of Representatives, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Sirs: As co-chairs of the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative, representing the members of the congressionally-
mandated U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and the Pew Oceans
Commission, we are writing to express our grave concern with
the funding level for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) provided in the FY 2007 Science, State,
Justice and Commerce appropriation bill (H.R. 5672).
We recognize the difficult budget environment facing the
nation and the hard funding decisions Appropriations
Committee members faced in developing HR 5672. While we
applaud the support provided to ocean-related research and
education programs within the National Science Foundation and
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, we were
very disturbed to see the significant funding cuts proposed
for NOAA in FY 2007.
The Committee's mark provides $3.4 billion for NOAA, which
is $289 million below the President's request and $508
million below the FY 2006 enacted level, compounding the
funding reductions incurred by the agency in FY 2006. The
proposed funding cuts are being imposed at a time when there
is clear recognition of the growing number and severity of
problems that are compromising the health and associated
economic benefits generated by our oceans, coasts, and Great
Lakes. Last year economic and human health impacts were
associated with major harmful algal blooms that impacted the
East Coast, West Coast, and Gulf of Mexico, as well as tens
of thousands of beach closures and advisories due to water
pollution. Poor coastal land use planning and the loss of
habitat contributed significantly to the losses associated
with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Inadequate research and
monitoring are limiting our capacity to understand, predict,
and mitigate these and many other problems plaguing our
oceans.
The House cut to NOAA's funding comes at a time when there
is growing awareness and support for ocean-related programs
and activities. The President has taken the admirable step of
establishing a Committee on Ocean Policy within the Executive
Office and developed an Ocean Action Plan, following up these
commitments by requesting additional funding for NOAA. A
number of states and regions have established councils or
regional bodies to coordinate ocean-related activities,
and are increasing their collaboration with federal
agencies. This is a very encouraging trend that is already
generating benefits, but is threatened by proposed
decreases in federal ocean-related funding.
We, along with many others in the ocean community, remain
very concerned that base funding for NOAA's core ocean
programs is eroding as the need for investment in marine
science and operations grows. We are hopeful that the House
will be able to restore funding for NOAA during floor
deliberations on HR 5672, and that there will be a concerted
effort to fully fund the agency when the House and Senate
negotiate on the final spending bill.
We appreciate your support for ocean science, management,
and education and are available to assist in efforts to
implement the recommendations of the Joint Ocean Commission
Initiative and our two Commissions. Please contact Laura
Cantral at 202-354-6444 if you require additional information
or assistance.
Sincerely,
James D. Watkins,
Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired), Chairman, U.S. Commission on
Ocean Policy.
The Hon. Leon E. Panetta,
Chair, Pew Oceans Commission.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Thompson of California
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Thompson of California:
On page 46, line 11, insert ``(increased by $2,000,000)''
after the dollar amount.
On page 50, line 21, insert ``(decreased by $2,000,000)''
after the dollar amount.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
[[Page H4700]]
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time
as I may consume.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, takes $2 million out of the Secretary
of Commerce's Department managerial budget, and it puts that same $2
million in NOAA Fisheries Operational Account. The reason that this is
necessary is to create a placeholder so when this bill goes to
conference we will be able to revisit and address the very real
disaster that is happening on the coast of California and the coast of
Oregon, a disaster that, unfortunately, has been completely ignored by
this administration.
It came to a head last night when a number of the impacted districts'
representatives met with NOAA fisheries and we were told, in no
uncertain terms, that the administration and NOAA were not going to
address the problems that working families were having because of the
salmon fishing disaster on the west coast. They said that they weren't
going to even look at this until February of next year.
By that time, these families are going to be out of business. They
are going to lose their boats and, in some instances, lose their homes.
They are not going to be able to pay their insurance payments, to send
their kids to school, and the Federal Government is giving them the
proverbial backhand. This is immoral behavior from this Department. We
need to have it addressed, and this will provide the placeholder that
we need to do that.
This morning, the Oregonian newspaper editorialized saying the west
coast salmon fishing industry is nearly dead in the water, and
everybody can see it is going to hit the rocks. But, so far, the Bush
administration is unwilling to lift a finger to help. That is
inexcusable. We need to step in. We need to help save these businesses.
We need to help save these hardworking families, and that is what this
amendment will do.
I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, it has been over 2 months since the
regional office said, NOAA, you need to declare a national disaster
with this. NOAA has said, we are not even going to look at it till
February of 2007. We have had the State declare a disaster, the State
of Oregon, State of California, the regional area. We have had
disasters declared for droughts, for storms, for floods, for winds, and
yet here is an industry that will not make it through this season
unless a disaster is declared.
This is about families. It is about businesses. These coastal
communities are not wealthy communities. The base industry is the
fishing industry. It impacts every other business in the coastal
communities. This impacts families. How are they going to pay for their
boats? How are they going to pay for their homes? How are they going to
pay for food for their children?
This is about families and small businesses. This disaster needs to
be declared. They need help.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Wu
from Oregon.
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the subcommittee, the chairman
and the ranking member and Ranking Member Obey for working with us to
get this $2 million placeholder into this bill. This $2 million will be
very, very important to working families in Oregon and those many
people who fish and those who depend upon the fishing industry.
I wish that our actions today had not been necessary, but they were
made necessary by an administrative agency which is absolutely not
hearing our words, and it is only through the actions of this committee
and this particular subcommittee that our voices are heard and our
constituents heard through us.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to Mr.
DeFazio from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee and my
colleagues. We only found out last evening that, despite the facts that
are before us, the administration says it will be at least next year
before they can determine whether or not there is a disaster for salmon
fishers on the Pacific coast.
Bottom line, nobody is fishing. They created a structure where people
can only go out and catch 75 fish. It is not worth the fuel to go out.
It is clearly a disaster. But the bureaucracy here is resistant to
declaring the disaster and getting our folks the assistance they need.
So, with this, this is nowhere near the amount of funds that will be
necessary, but to get to conference and within 1 day to have moved this
amount of money in the bill, I believe, is a significant step for the
House; and I appreciate my colleagues in recognizing the need of people
in Oregon and California, those who fish for a living, small businesses
and families. They vitally need some help.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I spoke earlier today about the
devastation befalling the salmon fisher families along the north coast.
Because of gross mismanagement on the part of this administration and
because of their typical disregard for sound science, this year's
season has been cut by 90 percent. Ninety percent.
Imagine how your life would change if your income was cut by 90
percent. Imagine how could you pay for you your food, not including how
would you pay for a boat. And it is not only the families of salmon
fishers out in Oregon and California who are generation fisher families
who need their livelihood, who are now talking about selling their
boats. It is the entire communities who will suffer because of this
inaction who depend on this industry.
The Bush administration created this disaster, and it is well past
time that they own up and take some responsibility before it is
entirely too late. Hundreds of families are depending on it. Please
support this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Oregon.
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, again, I want to reiterate what this is all
about. Last year, they reduced salmon fishing by 60 percent. This year,
it is almost nonexistent. They can catch 75 fish a week. The only way
you can possibly pay for your boat at 75 fish a week is if you can get
$100 a pound for it. Well, salmon is really good, but I don't know of a
single person that will pay $100 a pound for salmon.
So they are not fishing. They can't do it. They can't afford to pay
for their boats. They can't afford to go out fishing. They can't afford
to pay for their homes. And it impacts the entire community. This is
the base industry of these west coast communities. These are small
communities. They rely on the fishermen to buy food in the grocery
store, to buy appliances at the appliance store, to buy clothing, to
buy bait. When they are not operating, other businesses also don't
operate.
I am happy that we have this opportunity for the $2 million as a
placeholder, but what these people need is they need disaster relief.
They need this now, and they need money to help them, just like we do
for all other disasters that we declare.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to thank the gentleman
from Virginia for being willing to help draw attention to this serious
problem.
I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to thank
our colleague and my friend, Mr. Wolf, for helping in this regard; and
I just want to emphasize that this is a very serious problem that is
impacting the lives of very real people. Both Governors, the Governors
from California and Oregon, have declared disasters. They are waiting
for us to act.
And I have heard from countless people from not only my district, but
throughout the impacted area. Barbara and Ron Kemp, who are commercial
fishers from Fortuna, called me last night and said for the first time
in 23 years of marriage they have missed their mortgage payment. They
have exhausted all of their savings, down to the last 12 cents in their
savings account. They imagine that they are going to have to sell their
boat. He is 44 years old, and he has made a career of fishing. He wants
to know what he is going to do.
[[Page H4701]]
Ms. Hooley mentioned that they opened periods of the season, but
those periods don't allow enough time to fish, nor is the season open
in the places where there are fish. They just have no fish to catch.
Barbara Stickel from Morro Bay says in May, when their portion of the
season was open, they were able to fish for 5 days. They caught zero
fish.
{time} 1245
They are $48,000 in the hole just trying to fish those 5 days. They
have no idea what they are going to do or how they are going to make
ends meet.
And it is not just the fishers. It is the related businesses as well.
Larry Reuter, a salmon buyer from San Jose, California, says in 2004 he
bought 21,000 pounds of salmon from commercial fishermen. This year, he
was only able to buy 4,000 pounds. He has already suffered an $80,000
loss to his business, and this year he is paying $27.99 a pound.
Before, he had never paid more than $7.
Up at the Klamath Lodge in Del Norte County, Paula Zimmerman says
that they were booked solid during the spring season, but they have had
massive cancellations because of the closure. Already this year, they
have lost $21,000. That may not seem like a lot to those of us inside
the Beltway, but for someone who is barely making ends meet, it is
everything. This is the money that they need to live on through the
winter months. They cannot go on.
Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you for hearing us out on this issue.
This is an extremely important issue. Our failure to act would be
nothing less than immoral.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
Committee also for working with my colleagues.
I ask unanimous consent to vacate the requests for recorded votes on
the five amendments on which proceedings were postponed, to the end
that each of them stand adopted by the voice vote thereon.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Accordingly, the amendments by Messrs. Reyes,
Garrett of New Jersey, Lynch, and Brown of Ohio, and Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson of Texas stand adopted by voice vote.
The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Weldon of Florida) assumed the Chair.
____________________