[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.

                          ____________________