[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 28, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4724-H4743]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
amendment offered by mr. flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to fund the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism
Development Association.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from
being used for the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development
Association, which receives a $1 million earmark in this bill.
The Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association was
created in 1987 to promote, expand, develop and market the existing and
potential tourism industry in southern and eastern Kentucky.
According to our research, since 1987, the Southern and Eastern
Kentucky Tourism Development Association has received more than $18
million in Federal grants, loans, and earmarks. In fact, last year, in
the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, Justice and Commerce appropriation
bill, the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Development Association
received a $3 million earmark.
Now I love traveling, as everyone here does; and I am all for seeing
Kentucky tourism continue to grow. But again, here, how do we justify
favoring this tourism association and not others?
We have one in Arizona. Virtually every State has one. Many regions
in our State have their own tourism associations. How do we decide that
one is worthy of earmarks and another one is not?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I
yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
yielding me time.
This association, as the gentleman said, was formed in 1987, this
association of 42 of Kentucky's counties covering five out of the six
congressional districts.
What sets these counties apart, however, is their extreme poverty.
These are rural counties in an impoverished coal mining region of the
State who have seen the jobs in the mines disappear through
mechanization and otherwise; and these counties are searching for a way
to live, to survive. They are too poor to do it on their own, to form
an association to try to create tourism, train people, create the small
jobs that it takes to run tourism entrepreneurships. So they banded
together, 42 of them, into an association where they pool their
resources.
The State of Kentucky helps fund this association, as well as the
Federal Government and locals. But for this association, these counties
would not be able to advertise and attract to the very, very beautiful
part of the country, the mountains, the streams and the hills, the
history. It is the home of country music. US 23 that runs north and
south through eastern Kentucky is known as Country Music Highway, a
National Scenic Byway now, thanks to this association.
They are the ones that promoted that National Scenic Byway. There are
two others, the Red River Gorge Scenic Byway, National Scenic Byway,
and the Daniel Boone Trail. The Cumberland Gap is a part of this area.
{time} 1515
So this association works to promote the region. It is providing jobs
to those who otherwise would be drawing Federal handouts, Federal
welfare. We are trying to work to get people a job rather than take a
check from the Federal Government. I look upon this as not a handout
but a hand up, and these communities are now beginning to realize
income that provides real jobs for people that would otherwise be
drawing welfare.
Now, is it unique that we would look to the Federal Government to
help a region help itself grow into something better and provide the
jobs? No, it is not unique. I would support today the earmarks over the
years for the central
[[Page H4725]]
Arizona water project that enabled Arizona to grow and prosper and boom
as it is now and providing jobs for people. That is what the Federal
Government should be doing, and I do not begrudge a minute the
gentleman from Arizona and the boom that is occurring in Arizona, but
it was caused because the Federal Government over the years earmarked
hundreds of millions of dollars to provide water out of the Colorado
River so that Arizona in the desert would bloom.
It is a good thing. I would support that and continue to do so, but I
would hope the gentleman would realize there are other parts of the
country with much much smaller needs but equally as important to the
people that live there.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will turn down the amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Otter).
Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Arizona.
I was sitting in my office watching all these wonderful and
heartrending speeches from folks about their economies and iron mills
shutting down, steel mills shutting down, industries being totally
lost, and now it is up to this Congress to pass through earmark
appropriations in some legislative vehicles that are not the
appropriate vehicle for it, which is why it is so hard for my friend
from Arizona to find out where this money is going and why it is going
and who asked for it.
But I am reminded from time to time that this was the same Congress
that has passed regulation that has prohibited us in the west, in
Idaho, from harvesting trees, from mining minerals, from, in fact,
earning a living or even building, as my good friend from Kentucky just
said, in talking about building a whole new industry.
Well, we would like that opportunity, too. In fact, we would like
this Congress just to keep their promises to us when they shut down our
forests and shut down the mining and halted much of the grazing on that
land in Idaho and said, we will do this, we will make you PILT
payments, payment in lieu of taxes. Because you have so much Federal
ground in Idaho, a lot of that property does not render any taxes, and
so we will make that payment for you. Well, you are about $148 million
short this year alone.
So I would say to these Members of Congress that have such huge
hearts for their own particular little locales and their own particular
little projects, that if you are going to do this, for gosh sakes, let
those of us that would like to do it without all your help help
ourselves.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me simply make the point, I was not around when the central
Arizona project or other water projects in Arizona were approved, but I
do know this: Nobody slipped funding for the central Arizona project in
an appropriations bill at the last minute in a conference report. These
programs were authorized. There were appropriations. There has been
oversight. It is the antithesis of what we are doing here in this bill
and in this process this year.
We need to get back to the process of authorization and appropriation
and oversight. We seem to have abandoned the outer two bookends, and
all we are doing is appropriating, as I would submit, when you have
descriptions this vague and you have situations where Members do not
even come to the floor to defend it, and we still do not know on one of
these that I offered today who the author is. On what I offered last
week on two of the earmarks, we still do not know who offered them, but
yet we pretend we are offering good oversight? We are really not. We
can do a lot better than this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cardoza
Mr. CARDOZA. 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. Cardoza:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. For ``Office of Justice Programs--justice
assistance'' for the Drug Endangered Children grant program,
as authorized by section 755 of the USA PATRIOT Improvement
and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177), and the
amounts otherwise provided by this Act for ``Other--salaries
and expenses, departmental mangagement'' (reduced by
$5,000,000) are hereby reduced by $5,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would like to start and begin by thanking Chairman Wolf and the
ranking member, Mr. Mollohan, for working with me on this amendment. I
also want to thank Mr. Larsen of Washington and Ms. Hooley for offering
this amendment with me today and for all of their hard work addressing
the methamphetamine problem and its effect on children.
I rise today to introduce this amendment to provide $5 million in
authorized funding for the Drug Endangered Children Program. This
program would provide grants to States for initiatives that help
children move from homes in which drug abuse or production takes place
and, instead, into safe, permanent homes.
Funding the Drug Endangered Children Program would represent an
important step towards helping develop new protocols for law
enforcement and child welfare workers to address the special needs of
these children displaced by family methamphetamine use, which is a
growing problem.
Mr. Chairman, I want to quickly tell you a story about a 12-year-old
boy that recently came to see me here in the Capitol. He is from
Stockton, California, in my district. His father was arrested for
running a meth lab in their home garage, and his mom, a meth addict,
abandoned him and his two brothers. In fact, she left them at a phone
booth in the community of Stockton, told them that she would be back,
and 2 days later, this young, 12-year-old boy took his two brothers to
a local police station and turned themselves in to the police so that
they could get food and get out of the cold climate that they were in
for 2 days.
The system was unable to handle this situation. As a result, he was
separated from his two brothers, his only remaining links to his family
that he once loved.
He came to see me last year, and he sat in the cafeteria below this
Chamber, and he leaned over to me, and he whispered, Congressman, I
have had so much pain in my life.
We can do better and we must do better to help these young children.
By working with the chairman and his staff, we have reduced the dollar
amount in the bill so that this amendment no longer affects the Census
Bureau.
Mr. Chairman, this program will make a real difference in the lives
of children affected by meth and other drugs. I urge a ``yes'' vote on
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms.
Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
California for offering this important amendment.
The most tragic victims of the meth epidemic are the drug-endangered
children. A recent study in Oregon revealed that police find children
living on the premises of one out of every four meth laboratories that
they break up. These children are exposed to toxic chemicals on a daily
basis and face the constant threat of physical, mental and emotional
abuse from the nonstop flow of addicts through their home.
The Drug Endangered Children Program provides vital services for
these children, ensuring that law enforcement, child protective
services, prosecutors and health professionals all work together to get
them the help that they need.
[[Page H4726]]
From removing and supporting these children as they transition out of
these dangerous environments to ensuring that they get medical
evaluations, mental health screenings, drug and chemical exposure
screenings and addiction treatment, the Drug Endangered Children
Program gives children a safe and drug-free environment to live in.
That is why we introduced this legislation. I hope that my colleagues
will see fit to appropriate the $5 million for this appropriate
initiative.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for accepting
the amendment. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Larsen).
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment to provide $5 million for the Drug Endangered Children
Program.
I want to thank Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan for their
work to increase funding for many law enforcement programs and the
fight against methamphetamine. I am particularly encouraged by the $99
million allocated for the Meth Hot Spots Account in this appropriations
bill.
I respect the tough job our appropriators have in writing these
spending bills. They have admirably allocated dollars to programs that
help our law enforcement do their job. However, one authorized program
that was not fortunate to receive dollars in this bill is the Drug
Endangered Children Program.
Children are too often the silent victims of drug abuse. As a cochair
of the House Meth Caucus, I have talked to many social service workers
and treatment providers about the risks that drug-endangered children
face. I have heard repeated stories of meth users leaving their
children unattended for days as they cook and use methamphetamine and
sleep off its intense effects.
We have often talked about the need for more money to help local law
enforcement to bust the bad guys, but we rarely talk about the impact
those busts have on the kids who may be living in drug-infested homes.
So I want to thank the gentleman from California for his work on this
amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I want to thank the chairman
for accepting this amendment as well.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank the
chairman for working with me on this and appreciate his accepting the
amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Chocola
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Chocola:
Page 110, after line 8, insert the following new title:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
for travel policies and practices in contravention of Office
of Management and Budget Circular No. A-126.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think one of the greatest luxuries in life would be
to own your own airplane. In fact, I think maybe one of the greater
luxuries would be to have somebody else own the airplane and let you
fly on it whenever you want and they pay the bill.
Well, Mr. Chairman, that is pretty much the arrangement that the
senior management at the National Aeronautics Space Administration,
better known as NASA, has. A recent GAO reports that, over a 2-year
period, NASA employees took 1,188 flights on private jets at a cost of
$25 million or five times the cost of commercial tickets.
I understand that at times NASA has appropriate uses for private
jets, like when they do aeronautical research, but I do not think it is
appropriate for routine visits, meetings, conferences and speeches. The
GAO found that 86 percent of the trips taken on these private jets
specifically are prohibited by Federal policy regarding aircraft
ownership.
Mr. Chairman, that is 1,022 trips on private jets by NASA employees
that are specifically prohibited and paid for by the American
taxpayers.
Because NASA has been largely unresponsive to previous GAO
recommendations to remedy this situation, the GAO has actually asked
for congressional consideration of legislation to restrict NASA's
ownership of passenger aircraft and funding for passenger aircraft
services to those needed solely to meet valid mission requirements.
Mr. Chairman, this position is clearly indefensible. It is time to
put an end to unresponsive management violating established policies,
flying on private jets at the taxpayers' expense simply for personal
convenience.
So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to achieve
that result, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in strong support of the amendment. I understand the
gentleman's amendment is related to the findings of the Government
Accountability Office audit in August of 2005 concerning NASA mission
management aircraft.
I also understand that NASA has concurred with the administrative
recommendations, meaning they agree with the GAO and the gentleman
trying to implement the recommendations made by GAO. NASA is now using
a new methodology to justify any passenger travel on its aircraft to
match OMB Circular A-126.
Further, OMB has reviewed NASA's revised policy and has no objections
with respect to it.
It is a good amendment, and I think it is doubly good because for the
first time we have brought a bill to the floor with absolutely no NASA
earmarks. The administrator has said this is very good because when you
have earmarks, it takes away.
So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and urge that it be
adopted.
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wolf for his support and
for his hard work on this appropriations bill, and in an effort to not
talk myself out of a sale, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1530
Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
Page 110, after line 8, insert the following new title:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for a manned space mission to Mars.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\
minutes.
This amendment simply says that none of the funds being appropriated
to NASA shall be used for a manned space shot to Mars.
We have heard throughout the appropriations debate legitimate
complaints from the appropriators that they have too little money to
meet various important needs. We are constantly faced with difficult
choices on this floor between good programs. NASA itself has objected
that it does not have enough money to do all that it is supposed to now
do. I think that is right. I think it is terribly unfair and damaging
to the
[[Page H4727]]
country to give to this important agency more than it can handle with
the money it gets.
I would like to be able to appropriate more money, but the budget
says we can't do that. So what we can do is, as a Congress, set some
priorities. Sending human beings to Mars, in my judgment, is at best a
luxury that this country cannot now afford.
We are talking about deficits that we have to deal with. We are
talking about Social Security funding that will be needed. We are
talking about a shortage within NASA to do everything it wants to do.
To go forward with a commitment to send people to Mars, which is not in
the arguments of any scientist I have ever heard as the best use of our
funding, is a great mistake.
This amendment does not cut a penny out of NASA. Instead, it allows
the money to be spent by NASA more wisely. It does not stop them from
spending money on their priorities. We have things like aeronautics
that have not got enough money, we have other space travel, we have
space exploration by instrumentation. Committing and allowing funds to
be spent now as a downpayment on sending human beings to Mars is, as I
said, at best a luxury that the country ought not to be indulging in.
The justification for sending people to Mars is political, it is
psychological, it is cultural, but it is not scientific. And we should
also note that if we continue on this path now, so that money is spent
to go to Mars, we will be confronted with an additional request at some
point in the near future for $100 billion or more to do this.
We talk rhetorically often about the need to make tough decisions,
the need to set priorities. As I listen to the inability to fund
important program after important program, the notion that NASA, which
as I said tells us they do not have enough money to do everything they
would like to do, that some of that should be spent on sending human
beings to Mars is the gravest example I can think of of money unwisely
spent.
We talk about trying to save money. I don't want to save money on old
people who need medical care. I don't want to save money on children
who need help with drug abuse. I don't want to save money on protecting
the border. I don't want to save money by cutting low-income housing
for the elderly or the disabled.
There aren't many areas where we can say, you know what, let us just
not spend that money at all. Sending human beings to Mars ought to be
of a very low priority compared to everything else we do.
This amendment does not touch the funding of NASA. It does say that,
of all of the needs that NASA now has, sending human beings to Mars is
sufficiently low that we ought to put it aside, at least for now.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
yielding, and I actually want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for offering this amendment, because I think it is a good amendment for
us to discuss.
There is actually very little in this bill that is devoted to the
subject he is talking about. The vast majority of the funds go to the
continued operation of the space station, the shuttle, and the
development of a replacement vehicle, a safer, more reliable, less
expensive vehicle for the shuttle.
There is some early money for exploration devoted to returning to the
Moon sometime in the next 10 to 15 years, and there is a very small
amount of money devoted to the subject of can we put men and women on
Mars someday and hopefully do that in a fashion with other countries to
help reduce the cost.
I think we should overwhelmingly vote ``no'' on this, and I will tell
you why. This is the United States of America. We are a Nation of
pioneers and explorers. When we left the Moon the last time for Apollo
17, I thought we would be on Mars in 10 years. I never would have
imagined that 30 or 40 years later we are still debating the subject.
I believe we are destined to explore not just Mars but go on to other
stars. It is in our nature as human beings. And for us to say, no, we
don't want to do that; we can't afford it; we have too many other
problems, I think would be a very unfortunate thing. It would be
unfortunate for our kids, who we want to study math and science. And
the teachers all tell me the same thing, there is nothing you can do to
motivate them more to study math and science than to talk to them about
manned space and exploring other planets.
So I have a tremendous amount of respect for the gentleman, but I
think he is wrong on this one. I recognize there are costs associated
with it, and we are fighting a war, and we have a deficit, but this is
a small amount of money, and I think we do need to proceed.
So I would encourage a ``no'' vote on the Frank amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in
support of the amendment.
This is a Congress and this is a President which has decided we are
going to blow $400 billion on the dumbest war since the War of 1812 in
Iraq. This is the Congress that has decided that every other priority
has to be scuttled so that we can provide $50 billion in tax cuts for
millionaires this year. And yet there is no room in the Budget Inn for
improving the health care of our people.
We are actually going to be funding fewer grants next year at the
National Institutes of Health for medical research than we were 2 years
ago. We are squeezing health professions training. We are providing an
education budget that is $1.5 billion below last year in terms of No
Child Left Behind education programs. We are cutting law enforcement
grants by over $2 billion below the year 2001. We are providing a
squeeze on Legal Services, despite the amendment that was adopted last
night. Mr. Gilchrest from Maryland just made a compelling argument
about the need to spend a lot more money to protect our oceans.
We don't have money for any of that, and yet, oh, we've got money to
go to Mars. I am as excited as anybody else about the prospect of
sending a man to Mars. I think that would be wonderful. But not if you
have to do it on borrowed money and not if you are putting tax cuts for
millionaires ahead of educating kids.
I get excited about the space program, but I get a lot more excited
about the prospect of providing clean water for every community in this
country. I get a lot more excited about cleaning up school districts
and fixing up schools and training teachers so that every kid in
America is trained by a competent teacher, rather than having a huge
percentage of our kids trained by teachers who were never educated in
the field that they are teaching. So I guess it depends on what you are
most excited about.
It seems to me that the gentleman is pointing out that we ought to
have a little common sense in deciding what ought to be put first in
this country. I would prefer that we put Earth-based science ahead of
sending somebody to Mars.
If you want to clean up the deficit, if you want to clean up the
deficits we have in investments in education and investments in health
care, if you want to take care of the fact that 44 million people in
this country are without health insurance, you get that done, then,
baby, I am all for you if you want to go to Mars.
Until then, I would like to send to Mars every politician that thinks
that the existing priorities are the right ones. They are not. They are
wacky. This amendment isn't even a close call. We ought to adopt it.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Culberson).
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, if this amendment were adopted, it would
shut off all funding for all high-technology work that NASA is doing
that has multiple applications.
The amendment says, ``no money can be spent in support of the manned
mission to Mars.'' There is no manned mission to Mars in this bill. But
the technology application, the research work that NASA is doing to
develop the next
[[Page H4728]]
generation of rocket propulsion, the research work that NASA is doing
to develop the next generation of microcomputers, the technology, for
example, in this BlackBerry can be used on a manned mission to Mars and
also manned missions in low-Earth orbit.
The technology that NASA is developing to fight cancer, any astronaut
that goes above the Earth's atmosphere is immediately exposed to a
higher risk of cancer, yet the research NASA is doing to protect
astronauts in space and low-earth orbit and to travel to the moon, for
example, could obviously be used on a mission to Mars. But if the
gentleman's amendment is adopted, it would cut off any of that work
that is being done right now to help protect our astronauts' lives in
low-Earth orbit, because that technology could arguably be used on a
mission to Mars.
There is no manned mission to Mars in this bill. The gentleman's
amendment is so broadly written, it will have the effect of shutting
off most of NASA's research and development work in the cutting-edge
technologies that are so essential to the success of the manned space
program and to the success of the American economy.
I urge the Members to vote ``no'' against this shortsighted
amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Perhaps I should include some instruction in reading. The gentleman
has simply not described the amendment. It does not say no money can be
used in support of. It says no money can be ``used for.''
The gentleman from Florida said a small amount of money here is for
Mars. It is a small amount of money now. It is a downpayment on a huge
amount of money. So this would not prevent any of that spending. You
could spend it on the astronaut issue. All it says is you cannot use
it, and he said support for. There is a difference between ``support
for'' and ``used for.'' So let us not leave reading out of the
curriculum.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Cramer) 1 minute.
(Mr. CRAMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CRAMER. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee.
I have been a member of this subcommittee since the subcommittee was
formed, and I was a member of the VA-HUD Subcommittee before then. And,
as a matter of full disclosure, I come from an area that has one of the
NASA centers, the Marshall Space Flight Center.
But the gentleman's amendment is not well designed. This would kill,
this would kill the core of NASA. This would redefine what NASA is all
about, and I urge the Members to oppose this amendment.
We have balanced carefully, the chairman and the ranking member of
this subcommittee, within the confines of this budget, to order what we
could do for NASA versus what we could do for COPS programs, Justice
programs, and NOAA and other programs in here. This is a good debate to
have, because we don't have enough money and we don't have enough room
in this budget.
But this is a bad amendment, and I urge the Members to oppose it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself the remaining time.
That argument is further out in space than the Mars shot. The core of
NASA is to send people to Mars?
All it says is that you can't use the money for a manned space shot
to Mars. You have got the Moon, you have got aeronautics, you have
everything else. That simply misstates it.
Here is where we are. Does this House have the right to say that we
do or don't want to be committed to going to Mars? Here is what will
happen if the amendment is defeated. They will say, well, some money
was voted that way; and the defense is, well, we need it to do cancer
research, we need it for the Moon, but it will be used as a downpayment
for a very expensive mission to Mars.
The gentleman from Florida said, well, we shouldn't say we can't
afford this. That would be terrible for America. But we can't afford to
pay old people for all of their medical drug bills. There is a doughnut
hole. The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee said we
can't afford more border guards. We can't afford more beds.
Of course, there are things we can't afford. The notion is not
whether or not we should acknowledge what we can't afford but whether
we should be sensible about what we can afford and can't afford.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert).
{time} 1545
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We
have laid out a compelling vision and mission for the civil space
program to conduct a robust program of human and robotic space
exploration.
Last year, this Congress overwhelmingly endorsed the President's
Vision for Space Exploration with a vote of 383-15 on the NASA
Authorization Act. This amendment would abandon those plans endorsed by
Congress.
We cannot turn back NASA's long-range plans. I certainly urge all of
my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and let's stay on track.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Just the
fact that the gentleman from Massachusetts has spent so much time
explaining what his amendment means I think is the best proof that it
is so vague that we don't really know what we are not funding with this
amendment.
There is $3.9 billion in the Constellation Systems account.
Conceivably, the amendment could prevent any of that spending. All of
it, it could be argued, relates to a manned space mission to Mars.
The amendment is so vague that I think that is why everybody is
really concerned about it.
It is absolutely true that NASA is having problems. There is no
question about it. The President has proposed a space exploration
initiative. He calls it a vision, in some ways of course it would be
if, if, it were genuinely funded. My concern is that it is not
genuinely funded.
There are a lot of problems with NASA funding, but it all has to do
with not enough funding to do everything that we want to do. That is
evidenced by the myriad of science programs that are either cancelled
or cut in the President's budget. It is terrible.
Every scientist that is at all concerned about operating in the NASA
camp has expressed how opposed they are to the NASA funding. But this,
to me, is not the way to get at that.
What we do need is more money in NASA, and NASA, I think, frankly
needs to come forward with a budget that is more specific, one that we
can deal with, instead of coming up with these operating plans. That
really is a very imperfect way to fund an agency.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have to say to my friend, I would be
impressed if they would come forward and say, yes, we think, as the
gentleman from Florida said, we should be able to go to Mars. But to
argue that because an amendment which says no money can be used for a
manned space mission to Mars, that that means you can't use it for the
Moon or anything else simply isn't the English language.
The fact is the amendment is very narrowly drawn. It says you cannot
use the money for manned space to Mars or for another purpose.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Can't we get an honest debate about
whether or not to go to Mars?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Not in 5 minutes, unfortunately.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Gordon).
Mr. GORDON. As usual, my friend from Massachusetts raises good
points, and, as usual, he is a good watch dog for our Congress. I agree
with him; we have to have priorities. But I think he has picked the
wrong priority on this occasion.
NASA, as has been said, under the right occasions is underfunded. It
is not overfunded. It is an investment in our country. Then so you have
to think, okay, within the NASA budget, where do we spend our money?
[[Page H4729]]
Let me agree with my friend from Massachusetts that I think that we
do need to slow down some of the manned Mars missions and fund other
programs. I would like to see more funds then. But if we are not going
to have adequate funding, we need to slow it down. But it would be
irresponsible to do away with some of the planning in other sorts of
areas.
His amendment, I think there are really two main problems: one, that
you don't just all of a sudden get in a space capsule and go to Mars.
There is a lot of planning that goes before that. Additionally, there
is overlap with a lot of the other missions.
Even though I know the gentleman is trying to be clear in what he is
doing, it simply doesn't come out that way. It would be a major problem
for this country, a major problem for NASA. I will certainly work with
him to try to, again, help better prioritize the planning of a Moon-
Mars mission.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman from West Virginia
yield?
Mr. GORDON. If there is time left, I would certainly yield to my
friend.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I do not believe that anybody seriously
says that if the bill says you can't spend, an amendment says you can't
spend it on a manned mission to Mars, that anybody would then think you
had to stop it on the Moon.
Of course, that is one of the arguments you would make beforehand
that you would have to disregard after. But let me disagree with my
friend from Tennessee. He said, he agrees we should slow it down. What
is stopping us? Where is the language that does that?
Mr. GORDON. If you could reclaim your time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GORDON. What is stopping us would be this amendment. This
amendment simply is not drawn, as much as the gentleman would like for
it to be drawn in a narrow sense and as much as he would like for it to
be a scalpel, it is not. Maybe, again, all working together in the
future, we could come up with a better one. Right now, the intention is
not what has resulted.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment
offered by Congressman Frank that would put a funding limitation on
manned space flight.
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. Congress has already spoken in support of a
manned mission to Mars with the NASA Authorization bill earlier this
year. Disrupting the vision now only sets America back. 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 the Frank amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
to the Frank amendment to H.R. 5672, which would prohibit funds from
being used for a manned space mission to Mars. I believe the amendment
should be defeated.
NASA recently announced the work assignments for Exploration Systems'
Constellation program at NASA centers. These assignments will ensure
that the agency can begin to meet the challenges of the Vision for
Space Exploration while maintaining 10 healthy and productive field
centers.
NASA's plan to implement the Constellation Program depends upon funds
that carry over from fiscal year 2006-2007 into fiscal year 2008-2009.
This authority ensures that funding will be available in 2008, when
development work begins to ramp up significantly with the Critical
Design Review for Constellation's Crew Exploration Vehicle, CEV.
If NASA is unable to secure the necessary resources, the gap between
Shuttle retirement and CEV availability will expand. This will increase
both the risks and overall costs for bringing the new CEV and CLV
systems online, as well as increasing the safety risk of operating the
International Space Station. An extension of the gap will also cause an
unacceptably high number of departures of our skilled workforce across
the NASA Centers, and threaten to erode the Nation's industrial base
for human space flight activities. We therefore consider preservation
of this funding an important economic issue for our districts, as well
as a national priority.
The CEV and the companion Crew Launch Vehicle are once-in-a-
generation development efforts. The effective transition from the Space
Shuttle to the CEV will be NASA's greatest management challenge over
the next several years. NASA's Exploration Systems ought be fully
funded, not cut, to ensure that NASA has the resources it needs when
the critical moment arrives.
I urge defeat of the Frank amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Chocola
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Chocola:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for business class or first class airline travel by
employees of the Department of State in contravention of 41
CFR 301-10.122 through 301-10.124.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, not a day goes by that I am not amazed by
the waste of tax dollars by Federal agencies. Sometimes the waste is a
result of bad management. Sometimes it is the result of willful
violation of established policies, but it is always inexcusable.
A recent GAO report reveals just how bad it can get. In March of
2006, the GAO found that the State Department is wasting nearly $100
million a year on unauthorized premium travel. In 2004, the State
Department spent $140 million on premium travel; that is usually
business class travel, and 67 percent of that travel was either not
justified, not properly authorized or both. And that resulted in $94
million of taxpayer money wasted.
Not only is the fact that the money was wasted troubling, but the
management practice of disregarding what it cost when it is not your
own money is a cause for great concern. As an example, most of the
authorizations for the premium travel came from subordinates of those
that were traveling who told the GAO that they were afraid to challenge
senior executives of the State Department for violating established
travel policies.
It is not just an excusable practice of putting subordinates in
intimidating positions at work here; it is also a lack of basic
management practices. As an example, GAO also found that although
government tickets that are purchased and not used are fully
refundable, the practice of the State Department is not to bother to
try to reconcile tickets that are purchased and not used, which
resulted in a flat-out waste of $6 million of taxpayer money.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply requires the State Department
personnel to follow established travel policies, and it is an
understatement to say that it is unfortunate that I even have to come
to the floor and offer this amendment.
I guess we have to send a clear message to senior State Department
officials that when they are traveling on
[[Page H4730]]
their own dime, they can sit wherever they want on a plane, but when
you are traveling on the taxpayers' dime, you should follow established
policies and sit in the back of the plane.
Although I understand that flying coach can be cruel and unusual
punishment, I think that those that willfully waste the taxpayer
dollars for personal comfort are getting off easy if we pass this
amendment.
I encourage my colleagues to support it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. I rise in support of the amendment. It is a good amendment.
There has been a government-wide review of the waste, fraud and abuse
of the government travel card program. The Government Accountability
Office has reviewed the State Department policy and has concluded a
similar review of the Department of Defense policy.
The State Department manages the second largest centrally billed
travel card program in the Federal Government after the Department of
Defense. A GAO audit of the State Department's centrally billed foreign
affairs travel found that 67 percent of premium class travel by State
and other foreign affairs personnel during most of fiscal years 2003
and 2004 were not properly authorized.
Although GAO found deficiencies in documentation for premium class
travel, GAO did not find in any instance travel that was conducted for
other than official purposes. GAO has made 18 recommendations to
improve the State Department's travel card program. The committee has
looked into the issue and understands that, as of June 1, the
Department of State has taken action on all the recommendations
outlined in the GAO's March 6th report. The Undersecretary of State for
Management has made this a top priority for the Department.
I wonder how they even got to this point. I agree with the gentleman,
and I want to thank him for that. We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer
money is not subject to waste, fraud and abuse, and I strongly,
strongly support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHOCOLA. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wolf for his
hard work and his support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Watson
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Watson:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDTIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to negotiate the accession by the Russian Federation
into the World Trade Organization.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 2006, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with Mr. Issa, and offer this
amendment that disallows the use of taxpayer dollars to negotiate
Russia's accession into the World Trade Organization until Russia is
removed from the United States Trade Representative's priority watch
list for intellectual property violations.
Russia should not be allowed consideration until it takes steps to
protect intellectual property before we let them into the exclusive
World Trade Organization. The cost of Russian piracy, from the
copyright community from the motion picture and recording industry, to
software inventors and patent holders, was over $1.7 billion in 2005,
and losses topped $6.8 billion over the last 5 years.
Russia has been on the USTR's priority list for intellectual property
violations for 9 straight years without showing any significant signs
of improvement. Delaying Russia's entrance into the WTO until Russia
enacts and enforces laws to protect intellectual property rights will
send a strong and serious message that the United States values its
Nation's ideas and products.
We learned this lesson the hard way with China. Once China became a
member of the WTO, it has been a very difficult, time-consuming and
expensive task to bring a case against them before the WTO to get them
to enforce IP protections.
The time to pressure Russia, to put an end to their egregious
intellectual property violations is now, and I urge my colleagues to
support the Watson-Issa amendment.
Point of Order
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). Does the gentleman from Florida
insist on his point of order?
Mr. SHAW. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I raise a point of order against
the amendment on the grounds that this amendment violates clause 5(a)
of the House rule XXI because it is a tariff legislation not reported
by a committee with jurisdiction over revenue measures.
The countervailing duty law provides special treatment to the World
Trade Organization members. This amendment would impact Russia's
membership in the World Trade Organization and thus impact the tariff
treatment of Russia under the countervailing duty law in the Tariff Act
of 1930.
The rule referred to is very specific that that is reserved to the
House Ways and Means Committee, and the second portion of that rule
provides, for purposes of this paragraph, a tax or tariff measure
includes an amendment proposing a limitation on funds in a general
appropriation of a fund for administration of a tax or tariff.
I insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members desiring to be heard on
the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Florida raises a point of order against the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California on the ground that
it violates clause 5(a) of rule XXI.
As the Chair stated on June 18, 2004, clause 5(a)(2) of rule XXI
enables a point of order against limitation amendments addressing the
administration of a tax or tariff whether or not the maker of the point
of order can demonstrate a necessary and inevitable change in tax or
tariff statuses or liabilities or in revenue collection.
The amendment would limit funds for the negotiation of Russia's entry
into the World Trade Organization. As argued by the gentleman from
Florida, membership in the World Trade Organization as a matter of law
effects various changes in the treatment of a country's products under
domestic tariff law. An example of such law is Section 1671 of title
19, United States Code. By limiting funds for an activity that, if
completed, would engage tariff law, the amendment is a limitation on
funds for the administration of a tariff within the meaning of clause
5(a) of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
{time} 1600
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that we live under the
rules of the House that we have voted in the 108th and the 109th
Congress. But I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important
matter.
I appreciate that had the Ways and Means Committee addressed this
issue in a timely fashion to make a stronger statement heard to Russia
for their misconduct, for the billions of dollars lost to U.S.
companies, including the music and television industry and software
industries, all of which are very important to California, we would not
be here today.
Additionally, it is with regret that I remind the Appropriations
Committee that had they simply chosen not to fund this, this amendment
would not be necessary, but the not funding by the Appropriations
Committee is in order.
So although I don't approve of this rule, in hindsight, I recognize
that the time to object to it was at the beginning of the Congress.
Before yielding
[[Page H4731]]
back, I will, therefore, attempt to have this rule modified in the next
Congress so as to allow people to determine where their funds will be
spent. Because this rule effectively made it impossible to not fund
something simply because in previous Congresses decisions had been made
on tariff.
I do appreciate, though, that we will live under the rules of the
House; and Congresswoman Watson and myself will continue to work to
make sure that Russia lives up to the standards before entering the
WTO.
And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your kindness in giving me
this opportunity to speak.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Shaw).
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I would like to respond to the
gentleman and his comments.
Actually, last month, the committee of jurisdiction, which is the
Ways and Means Committee, and the Finance, sent a very strong
bipartisan message to the administration, which I am sure you quite
approve of, opposing concluding even a bilateral market access deal
with Russia until that country meaningfully addresses its rampant IPR
piracy problems.
The committee of jurisdiction is monitoring this issue very closely
and is consulting with the U.S. Trade Representative at every step. The
administration assures us that it will not allow Russia to join the
World Trade Organization unless we achieve strong intellectual property
rights protection with Russia. The United States will not allow Russia
to become a World Trade Organization member until this is confronted.
Simply not negotiating with Russia, however, would be a mistake and
would not be productive. Congress will have the opportunity to impact
the World Trade Organization accession process because it must pass
permanent normal trade relations in order for this to happen.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Watson).
Ms. WATSON. In conclusion, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
Issa.
When we traveled together to the Duma in Russia, we stated our
position very clearly; and at that time there were 57 different
locations in Moscow alone that were selling our copied materials. They
would go out and close them and they would open right up in another
location the next day. So we are acting as the watchdogs. I appreciate
the help from the committee in keeping this on front and center and on
the table, and we are going to continue to watch.
So thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for this time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, look what China is doing. I think you are
right on doing this. I wish you had actually been successful, from my
own perspective. But look at what China is doing. Windows 95 was
available on the streets of Beijing before it was available on the
streets of Washington, D.C. So be careful. And I am not sure the
administration is going to look out for your best interest on this
either.
The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage the Chairman of the
Science, State, Justice and Commerce Subcommittee in a colloquy
regarding the importance of the State Department's Bureau of Economic
and Business Affairs.
Mr. Chairman, additional funding for the Bureau of Economic and
Business Affairs is important to further diplomatic efforts to protect
intellectual property rights in countries that are not members of the
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD.
Countries that joined the OECD did so because they share a commitment
to a democratic government and market economy which depends on adequate
protections for intellectual property rights. The non-OECD countries
especially need the benefit of United States diplomacy to understand
the importance of protecting intellectual property, not just for
others' intellectual property but also because it is in the best
interest to protect their own ideas and creations with laws and then
enforce those laws.
Fighting intellectual property violations in developing countries
will take more than cracking the whip on illegal sales. We need to
create the political will at the top of the governance structure so we
can drive a real impact on the ground.
Mr. Wolf, I would like to thank you for your leadership on our
Nation's diplomatic priorities and ask if you would be willing to work
with me to provide additional funding for the State Department's Bureau
of Economic and Business Affairs to give them the resources to work on
developing institutions to enforce intellectual property protections in
non-OECD countries.
Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman; and I will
work with her to provide additional resources for the State
Department's Economic Bureau to enhance their ability to pursue better
enforcement of intellectual property protections in non-OECD countries.
But where is the amendment to put the will, the commitment, the
passion? And frankly, we will be glad to do this. But some big law firm
down on K Street is going to be retained by some of these people, and
they will be coming up here and working the administration and working
others. Funding is good, but give me somebody who really cares, really
believes, really is committed.
When you have people out there representing the Khartoum Government
in Sudan, when Darfur and China has all these big law firms on
retention, just funding this, so unless there is the commitment, the
determination, but, yes, we will work with you every way we possibly
can.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, we are going to see that your passion
spreads throughout this House.
And I would like to ask, now, Mr. Mollohan the same question. Would
you be willing to work with me to allocate additional funding for the
State Department's Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs to give them
the resources to work on developing political will to enforce
intellectual property protections in the non-OECD countries?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, I would be pleased to work with the chairman and
the gentlewoman; pledge to work to increase resources for the State
Department's economic bureau to enhance their ability to improve
enforcement of intellectual property protection.
Ms. WATSON. And I want to thank you so much, Mr. Mollohan and Mr.
Wolf.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Culberson
Mr. CULBERSON. 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. Culberson:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used in contravention of section
1373 of title 8, United States Code.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the State of Texas today executed one of
the most dangerous, vicious killers in our State's history. Maturino
Resendiz was known as the ``Railway Killer.'' He had killed repeatedly.
He was a serial killer who had been arrested and deported seven times
prior to the murder of Dr. Claudia Benton in Houston.
This individual was present in the United States illegally, but the
City of Houston has a policy, in violation of Federal law, that
prohibits Houston police officers from asking whether or not an
individual they pick up is in the United States illegally.
The Federal law is very clear that local governments, local law
enforcement agencies, cannot have any policy that prohibits or
restricts the ability of a police officer from determining someone's
presence in the country, whether or not they are legal. And my
amendment simply enforces existing Federal law and makes it clear that,
in order for a local government or police
[[Page H4732]]
agency to receive Federal money, they must comply with Federal law and
follow Federal law in determining whether or not the person they have
detained is here illegally.
The City of Los Angeles has a similar policy. Yet 95 percent of their
outstanding warrants for homicide are for illegal aliens. This is a law
and order amendment, Mr. Chairman.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is a conflict, and you are
conflicted when you come to the floor and a good friend and colleague
wants to undermine his own city.
Frankly, I think my colleagues need to understand what this sanctuary
means. It is a misnomer. It gives a suggestion that we are, in fact,
welcoming and providing a grand parade. What it simply says is that we
are going to burden, this amendment is going to be an unfunded mandate
on local cities and jurisdictions whose law enforcement officers are
busy in various parts of their communities trying to protect Americans
from break-ins.
There is no way that you can connect the tragedy and horrificness of
this executed individual, which no one has disagreed with, with the
policies of individual cities where they make a decision that they are
utilizing their police officers to take care of the juveniles who need
help, to take care of the victims of rape, unfortunately, who need
help, to take care of those who are victimized by homicide who need
help.
The City of Houston is on record, the chief of police is on record,
and the record is that our officers are there to do the work of the
local government. They are not there to do the work of the Federal
Government.
I would wish my good friend and colleague would add and join us in
reinvesting into border patrol agents and ICE agents. And, by the way,
any suggestion that they are not cooperating, I met with the police
chief. There is no indication whatsoever in Houston that they are not
cooperating with the local law enforcement and ICE.
What you do with this, and I hope my colleagues are listening. I know
this sounds like Let's Bash an Immigrant Day. But what you will be
doing is you will be cutting off funds from your local jurisdictions.
They need to make their own decisions without the punitive measures of
this Federal Government, particularly when we have fallen down on the
job and not provided the kind of funding that we need for internal
enforcement and for law enforcement and for border patrol agents.
So I would hope this distinguished gentleman would understand that
you are putting an unfunded mandate on your own city and many other
municipalities across America.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1615
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to point out
that the sanctuary policy my colleague is attempting to protect is a
policy designed to protect and shield criminal aliens, and my amendment
enforces Federal law. Federal law is intended to uncloak those criminal
aliens and allow local law enforcement officers to identify people like
the Railway Killer so they can turn them over to Federal authorities.
Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague
from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend
and colleague from Texas for this amendment.
My hometown of Austin has seen the horrifying effects that a
sanctuary policy can have on a community.
Nearly 3 years ago, an 18-year-old woman by the name of Jenny Garcia
was found stabbed to death in her northwest Austin home. An illegal
alien by the name of David Diaz Morales was one of Jenny's coworkers.
He made it clear to her that he wanted to be more than that. When Jenny
rejected his advances, this put him into a rage. And on January 26,
2004, Morales broke into Jenny's home, forcefully grabbed her, held her
down, raped her and brutally stabbed her to death.
In less than 24 hours, the Austin Police Department arrested this 20-
year-old criminal who had absolutely no business being in the United
States, let alone Jenny's home.
However, Mr. Morales had no business being free to walk America's
streets either. You see, before murdering Jenny, he had been previously
arrested for molesting a child in Austin. Travis County District
Attorney Ronnie Earle declined to prosecute the case. Morales wasn't
deported. Instead, he was released on the streets of Austin, resulting
in the murder of Jenny Garcia. Jenny did not have to die that day.
This is one of many horrific examples of the many preventable
injustices that have resulted from this irresponsible sanctuary policy.
We owe it to victims like Jenny Garcia and so many others to include
this language in the underlying bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues
to support the Culberson amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the House
very briefly that the House has already approved this amendment on a
vote of 218.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo).
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the
committee, who, I understand, is going to accept this amendment. I want
to thank the author of the amendment.
This has come up time and time again in front of this House. We have
cities all over this country that are ignoring the law. It is part of
the law today that says you cannot have sanctuary cities, and yet
cities are doing it, and they are snubbing their noses at the Federal
law. And as a result of it, crimes are being committed. People have
been killed as a result of the fact that cities provide sanctuary for
people who are here illegally, have come in contact with the police,
and the police have refused to make that known to the ICE agency. As a
result of that kind of policy, people in this country have died.
I, again, want to thank the author of the amendment and the committee
for accepting this amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to
clarify, I think, the discussion here on the floor, and my deepest
sympathy for cases that have been previously cited.
The sanctuary terminology, again, is a misnomer. It is a suggestion
that law enforcement has actually put a welcome mat out for criminals.
It is well known that any criminal that does a criminal act or is
stopped for a traffic infraction is, in fact, taken care of by the
local municipality. Where we have had failures is that we have not had
sufficient funding for internal enforcement officers and others dealing
with immigration issues for these individuals to be transferred.
I cannot stand here on the floor and allow the debate to suggest that
local law enforcement, sheriffs, constables, police are letting
horrific criminals go. They simply are not. If you do the crime, you
will be arrested and do the time if your law enforcement are engaged.
This will punish cities who are not turning their law enforcement,
their meager law enforcement resources, into immigration patrols. That
is a responsibility of the Federal Government. And to suggest that this
amendment is going to stop the railroad killer and others; that was a
combination of U.S. Marshals and FBI and HPD and everyone who was
focused on finding that killer. No one is letting killers get away. And
this particular amendment is not what Members may think it is, a way to
get and to stand tall on illegal immigration. This is a way to
undermine your respective local jurisdictions who have the
responsibility of
[[Page H4733]]
the enforcement of the law to protect the citizens of the jurisdiction
or this Nation. All this does is jeopardize their funding when one
citizen says, ``You know what? They let this individual go that looked
like they were undocumented, and they were driving a car.'' This is
what this does. And you go to any of your towns and find out that there
are individuals whose surnames are other than ours or other than what
you would perceive to be a standard name, if you will, and has a
Hispanic sound or has some other sound to it and you want law
enforcement then to arrest them, and you would suggest that law
enforcement is not doing their job if they release them. This is the
kind of determination you are going to ask on the streets of your
respective cities and counties and jurisdictions when you should be
dealing with this from the funding perspective of the Federal
Government.
This is a bad provision. Whether it has been voted on before, it is a
bad provision, and all it is going to do is hurt the cities. And,
clearly, my good friend and colleague knows that this debate is going
on in the City of Houston as we speak, and those are the individuals
that need to make that decision.
I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from
California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from
Texas for yielding.
Let me make it clear. What this amendment does, which I support, is
very simple. There is a Federal law that says you may not prohibit, it
does not require you do it, but you may not prohibit local law
enforcement officials from cooperating on immigration issues. This
amendment simply says you cannot use Federal funds to violate Federal
law. Pretty simple. Pretty logical. Do not use Federal funds to violate
existing Federal law. You do not have to make them, but do not prohibit
your law enforcement from cooperating on immigration issues.
We should pass this amendment.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to point out that
Congress has passed and the President has signed Federal legislation on
the books which requires local law enforcement officers to identify a
person who is in the country illegally. Local law enforcement needs
every tool in their tool kit possible to identify and uncover criminal
aliens.
This amendment is aimed at enforcing Federal law, giving local law
enforcement the tools they need to identify and uncover killers like
the Railroad Killer, who was executed today in Texas.
The sanctuary policy that my colleague from Houston is attempting to
defend is a ``don't ask and don't tell'' policy that prohibits officers
from identifying criminal aliens. A vote for this amendment is to help
law enforcement identify and report criminal aliens and enforce Federal
law.
I urge a ``yes'' on the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Etheridge
Mr. ETHERIDGE. 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. Etheridge:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. For the Public Safety Officers' Death Benefits
program, as authorized by part L of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to fund
obligations of the Department of Justice resulting from
subsection (k) of section 1201 of such part, in additition to
amounts otherwise appropriated by this Act under title I for
``public safety officers'' for payments authorized by such
part L and hereby derived from the amount provided in this
Act under title I for ``General administration--salaries and
expenses'', $38,000,000.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, Michael Childress, Randelman, North
Carolina; Roger Armstrong, Atlanta, Illinois; Steven Rosenfeld, Salem,
Virginia; Donald Eugene Ward, Columbus, Ohio; Richard Allen Fast, Alum
Bridge, West Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, these are just five of the 135 eligible firefighters
who have died in the line of duty since this House unanimously approved
the Hometown Heroes Survivor Benefit Act and it was signed by the
President into law on December 15, 2003.
The Hometown Heroes Act, which had 281 bipartisan cosponsors, made
sure that a public service officer, such as a fireman, law enforcement
officer, EMT or other public servant, who died of a fatal heart attack
or stroke in the line of duty would receive a benefit.
Since the President signed this bill into law on December 15, 2\1/2\
years ago, 135 firefighters have suffered a fatal heart attack or
stroke while responding to a call. However, in 2\1/2\ years, none of
these survivors have received one single penny of these congressionally
authorized benefits because the U.S. Department of Justice has not
approved the regulations.
I have offered this amendment to highlight the Justice Department's
foot dragging and delays. The first delay came when they proposed
regulations that were in direct contradiction to the legislation that
was passed. They then delayed when they quibbled with the words and
phrases. The last excuse is that they are waiting for approval from the
Office of Management and Budget.
Mr. Chairman, Members and staff spent countless hours while writing
this legislation to clarify what it really meant. During the Judiciary
Committee markup on this measure, Chairman Sensenbrenner stated, ``I
believe this bill provides the Bureau of Justice Assistance with the
direction they require in reviewing and granting these benefits to
deserving and qualified public safety officers who dedicate themselves
to the public interest and pay the ultimate price for the public
good.''
Once the President signed the bill into law, we were in constant
contact with DOJ, working through the queries.
The brave men and women who serve our cities and towns every day,
many of whom are volunteers, do not delay when they are given a call
and someone is in distress. They act, and they act immediately.
I call on Attorney General Gonzales to stop making excuses, to end
the delays, stop denying these victims and families the benefits they
deserve. The brave men and women should not have to wait another day.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode
Island (Mr. Kennedy), who just lost a fireman in his district.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
North Carolina for his work on this issue.
On June 13, Rhode Island and Providence lost Mike Day due to a heart
attack just after he had returned from a fire to the fire station. He
is the son of a firefighter, and he is one of four brothers who all
became Providence firefighters. He was passionate about helping save
people's lives and helping to serve people.
Who has he left behind? He has left his wife of 22 years behind,
Cynthia, as well as four children, Mike Jr., Amanda, Brianne and
Stephanie.
The Hometown Heroes Act was signed by the President 3 years ago.
Where is the support for these families who put their lives on the line
to save our lives and our communities? The delay out there from the
Department of Justice means that these benefit applications of people
like Mike Day are waiting, collecting dust in the Department of
Justice. This is inexcusable.
Mr. Chairman, I believe our public safety officers need to know that
if they lay down their lives for us that we are going to be there to
back their families up and make sure those families are supported. The
hardship of these families shouldn't wait on the Department of Justice
and neither should we
[[Page H4734]]
in Congress wait for the Department of Justice.
I urge passage of this amendment.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
{time} 1630
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Bob Etheridge should be
commended for what he did 3 years ago; and we had an overwhelming vote
on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Unfortunately, none of the survivors of the 135 firefighters that he
mentioned just a few moments ago and which Mr. Kennedy mentioned a few
moments ago that died have received a single penny of the authorized
benefits. This is because the Justice Department has not approved the
regulations that would put the provision of the Hometown Heroes Act
into effect.
This is unconscionable. This is wholly unacceptable. This is another
time where the will of the Congress has not been activated.
This amendment sends a necessary directive to the Attorney General
that the families of our Nation's first responders should not be made
to wait for what they deserve any longer. This amendment is a clear
message that the Congress will no longer allow the Department of
Justice to inexplicably harm the families of our Nation's heroes.
This was the right thing to do 3 years ago. It is the right thing to
do now, to pass this amendment now. I was proud to stand with the
gentleman from North Carolina when we passed this, many of us, all of
us, in December, 2003. We want their loved ones to be fully taken care
of. This amendment is that message. It is time for us to act, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman is going to
withdraw the amendment. On page 65 of the report, the subcommittee says
the committee expects the Department of Justice to work swiftly toward
full implementation of the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Act.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to compliment the
gentleman from North Carolina for bringing this issue up. I remember
when he first brought it to the Congress, and I want to compliment him
for bringing this amendment to the floor.
I also want to compliment the chairman for recognizing this has been
a problem. It is contained in our report that the Justice Department
move quickly. I just want to point out this isn't a hard thing for the
Justice Department to do. Rulemaking as simple as this ought to be done
in 30 days. Publish the proposed rule, get a few comments and get it
out there. It is inexcusable that this program, which is so
meritorious, hasn't been implemented for 3 years.
I support the gentleman's effort.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his willingness
to work on this and also Ranking Member Mollohan. They are absolutely
right. There is no excuse for this. Men and women are doing their job,
and we ought to support them.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, with
the understanding it is going to be in the report language.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Capuano
Mr. CAPUANO. 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. Capuano:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. For grants for young witness assistance, as
authorized by section 1136 of the Violence Against Women and
Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law
109-162), and the amount otherwise provided by this Act for
``Other--salaries and expenses, departmental management'' is
hereby reduced by, $3,000,000.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, very simply, this amendment will help protect young
juvenile witnesses who have the courage to do the right thing and stand
up and testify against criminals that they have witnessed.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment. I was
waiting to hear his speech. I was listening and settling in. I do
accept the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts.
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel
Mr. ENGEL. 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. Engel:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used in contravention of section 303 of the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13212).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I am offering the same amendment that
I have offered to almost all the other appropriations bills which have
all been accepted, because I think it is so important for the Federal
Government to put its money where its mouth is.
We are all running around talking about alternative energy and
alternative fuel vehicles. All the while, our Federal agencies are
failing to fully implement the 1992 Energy Policy Act which the
Congress passed and which the President signed into law.
Seventy-five percent of new vehicles purchased for the Federal fleet
should be alternative fuel by now, but it is only about 26 percent. For
the major agencies in this bill, the numbers are disheartening. The
Department of Commerce has only 32 percent of alternative fuel
vehicles, the Department of Justice came in at a paltry 6 percent, and
the Department of State was just 9 percent.
We have not only the opportunity to end our addiction to oil, we have
the need to do so. Our national security continues to be threatened
because we are reliant on undemocratic sheikdoms in the Middle East
that funnel money to the terrorists who would do us harm.
Our energy policy and our national security policy are intertwined,
and we can start right here by mandating that our Federal agencies look
for alternative fuel vehicles, which they have to do by a law that we
passed more than a decade ago.
So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and provide the
leadership that is so desperately needed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
The amendment was agreed to.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, before beginning, I have a parliamentary
inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
[[Page H4735]]
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments at the desk having
to do with the medicinal use of marijuana. I understand that the first
one has been allocated 10 minutes and the second one has been allocated
20 minutes, is that correct?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey
Mr. HINCHEY. 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. Hinchey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
used by the Department of Justice to prevent the States of
Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode
Island, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington from
implementing State laws authorizing the use of medical
marijuana, and the Attorney General shall transfer from
available appropriations for the current fiscal year for the
Department of Justice any amounts that would have been used
for such purpose but for this section to ``Drug Enforcement
Administration, Salaries and Expenses'', for the Drug
Enforcement Administration to assist State and local law
enforcement with proper removal and disposal of hazardous
materials from illegal methamphetamine labs, including
funding for training, technical assistance, a container
program, and purchase of equipment to adequately remove and
store hazardous material.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 2006, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment was to reallocate funding
in this bill away from the prosecution of the use of marijuana for
medicinal purposes in those 11 States where either the legislature or
the people of those States by referenda have decided that they would
like to have marijuana use for medicinal purposes under the supervision
of a licensed physician in those 11 States, to have it moved from there
to the enforcement of methamphetamine violations.
My understanding is that the chairman is going to insist on a point
of order, saying that this is legislating on an appropriations bill. Am
I correct about that?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has reserved a point of order.
Mr. WOLF. I reserved the point of order.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I don't know why there would be a point of
order against this amendment, because it seems to me that we have the
ability to make these kinds of decisions now. This is not legislating
on an appropriations bill. It is simply moving one appropriation for
one particular purpose to a better purpose.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, regardless of how you have voted in the
past, there are two critical developments since the last vote that make
compelling arguments for a ``no'' vote on the Hinchey Amendment to the
SSJC Appropriations bill. The Hinchey Amendment would deny law
enforcement agencies Federal funds to enforce the Controlled Substances
Act in those States where `medicinal' marijuana is legal under State
law.
First, the FDA in April of this year confirmed that there is no
research to sustain the supposed ``medicinal value'' in smoked
marijuana. On April 20, 2006, the FDA stated, ``A past evaluation by
several Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies,
including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and National Institute
for Drug Abuse (NIDA), concluded that no sound scientific studies
supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States,
and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of
marijuana for general medical use.'' Furthermore, the ``FDA has not
approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease indication.''
Second, research from a 25-year longitudinal study by the
Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Services showed that regular
or heavy marijuana use was linked to a wide range of other illicit
drugs and to a dependence or abuse of these other illicit drugs.
The research concluded that ``following tight statistical controls,
there is a clear tendency for those using cannabis to have higher rates
of usage of other illicit drugs. This tendency is most evident for
regular users of cannabis, and is even more marked in adolescents than
in young adults.'' These researchers, using the most robust
longitudinal database in the world, show what we have long suspected--
marijuana is a gateway to even more dangerous drugs of abuse.
A handful of states have legalized smoked marijuana for medical
claims. Not only are patients being given an ineffective, unapproved,
and even harmful drug, but also one that is illegal under Federal law.
Time and time again, research has demonstrated the harmful effects of
marijuana. According to Dr. Nora Volkow, the Director of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), marijuana ``can produce adverse
physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral changes, and--contrary to
popular belief--it can be addictive. Marijuana smoke, like cigarette
smoke, can harm the lungs. The use of marijuana can impair short-term
memory, verbal skills, and judgment and distort perception. It also may
weaken the immune system and possibly increase a user's likelihood of
developing cancer. Finally, the increasing use of marijuana by very
young teens may have a profoundly negative effect upon their
development.''
It is of the utmost importance that law enforcement be able to
protect this country from dangerous drug trafficking, including
marijuana. Join us in opposing the Hinchey amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in any case, I respect the chairman's
decision; and, with that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey
Mr. HINCHEY. 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. Hinchey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Department of Justice may be used to prevent the States
of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana,
Rhode Island, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington from
implementing State laws authorizing the use of medical
marijuana in those States.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member
opposed each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to do with two things: It has to do
with compassion, compassion for people who are very seriously ill and/
or dying, and the ability of States in which those people live to
provide means by which their suffering can be relieved.
It also has to do with one other point, and that is the issue of
States' rights, the ability of the States to determine how medical care
will be regulated in those States.
We have 11 States in our country, Mr. Chairman, that have determined
that it is in the interests of the people of those States that they be
allowed to use marijuana for medicinal purposes to alleviate the
suffering from such things as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and multiple
sclerosis: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode
Island, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. However, the Federal
Government has decided that they are going to intervene and prevent
those States from carrying out the laws which were passed in two cases
by the State legislatures and in nine cases by referenda by the people
of those States.
We will hear from the people who oppose this amendment that marijuana
has something to do with a gateway drug. In other words, it introduces
people to other drugs. This amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with
that. This amendment has nothing to do with drug addiction. This
amendment has nothing to do with the potential for drug addiction. This
amendment simply has to do with the ability of States to relieve the
suffering of their citizens without Federal intervention and the right
of States to pass
[[Page H4736]]
laws regulating medical practice without Federal intervention. It is a
very simple amendment, and it ought to be passed.
Those people here who believe in small government should support it.
Those people here who believe in the issue of States' rights ought to
support it. And those people here who believe that State governments
and the people in those governments have the right to take care of
their citizens and alleviate their suffering, those people in this
House ought to support this amendment as well.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind our guests in the gallery
that demonstrations of either approval or disapproval are not
appropriate.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 10
minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
Hinchey amendment.
Let's be clear: Marijuana is not harmless, as some claim. It is a
schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning it has no
accepted medical use in treatment and has a high potential for abuse.
In fact, marijuana continues to be the most widely abused drug in the
United States.
Those who anecdotally claim that marijuana has a medical benefit do
not differentiate between THC and whole marijuana. Whole marijuana
contains hundreds of chemicals, many of which are harmful to one's
health. An evaluation by several Federal agencies concluded that no
sound scientific studies supported marijuana's medical use, and smoking
marijuana is not approved as a legitimate medical use by the FDA.
The bottom line is, marijuana is an addictive substance that is
linked to cancer and respiratory ailments and problems with the immune
and reproductive system.
Let me say as a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free
America, marijuana is the drug that will tell whether or not someone is
going to get on methamphetamines. It is the precursor, the gateway
drug, for heroin use. As we continue to fight this battle against
illegal drug use, this is the drug that gets people started.
Anyone who is trying to send a message to our young people today
should be embarrassed by having an amendment like this, because this is
telling people that this is okay, that it is socially acceptable, that
you can start here and it won't hurt you. And, in fact, medically,
scientifically, that is dead wrong.
The message we are sending to our children today is very strong.
Whether we support legal use of marijuana as a precursor to
methamphetamines, to heroin, this is the message we will be sending if
we approve this. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this
amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the cosponsor of this
amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment. Our amendment would prohibit any funds
made available in this act to the Department of Justice from being used
to prevent the implementation of legally passed State laws in those 11
States authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes.
Our coalition of freedom-minded Republicans and Democrats on this
issue is based on compassion for those who are suffering, a commitment
to personal liberty and a firm belief in the principles of federalism.
{time} 1645
The use of marijuana to relieve the pain of victims of a wide variety
of medical conditions is well known and increasingly documented in the
media and in medical journals. For many of these people, medical
science has not been able to relieve their pain.
Just recently a friend of mine and a friend of many years passed
away, Lyn Nofziger, and many of you here probably know him. He was
Ronald Reagan's first press secretary. I went to see him after he got
out of the hospital with his treatments for cancer.
He had his good days and his bad days. I saw him about a week before
he died. And I asked Lyn about it, and he said, yes, sometimes it is
bad, and other times it is not, but I could not get myself to eat, and
I had the pain no matter what they did for me.
And I said, well, did you ever try that medical marijuana that we
have been talking about and debating about? And he got a twinkle in his
eye, and he said, yes, I did. And it brought my appetite back, and I
slept like a baby. Do not tell me that we should have Federal law
enforcement people come into a State where the people have voted to
approve that if a doctor agrees and get in the way of Lyn Nofziger or
anyone else who is suffering and use Federal money and Federal
resources that should be going to fight crime in order to create that
obstacle.
That is a travesty. Individuals who live in the 11 States affected by
the amendment have been granted by the voters of these States the legal
right to use marijuana to alleviate their pain if a doctor agrees. If
the voters have so voted and a doctor agrees, it is a travesty for the
government to intercede, the Federal Government, allocating our scarce
resources to fighting this, getting in the way of someone using
something to alleviate their suffering.
This is something which should be left to the States as American
tradition dictates. Sandra Day O'Connor stated it best, and she stated
that States should serve as a laboratory so that people can try certain
new ideas out to see how they work.
Well, the Federal Government should not get in the way of what is
going on in these 11 States to see how this works. The most recent
decision of the Supreme Court has thrown the ball into the hands of the
U.S. Congress. Paul Stevens, Justice Paul Stevens, made it clear: the
voices of the voters may one day be heard in the Halls of Congress on
behalf of legalizing marijuana. Eleven States have already acted.
I would hope you would all join us for the principles of federalism,
compassion and individual liberty and not get in the way of the people
who are suffering.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 1
minute to the gentleman.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, we have people out there, not just Lyn
Nofziger but others, and my mother suffered. I remember how she lost
her appetite after suffering a debilitating disease in which she had to
go through treatments.
This is a travesty to use scarce Federal resources. Join this
coalition of people who are Republicans and Democrats who believe in
federalism, who believe in compassion and believe in personal liberty.
Let doctors prescribe these things, not Federal Government bureaucrats.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time.
Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the authors of this amendment. I simply
want to say this: If I am terminally ill, it is not anybody's business
on this floor how I handle the pain or the illness or the sickness
associated with that illness.
With all due respect to all of you, butt out. I did not enter this
world with the permission of the Justice Department, and I am certainly
not going to depart it by seeking their permission or that of any other
authority.
The Congress has no business telling people that they cannot manage
their illness or their pain any way they need to. I would trust any
doctor in the country before I trust some of the daffy ducks in this
institution to decide what I am supposed to do if I am terminally ill.
The idea that somehow this is a gateway that we are creating for a
drug like meth is a joke. I detest meth. I have seen what it does. It
is a plague on my district. It is especially horrendous in the midwest,
and it is getting worse every day. That has nothing whatsoever to do
with the management of pain and misery for people who are sick and who
are dying.
When is this Congress going to recognize that individuals in their
private lives have a right to manage their problems as they see fit
without the permission of the big guy in the White
[[Page H4737]]
House or the big guy in the Justice Department or any of the
Lilliputians on this Congressional floor? Wake up.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me
time and for the privilege to address this issue.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard from the other Member from Iowa (Mr.
Latham) that the Food and Drug Administration has classified marijuana,
along with heroin, LSD, methamphetamine, hashish and a number of other
drugs, as Schedule I drugs. That is because they carry a high potential
for dangerous abuse.
And so doctors in most States even prohibit them for being prescribed
for medicinal purposes. That is a standard. That is the national
standard. The issue was raised about States' rights. But no one has
raised the issue about States' rights about the other drugs that are
Schedule I drugs.
But we do have a right, a constitutional right and an obligation to
regulate drugs in America. The question really is, is marijuana among
them? And it is. And so we would be seeking to, by this amendment,
usurp that decision and change that standard.
But with regard to the addictive nature of marijuana, I am looking at
a study here that says that if adults started at a fairly young age,
say by the time of 26 or older, they used marijuana before the age of
15, 62 percent reported a lifetime cocaine use, 9 permanent reported
lifetime heroin use, and 54 percent reported nonmedical use of
psychotherapeutics. And this does not include methamphetamines, which
is abused more than any of these drugs that I mentioned here.
So this is a high use issue. It is also something that infringes upon
or inhibits our ability and our reflexes with regard to driving. So,
for example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports
that marijuana use has been shown to impair driving performance. These
things we know.
Then with regard to the gentleman from California's statements about
he could not, that Mr. Nofziger could not get himself to eat, if that
is our issue, then let us focus on the synthetic THC that is now
available. It is available in a drug by the name of Marinol, and it has
been proven to be effective, especially dealing with cancer patients
and with the nausea associated with the chemotherapy treatments and
also with the appetite, that might help assisting the appetite with
AIDS patients.
There is a way that we can use the THC, and there is a way also that
we can protect this country against that kind of Schedule I drug.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Four and a half minutes.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher-
Paul-Farr amendment.
Mr. Chairman, every year we bring this amendment to the floor. So far
it has never passed. Some may ask, well, why are we doing this again?
Well, the answer is because of the statements that have been made
already by Mr. Hinchey and Mr. Obey about compassion for people who are
suffering.
We offer this amendment for terminal cancer patients, for AIDS
victims, for persons who suffer chronic pain. We offer this amendment
not only to protect those people; we offer this amendment to protect
these States that are progressive enough to provide alternative medical
options to those who need it.
So often this body insists on protecting the rights of States to
define marriage. So often this body insists on protecting the rights of
States to set abortion policies. So often this body insists on
protecting the rights of States to determine education curricula and
standards.
But when it comes to protecting the rights of States to set medical
scope of practice, this body balks. All of a sudden States no longer
have the right to determine what is best for their citizens when it
includes medical marijuana.
The Hinchey amendment does not change Federal law. It does not change
drug policy. It does protect States' rights. For those of you who come
from States that do not have medical marijuana laws, nothing in this
amendment will affect your State. Everything in your State remains
status quo.
For those of you who come from States that do have medical marijuana
laws, very little in this amendment will impact your State. The only
difference now is that your State will be able to implement its laws
without little old ladies being busted by Federal cops. I support this
amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a member of the committee.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this
amendment. For 20 years, in State government, I worked on health
issues. I chaired the health committee for a decade. I asked leaders
and major medical groups; I asked leaders in the medical societies; and
since I have been here I have asked leaders at NIH, do we need to
legalize marijuana? And I have never had a positive answer.
They said, we have more drugs than we need. We have more things that
are out there for people that will perform better than marijuana. But
what I tell you what I do not want to do, I do not want to support the
belief that too many of our young people already have that marijuana is
a harmless drug. I know better. I had young people work for me in my
supermarket who I knew were using marijuana.
And they used it for a period of years, folks. And they are not as
sharp after years of marijuana use as they would have been. It dulls
the brain. It holds back the growth. Brains are not mature until they
are 25. And marijuana use has been proven to deter brain growth. A
close friend of mine in Harrisburg who was a prominent State legislator
was having dinner with me 25 years ago, and he was talking about
Johnnie, who was attending Penn State, the brightest of three children.
And all of a sudden, Johnnie in his junior year in college was not
doing well. He could not figure out why. He visited him two or three
weekends in a month, 3 months in a row, to try to figure out what was
wrong with Johnnie. In his senior year of high school, Johnnie had
started using marijuana.
Johnnie lost his thrust for life. Johnnie lost the keen mind that God
had given him. Marijuana stole him from the potential he had. Folks, if
I thought the American public needed legal marijuana for pain and
suffering, I would support it. We have more drugs than we need on the
marketplace.
Marijuana destroys young people's chances to have good lives. I have
close friends and even relatives who are living less of a life than
they would have if they had not spent years abusing marijuana.
Marijuana is a dangerous drug that is not adequately respected by the
young people of this country because they have been seduced by leaders
in this country advocating that it is a perfect, wonderful drug.
Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for
the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I stand to support the Hinchey/Rohrabacher Amendment,
an amendment to end federal raids on medical marijuana patients and
providers in states where medical marijuana is legal.
Despite marijuana's recognized therapeutic value, including a
National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine report recommending
its use in certain circumstances, federal law refuses to recognize its
medicinal importance and safety.
This amendment does not change the classification of marijuana as a
Schedule I narcotic. It does not legalize marijuana, or stop law
enforcement officials from prosecuting individuals for recreational use
of marijuana. It does not require that states adopt laws protecting the
medicinal use of marijuana. It simply extends the protections already
provided at the state level in ten states to the federal level. It
ensures that critically ill patients can find relief from nausea and
pain without worrying that the federal government will prosecute them.
The federal government should use its power to help terminally ill
citizens, not arrest them. I strongly urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
[[Page H4738]]
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have never been an
advocate for drug testing for Members of Congress, but hearing that
marijuana use can dull the brain makes me think maybe this is something
that we ought to be checking into.
I am always heightened in my support of an activity, an amendment,
when those opposing will not argue it directly. We are not talking
about 18-year-olds getting into methamphetamines. This is a very narrow
amendment. It says, where a State has decided by its own democratic
processes to legalize marijuana according to a doctor's prescription,
we will not arrest people who try to do it federally.
{time} 1700
Very few of the arguments have met that. The question of marijuana in
general is not before us. This does not legalize marijuana. We have
many drugs that can legally be prescribed that are far more behavior
altering, far more addictive than marijuana has ever alleged to be.
This is a question about whether or not we are going to reach into
medical practice and say to medical practitioners whose States would
allow them to do it that, because of cultural and other concerns about
this drug, we ban its use when you might find it medically appropriate.
This is, again, the time when I think the slogan of this House ought
to be: We are not doctors; we just play them on C-SPAN.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the
amendment. As a member of the medical community, I understand the
importance of effectively treating and preventing pain.
However, the medical use of smoked marijuana has been rejected by the
American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society and other
leading health care organizations.
The concern is that marijuana smokers are exposing themselves to a
crude and harmful drug delivery system.
Marijuana smoke contains a variety of toxic chemicals that can cause
damage and may even exacerbate the underlying medical condition.
The Federal Government has provided money for research into the
medicinal use of THC, which is believed to be the primary chemical
component responsible for marijuana's psycho-pharmacological effects. I
support that approach.
As a result of such research, synthetic forms of THC have been
available as an oral prescription for 20 years.
Ultimately, inhaling marijuana smoke and tar are not effective
treatments for medical conditions.
For these reasons and primarily because of the opposition of leading
health care organizations, I must rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, over the past months, we have all met with
them. They live in our towns. They come to our offices. They come to
the Hill every single year, and they come from all walks of life. They
share with us their experience or the experiences of someone they
loved, someone with epilepsy, glaucoma, cancer, AIDS or other chronic
pain. Their stories touch our lives, and if only for a moment, we feel
their misery.
But unless we are affected personally or know somebody who is
affected, after a few hours, we inevitably get caught up in something
else. Today, we can actually do something that might improve their
lives. We can stop prosecuting the use of medical marijuana in the
States that legally permit it.
The choice to use medical marijuana is mostly made out of medical
necessity and the desire to get through the day with as much normalcy
and strength as possible.
This is the right thing to do for those who are sick, who are in pain
and those who cannot keep a meal down. Let's not be bad politicians.
Let's make smart decisions. Let's help these good people.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. There has been a lot of talk
about the Fraternal Order of Police and how we support our police. Here
is a letter from the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck
Canterbury, National President, saying, referring to the Hinchey
amendment:
Such an amendment threatens to cause a significant
disruptive effect on the combined efforts of State and local
law enforcement to reduce drug crime in every region of the
country. On behalf of the more than 324,000 members of the
Fraternal Order of Police, we urge its defeat.
We talked a lot about the police and how we want to do this to
support them. I think we should support the police here. I urge a
strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and
for, once again, his leadership on this important issue.
Taxpayers dollars quite frankly should not be spent on sending
seriously or terminally ill patients to jail. Their doctors, not
Congress, should decide which drugs will work best. So I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and ensure patients'
rights because that is what this is about, that patients' rights are
upheld.
This amendment does not encourage nor does it make legal the
recreational use of marijuana. For example, Angel Raich, my constituent
from Oakland, has been diagnosed with more than ten serious medical
conditions, including inoperable brain tumors. She, and others who use
medical marijuana, are simply trying to relieve their crushing pain
while following the guidelines and the laws that their doctors and that
their States have already established.
So please pass this amendment. Patients deserve this. We should not
send terminally ill patients or seriously ill patients to jail.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Chairman, the arguments that have been put forth against this
amendment have nothing to do with this amendment. This amendment has
nothing to do with legalizing marijuana. It has to do with two simple
things: being compassionate for people who are suffering and dying
under the lawful provisions of laws passed in their States, the 11
States that have done so; and States' rights, the right of States to
govern medical malpractice, not this Congress. This Congress should
recognize States' rights and live up to the provisions of the
Constitution and pass this amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
For 5 years in the Senate, I was a staffer under Senator Hawkins, who
chaired the Drug Policy Committee on the Senate side. I have served
most of my time in the House on the Criminal Justice Drug Policy
Subcommittee or one of its predecessors. I chaired Criminal Justice
Drug Policy.
I point that out to tell you, in the nearly two decades, I have never
heard one credible source that said that there is a need for medical
prescription and use of marijuana, not one credible source through
dozens and dozens of hearings.
In fact, we have heard the other side say, let the doctor decide, and
in fact, the experts, and there is no bigger association than the
American Medical Association of doctors. The National Multiple
Sclerosis Society has opposed this. The American Glaucoma Society has
opposed it. The American Academy of Ophthalmology and the American
Cancer Society have all opposed this type of use.
Millions of dollars have been spent in an effort to try to push this
agenda, and we know Mr. Soros has spent millions.
In 1979, Keith Stroup, the NORML founder, announced that NORML would
be using the issue of medical marijuana as a red herring, not my term,
red herring to give marijuana a good name.
You have heard the testimony. In over half the instances of use of
cocaine and marijuana, the gateway drug that is used, in fact, is
marijuana.
[[Page H4739]]
So this is a gateway opportunity to use and encourage the use of
marijuana. In fact, early marijuana users are eight times more likely
to use cocaine and 15 times more likely to use heroin and five times
more likely to develop a need for treatment. That is according to our
Office of National Drug Control Policy.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, this 15-
minute vote on the Hinchey amendment will be followed by 2-minute votes
on the amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding Arthur Avenue, the
amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding the Bronx Council, the
amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding JARI, the amendment by Mr.
Flake of Arizona regarding Fairmont State University, the amendment by
Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding Kentucky Tourism, and the amendment by
Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
Again, the Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic
vote after the first vote in this series.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163,
noes 259, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 333]
AYES--163
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Campbell (CA)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Porter
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rehberg
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--259
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Gerlach
Holden
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Poe
Sherwood
{time} 1735
Mr. SHAW, Ms. HART and Mr. MEEK of Florida changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. SIMMONS, BURTON of Indiana and GILCHREST changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Skelton was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Honoring Congressman Jim Marshall on His Induction into the United
States Army Rangers Hall of Fame
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I announce
to our colleagues today that a gentleman, a veteran from Vietnam, a
member of the Armed Services Committee, is receiving an extraordinary
honor tomorrow. Tomorrow afternoon, the gentleman from Georgia,
Congressman Jim Marshall, will be inducted into the United States Army
Rangers Hall of Fame, and we are very proud of that.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake)
regarding Arthur Avenue on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 76,
noes 345, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 334]
AYES--76
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bradley (NH)
Campbell (CA)
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Conaway
Cooper
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Ehlers
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Ford
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gingrey
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Inglis (SC)
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kline
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Matheson
McHenry
[[Page H4740]]
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Porter
Price (GA)
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thornberry
Upton
Westmoreland
Whitfield
NOES--345
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Farr
Gerlach
Holden
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Poe
Sherwood
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute
remaining.
{time} 1742
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake)
regarding the Bronx Council on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 74,
noes 343, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 335]
AYES--74
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Bradley (NH)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Chabot
Chocola
Cooper
Cubin
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Ehlers
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Ford
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Inglis (SC)
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kline
Leach
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thornberry
Westmoreland
NOES--343
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
[[Page H4741]]
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--15
Cannon
Davis (FL)
DeGette
Evans
Farr
Gerlach
Hinchey
Holden
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Neal (MA)
Poe
Sherwood
Slaughter
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute
remaining.
{time} 1746
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake)
regarding JARI on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 63,
noes 356, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 336]
AYES--63
Barrett (SC)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bradley (NH)
Burton (IN)
Chabot
Chocola
Conaway
Cooper
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Ford
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gingrey
Gohmert
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Inglis (SC)
Jindal
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kirk
Leach
Linder
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Myrick
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thornberry
Westmoreland
NOES--356
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Farr
Gerlach
Holden
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Poe
Pombo
Sherwood
Slaughter
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there is 1
minute remaining.
{time} 1750
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake)
regarding Fairmont State University on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 70,
noes 350, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 337]
AYES--70
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bradley (NH)
Cantor
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cooper
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Inglis (SC)
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kirk
Kline
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Westmoreland
[[Page H4742]]
NOES--350
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Farr
Gerlach
Holden
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Poe
Sherwood
Slaughter
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 1 minute
remains in this vote.
{time} 1755
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake)
regarding Kentucky Tourism on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 56,
noes 363, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 338]
AYES--56
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Bradley (NH)
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cooper
Deal (GA)
Ehlers
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Ford
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gingrey
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Inglis (SC)
Istook
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (MN)
Linder
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Myrick
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Price (GA)
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thornberry
Westmoreland
NOES--363
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
[[Page H4743]]
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Farr
Gerlach
Holden
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
King (IA)
Poe
Sherwood
Slaughter
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there is 1
minute remaining in this vote.
{time} 1759
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145,
noes 274, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 339]
AYES--145
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bono
Boswell
Bradley (NH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson
Chabot
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Conyers
Cooper
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dingell
Doggett
Duncan
Emerson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Gibbons
Goodlatte
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hart
Hefley
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holt
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kline
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Markey
Matheson
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Ramstad
Renzi
Rothman
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tiberi
Tierney
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--274
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Becerra
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keller
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Northup
Nunes
Ortiz
Osborne
Oxley
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--13
Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Farr
Gerlach
Holden
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Poe
Sherwood
Simpson
Slaughter
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 1 minute
remains in this vote.
{time} 1805
Mr. WU and Mr. TOWNS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Pearce) assumed the Chair.
____________________