Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 86 (Wednesday, June 28, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 86 (Wednesday, June 28, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4743-H4779]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

The Committee resumed its sitting.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Stearns:
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
be used to carry out any provision of section 203 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.

[[Page H4744]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Since 1975, the Bilingual Election Assistance Provisions of the
Voting Rights Act have forced States and political subdivisions to
accommodate multiple languages at the polls. The provisions prohibit
States from providing voting material only in the English language.
While all of us enjoy hearing a wide variety of languages spoken here
in the United States, I think that official government functions of the
government ought to be conducted in English. Let me repeat that. I
think the official government functions of this government ought to be
conducted in English.
Let me state that my amendment is not about immigration, intimidation
or discrimination. It is about assimilation. This is also an amendment
about States' rights. States or political subdivisions can provide
voting assistance in other languages if they want to, but I do not
believe this is good for the United States to mandate.
The United States of America is a Nation of immigrants. We are the
original melting pot. Importantly, though, the first motto of the
United States of America was E pluribus unum: ``Out of many, one.''
This motto symbolizes the integration of the 13 independent colonies
into one united country. The motto assumed even further meaning as
Americans welcomed ever more immigrants from many lands to our shores.
And one of the most unifying elements of one Nation is a common
language.
Since our Nation's founding, there have been people who would
literally suffer life and limb to be an American citizen. And I think
that if you have the good fortune to be able to vote in the United
States, then it is not too much to ask that this be accomplished in
English. You can bring your own assistance to the polls if you need it,
but I do not think the United States Government should be forced to pay
for such assistance.
So, in my opinion, section 203 of the Voting Rights Act would
exacerbate isolation and segregation. If individuals are not nudged,
not pushed by the circumstances of daily living, including voting, to
get out and master the basics of the English language, then they are
denied all the rich opportunities that life in this great Nation
offers. Further, depending upon how you got here, it is generally
expected that you have a command of the English language. If you are
born here and you obtain voting age and are limited for some reason in
English proficiency, then I consider this quite a failing of the
schools. And for most naturalized proceedings, you must pass a limited
English proficiency requirement. Of course, democracy does not end at
the polling place, so if one faces a language barrier to voting, then I
suspect that he or she is secluded from enjoying all the full rights
and privileges of democracy in the United States.
And, finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about applying our
scarce resources wisely in this country. The Bilingual Election
Assistance Provisions come at no small cost to our States, our counties
and our small towns.
For example, does a language with several dialects, such as Chinese,
trigger the assistance requirement? Then the statute says that the
jurisdiction's obligation is to ascertain the dialects that are
commonly used by members of the applicable language minority group in
the jurisdiction and to provide oral assistance in such dialects. Does
a language that is unwritten trigger the requirement? Then oral
assistance and publicity are required. We simply cannot, Mr. Chairman,
afford to translate government documents and transactions into every
possible conceivable language.
Now, if my amendment passes and becomes the law of the land, what
would happen? Here is what: Voters not confident of their command of
the English language would do what all of us would do, bring in their
friends and neighbors and ask for help and assistance. Until 1975,
there was no government duty to provide ballot translation, but a voter
could certainly bring an interpreter of his choice to the voting booth.
I think that all eligible voters should knowledgeably, vigorously
seeking knowledge, exercise their franchise. But let us just be a
Nation that votes united, not divisively.
And I would say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, States should not have
to print ballots in all these various languages. Let us just have the
ballots printed in English.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the
time in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the amendment of my good friend, whom I
admire in an extraordinary fashion, Mr. Stearns.
One of the great advancements, Mr. Chairman, in our American
democracy and of our American democracy was precisely the Voting Rights
Act that made it possible, in effect, for millions of American
citizens, minority American citizens, to have access to that sacred
right that is voting. It is important, Mr. Chairman, that we keep in
mind that this is not an immigration debate, as Mr. Stearns said. We
are talking about American citizens and only about American citizens.
There are, Mr. Chairman, millions of native born American citizens
that speak languages other than English. For example, there are over 4
million native born American citizens from Puerto Rico who speak
Spanish. Many speak English; others do not. They speak primarily
Spanish. It is our belief and it was a great advancement of American
democracy to say that American citizens whose primary language is not
English should also be able to understand ballots, even the most
complicated or simple of ballot initiatives, petitions, ballots with
candidates.

{time} 1815

What this section of the Voting Rights Act says is when there is a
community that has a significant number of people whose language is
other than English, that that community should have access to ballots
in their language of preference, in their language of most fluency.
In addition to the fact that there are millions of American citizens
who are native born and who speak languages other than English, our
laws also establish and call for elderly resident aliens, residents of
the United States, immigrants, who have resided legally in the United
States for more than 15 years, our law says that they can take the exam
to become a citizen of the United States in their native language.
So there are many elderly American citizens, naturalized American
citizens, who are allowed, according to our laws, the laws of our
Congress, to take their naturalization exam to become a proud American
citizen in languages other than English. They should also, Mr.
Chairman, be allowed to vote, and they should also be allowed to
understand even the most complicated of ballot initiatives. So that is
what the law does.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the
comments of my colleague from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. Chairman, as Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American
Caucus, I rise also today to oppose the Stearns amendment.
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act provides protection to enable
every American citizen to exercise their most fundamental and important
right, the right to vote. In short, voting is power.
Unfortunately, even today, many minority voters face impediments or
barriers to voting, including language barriers. The Stearns amendment
will eliminate funding for enforcement of section 203. When that
happens, States and localities will be free to discriminate against
tax-paying American citizens and impede their right to vote.
Section 203 has support from both Democrats and Republicans in
Congress and from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush.
The Tri-Caucus strongly believes that VRA continues to effectively
combat discrimination and protect the

[[Page H4745]]

gains achieved for minority voters. For instance, the U.S. Department
of Justice has reported that, in one year, registration rates among
Spanish and Filipino-speaking American citizens grew by 21 percent and
registration among Vietnamese-speaking American citizens increased over
37 percent after San Diego County started providing language
assistance.
In Apache County, Arizona, the Department's enforcement activities
have resulted in a 26 percent increase in Native American turnout in
four years, allowing Navajo Code talkers, veterans, and the elderly to
participate in elections for the first time.
The Stearns Amendment to H.R. 5672 would undermine the Voting Rights
Act reauthorization process and effectively disenfranchise language
minority voters through the appropriations process.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
Stearns amendment (#21) to H.R. 5672, the Science, State, Justice,
Commerce Appropriations Act for FY 2007.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as I stated, this is a great advancement in our
democracy that we should be proud of. We are talking only about the
rights of American citizens. American citizens whose primary language
is other than English should also be able to vote.
As a Nation, we took an important step forward that, as I say, we all
should be proud of when we facilitated that sacred right to vote to
American citizens whose primary language, whose most fluent language,
is one other than English.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my dear friend, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 30
seconds.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I think the focus of the debate has gone awry. You are
right. It is not an immigration issue. It is a citizen issue.
But I do want to tell my colleagues that many people have fled
persecution, sought asylum, and then become citizens. They come as
adults, they come as elderly persons, but they are now citizens. They
have been fleeing the persecution of oppression, and they come here for
hope, and they come for a dream of opportunity.
When they become citizens, this will simply allow them to partake of
that dream, and that is to vote. This is a bad amendment because it
does not respect the idea that this is a country of freedom. I ask my
colleagues to oppose the Stearn Amendment and support the full
implementation of the Voter Rights Act Reauthorization.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
to the Stearns amendment to H.R. 5672, which would prohibit the
Department of Justice from enforcing section 203 of the Voting Rights
Act. The amendment is divisive, punitive, and will take America in
exactly the wrong direction.
Section 203 removes barriers to voting faced by tax paying American
citizens: Citizens who do not speak English well enough to participate
in the election process. Tax-paying citizens should not be penalized
for needing assistance to exercise their fundamental right to vote.
Language minority citizens are required to pay taxes and serve in the
military without regard to their level of English proficiency. If they
can shoulder those burdens of citizenship, they should be able to share
in the benefits of voting with appropriate assistance to exercise the
vote.
Section 203 protects citizens, not illegal immigrants: Section 203
mandates language assistance based on a trigger formula for language
minorities from four language groups: Native Americans, Native
Alaskans, Asian Americans, and persons of Spanish heritage. The
immigrant debate should not influence the debate on ensuring that the
fundamental right to vote is exercised equally by English and non-
English proficient citizens. According to the 2000 census, three-
quarters of those protected by Section 203 are native-born citizens.
For example, 100 percent of Native Americans and Native Alaskans were
born in the United States; 98.6 percent of Puerto Ricans protected by
Section 4( e) were born in the United States; and 84.2 percent of
Latinos were born in the United States.
Section 203 was enacted to remedy the history of educational
disparities, which have led to high illiteracy rates and low voter turn
out: These disparities continue to exist. As of 2000, three fourths of
the 3 to 3.5 million students who are native-born were considered to be
English Language Learners (ELLs), meaning the students don't speak
English well enough to understand the basic English curriculum. ELL
students lag significantly behind native-English speakers and are twice
as likely to fail graduation tests. California has over 1,500,000 ELLs;
Texas has 570,000 ELLs; Florida has 250,000 ELLs; and New York has over
230,000.
Since 1975, there have been more than 24 education discrimination
cases filed on behalf of ELLs in 15 states: Fourteen of the States in
which education discrimination lawsuits have been brought are covered
by language assistance provisions. Since 1992, 10 cases have been
filed. Litigation and consent decrees are currently pending in Texas,
Alaska, Arizona, and Florida. Discrimination cases that have been
brought address issues such as inadequate funding for ELLs, inadequate
curriculum to assist ELLs become proficient in English, and lack of
teachers and classrooms. These disparities increase the likelihood that
ELLs will achieve lower test scores and drop out of school, ultimately,
leading to lower voter registration and turnout.
Adults who want to learn English must endure long waiting periods to
enroll in English Second Language (ESL) literacy centers: The lack of
funding to expand the number of ESL centers around the country leaves
minority citizens unable to enroll in classes for several years. For
example, in large cities such as Boston citizens must wait for several
years to enroll. In New Mexico, citizens must wait up to a year. In the
State of New York, the wait lists were so long, the State eliminated
them and instituted a lottery system. Once enrolled, learning English
takes citizens several years to even obtain a fundamental understanding
of the English language--not enough to understand complex ballots.
Citizens should not be barred from exercising their right to vote while
trying to become English proficient.
Most jurisdictions covered by section 203 support its continued
existence: According to a 2005 survey, an overwhelming majority of
jurisdictions covered by Section 203 think that federal language
assistance provisions should remain in effect for public elections. In
fact, in a poll of registered voters, 57 percent believe it is
difficult to navigate ballots and instructions and that assistance
should be provided.
I urge defeat of the Stearns Amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) has 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, it is a Federal mandate for foreign
language ballots. Anybody can vote locally on that. But it takes away
the Federal requirement for foreign language ballots and allows
individuals to bring interpreters into the voting booth. That is
protected by Federal statute, those two points. So it doesn't take away
foreign language ballots. It just takes away the Federal mandate that
requires them. There is surname analysis. We are also using dialects,
16 to 17, in Michigan; and that has got to stop.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the right to vote is precious,
almost sacred, and one of the most important blessings of our
democracy. The Stearns amendment is an attack on the voting rights of
millions of American citizens. It is a modern day literacy test.
This is not about illegal immigration. These are American citizens we
are talking about. If the Stearns amendment becomes law, what message
are we sending to the Apache, to the Navajo Nation, to the Native
Alaskan, to Vietnamese Americans, to Russian Jews, who are all
citizens?
These are our neighbors. They are taxpayers. They are Americans. We
should be opening up the process to each and every American. Let them
come in and participate.
Instead, this amendment will return us to the dark past. I don't
think we want to go back as a Nation and as people. Vote ``no'' on
Stearns.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this is a very shameful
amendment, and I will tell you why it is shameful.
Here we are on the eve of the 4th of July at the very foundation of
this country when those noble words were spoken by Thomas Jefferson,
``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among
those, life, liberty and

[[Page H4746]]

the pursuit of happiness,'' and the most important guarantee of that
pursuit of happiness is the right to vote.
Not long ago, many of my colleagues on that side of the aisle stuck
their finger in purple ink and proudly went around and promoted it
because the Iraqis had the freedom to go and vote. There was a private
first class named Private First Class Rincon from my district in
Conyers, Georgia, who gave his life and died for that right, and he was
not even a United States citizen. This House had to approve his
citizenship posthumously.
Now we want to pass an amendment that would give just a little bit of
help to his wife, to his mother, to his grandmother, who have
difficulty with the English language.
This is a terrible moment at a terrible time, when we should be
speaking to the greatness of this country, to the right to vote, to
cherish it. Here we are on the eve of the 4th of July being what was
referred to 40 years ago in the bestseller, being the Ugly American.
Let us prove that we are the good American and vote down this ``Ugly
American'' amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting. I have a
button on my television that, if you click it, you can convert
everything that you hear to Spanish so that people can hear American
Idol and Desperate Housewives, and my English-only friends on the other
side have not so much as lodged an objection to that button on my TV.
They don't have a problem translating what goes across the dial every
night. It is more than passing strange that they are troubled by making
the ballot accessible, when our televisions are accessible.
My friends from Georgia have said it very well. This is about
American citizens. You can't vote unless you are an American citizen.
If you are an American citizen, we all have a stake in removing the
obvious impediments toward voting, and what do we gain in terms of high
ground by objecting to some of our fellow citizens having all the tools
that they need to translate the choice of the elections? How do we
justify televisions translating, and ballots not being translated?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the
gentleman yielded to me.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment prevents the Department of Justice from
enforcing section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. We know from our
hearings that section 203 works. If you enforce section 203, more
people vote. It only applies where there is a large number of voters
with that particular language, a critical mass, enough to affect an
election.
If we pass this, it won't encourage people to learn English. There
are waiting lists to learn English already. If people could vote, maybe
they could have more resources applied to English language.
We need a fair opportunity for people to vote. Section 203 brings
that opportunity to people. We should reject this amendment and enforce
the Voting Rights Act. This is a very important aspect, the Voting
Rights Act, and we should enforce the Voting Rights Act, not tell the
Department of Justice to fail to support it.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this is our opportunity to state
whether or not we believe that the United States of America is
benefited by bilingualism.
In every other country of the world where we have permitted and they
have actually promoted bilingualism, it has led to divisiveness and
balkanization of countries and hatred between peoples.
One of the things that has created the unity of our country that is
made up of so many different ethnic groups, so many different races, so
many different religions, has been the English language. We are not
doing anyone a favor by making it easier for them not to speak English.
We are, in fact, doing a great disservice to those least fortunate
people and those immigrants who come to our country by not encouraging
them, by not giving them the incentive to learn English. It is a crime
against those people and against their children.
More than this, what we have here is an expensive mandate. In my
county, we have five different languages that are mandated, and two
more on the way. In L.A. County, there are 10 different languages, an
enormous expense in order to produce ballots and ballot measures and
the descriptions of those measures for the population.
What are we doing this for? In the long run, it is damaging to our
country. Vote against bilingualism. Support the Stearns amendment. If
States want to do it, let them go ahead, but the Federal Government
should not be mandating this and putting this burden on the States,
something that, again, hurts the very people that they are claiming it
is trying to help and will definitely in the long run hurt the United
States as it keeps us divided into groups, rather than bringing us
together as our Founding Fathers suggested that they wanted to have in
the first place.
Vote against bilingualism. Vote for the Stearns amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in
opposition to the Stearns amendment. This amendment would allow States
and localities to discriminate against tax-paying American citizens.
This amendment forces the Federal Government to disenfranchise American
citizens from our most precious right of voting.
Unfortunately, a misinformed few from the other side of the aisle
have confused this issue. The Voting Rights Act has nothing to do with
immigration. Let me repeat that: section 203 of the Voting Rights Act
has nothing to do with immigration. One hundred percent of the people
served by section 203 are U.S. citizens.
I know a little bit about this. Both of my parents are naturalized
citizens. My mother is an elementary schoolteacher who teaches other
people's children English. She has difficulty sometimes.

{time} 1830

Mr. Chairman, if we want to spread democracy around the world, we
should not be disenfranchising American citizens who want to vote here.
That is why I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Stearns amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, there are really only two reasons
that a person might ask for a ballot in a language other than English.
One of those reasons would be if you are a naturalized citizen and you
had received and earned your citizenship here. That is a Federal
requirement, though, to demonstrate proficiency in the English
language, both the spoken and the written.
So one would presume that if you are a naturalized citizen and you
ask for a ballot in a language other than English, that you somehow
circumvented the standards that are in Federal statute. So I do not
think that is a legitimate reason to ask for a foreign language ballot.
The second reason would be if you were born in this Nation, by
birthright citizenship, and you had grown up in an enclave where you
did not absorb enough English to be able to go to the ballot box and
cast a ballot in English. In that case, we have a Federal statute to
protect your right to vote, and you have a right to vote, because you
can bring someone into the voting booth with you to do that
interpretation.
So those two things are covered. What this Stearns amendment does is
removes the Federal funding that enforces this multilingual ballot
mandate. It ends the Federal foreign language mandate, at least for a
year. It is a good thing to do.
But if localities want to express this, they can. The States or the
counties or the voting districts can still continue to present ballots
in any language that they choose. That is why this is a good Stearns
amendment. That is why it is something that we ought to do for the
future.
We are looking at bringing in perhaps millions and millions of new
citizens. That is hanging in the Senate today. If

[[Page H4747]]

we do that, with the President talking about the need to learn English,
then for those reasons we need to assimilate and encourage people to
use the English language. This is a gentle amendment. I urge its
adoption.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
to the Steams Amendment to H.R. 5672, which would prohibit funds from
being used for the design, renovation, construction, or rental of any
headquarters for the United Nations in any location in the United
States.
I believe the amendment is unwise, short-sighted, and harmful attack
on one of the most important international institutions in the world.
Withholding funds that are lawfully owed to and desperately needed by
the United Nations to perform its essential functions is harmful to the
U.N. and against the interests of the United States.
In this era of new global challenges, the global war on terror to the
problematic war in Iraq to the threats to world peace posed by
ambitions of North Korea and Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we need
the U.N. more than ever. And for the most part, the U.N. does a good
job meeting these challenges. The organization conducted the first-ever
national election from scratch in Afghanistan and trained 150,000
Iraqis as election staff for the elections in that country. The U.N.
also was instrumental in coordinating the massive tsunami relief and
reconstruction effort, involving multiple governments and hundreds of
NGOs, that brought relief and healing to hundreds of thousands of
people suffering in Indonesia. The U.N. helped to end violence and
instability in Haiti, Sierra Leone, and Liberia.
With 191 diverse members, the U.N. is not perfect. It is unrealistic
to expect perfection from an imperfect international system. The U.N.
surely has many of the virtues and faults of its member countries,
including our own country. But with all its faults, it is still an
indispensable forum for the peaceful resolution of conflict.
Despite both managerial and systemic limitations, the U.N. has shown
resourcefulness in confronting the new challenges posed by failed
states, infectious diseases that transcend borders, global climate
change, famine, weapons trade and terrorism.
The U.N.'s current Secretary General, Kofi Annan, is a leader
determined to implement serious reforms. He recognizes that the United
Nations is at a critical crossroads and that it must be modernized and
rationalized if it is to survive. For over a year now, informed by the
work of the high-level panel he appointed, the Secretary General has
been working on a plan to overhaul the U.N. completely so that it is
more professional and more capable of confronting global threats,
challenges and change.
I caution my colleagues to resist the temptation to withhold the
payment of our U.N. dues. As we all know, the United States just
recently completed a multi-year process of paying off a massive debt to
the U.N. that had accumulated over many years. During that process, we
successfully reduced the percentage of the U.N. budget that U.S.
taxpayers are responsible for funding.
So as we map out our nation's strategy for the next decade at the
glass edifice on the East River, we must remember that operating the
United Nations costs a lot of money. But not nearly as much money as
international strife and chaos. The United Nations is deserving of the
continuing support of the world, and of the United States of America.
I urge defeat of the Stearns amendment.
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Stearns
Amendment. This amendment would set a dangerous precedent in the way
that this Nation and Congress approach minority voting rights.
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act sets specific guidelines and
requirements for providing bilingual ballots for political subdivisions
with limited English-proficiency populations. The Stearns Amendment
would essentially eliminate Section 203 and would discourage and
disenfranchise entire populations of American citizens from voting. The
Voting Rights Act of 1965 sought to protect the right to vote for those
in our Nation whose voices were not being heard, the very same voices
that this amendment seeks to extinguish.
Voting is one of the most important duties that citizens perform. It
allows citizens to choose who will represent them and who will make
decisions on important issues that will impact their everyday lives.
Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than the knowledge that no
citizen's right to vote will be hindered.
Any election reform should break down barriers that face minority
voters, not increase them. The Stearns Amendment would instead build
new barriers to democratic participation for American citizens.
H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King
Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Act of 2006 would extend Section 203
provisions for 25 years, until 2032. I urge my colleagues to oppose the
Stearns Amendment, and urge my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle to work with Democrats to enact H.R. 9 in order to protect the
voting rights of all Americans.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
amendment by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us seeks to disenfranchise
millions of American citizens by placing obstacles on their right--and
their civic duty--to vote. The essence of our democracy is the right to
vote. No right is more precious.
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act provides for ballot and language
assistance for language minority citizens, so all citizens are fully
able to participate in our democracy.
Ballots and procedures are often complex and bewildering, even for
those completely proficient in English. To ensure that all are able to
participate on free and fair terms, language assistance is vital to
protecting the right to vote, especially among Latinos, Native
Americans, Asian Americans, and Alaskan Natives.
Impact of Section 203: A key objective of the Voting Rights Act is
not only to remedy past and current attempts to suppress the vote, but
also to remove obstacles to the right to vote and bolster voter
participation among populations where participation has historically
been low.
As the Judiciary Committee noted in its recent bipartisan committee
report, Section 203 is needed today, and should be reauthorized to
continue to achieve its purposes. For instance, after San Diego County
provided language assistance, the registration rates among Spanish- and
Filipino-speaking American citizens grew by more than 20 percent and
registration among Vietnamese-speaking American citizens increased by
nearly 40 percent. Likewise, in Apache County, Arizona, enforcement
activities resulted in a 26 percent increase in Native American turnout
in four years, allowing Navajo Code talkers, veterans, and the elderly
to participate in elections for the first time.
The Stearns amendment, however, by preventing enforcement of Section
203, will allow states and localities to discriminate against taxpaying
American citizens because of their language ability, and impede their
right to vote.
That is wrong. In our country, our laws and our Constitution draws no
distinction between American citizens born here or not. In fact, three-
quarters of those who are covered by the language assistance provision
are native-born United States citizens. The rest are naturalized U.S.
citizens.
The opponents of Section 203 claim that the costs are too great.
Studies disprove that contention, but costs are not the issue. Securing
the right to vote must never--and cannot--ever be considered a burden.
It is our moral and constitutional obligation.
The arguments of the opponents of Section 203 are suspiciously
similar to the arguments once employed for literacy tests to
disenfranchise African American voters. I had hoped we had passed that
period in our country's history when such tests were widely used. We
cannot permit the use of these tests once again.
Mr. Chairman, we are supposed to unite together as Americans with one
voice to reaffirm our commitment on the fundamental subject of voting
rights for all of our citizens. Instead, this ugly amendment seeks to
undermine that moral and historic commitment. The constant scapegoating
of our fellow American citizens--and attempts to suppress their voting
rights--must end.
Any diminishing of language assistance is a diminishment of our
American democracy. We must defeat this amendment, and affirm our
support of Section 203.
The right to vote must never, ever be compromised. Every vote
counts--every vote must be counted.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, as Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific
American Caucus (CAPAC), I rise today to oppose the Stearns Amendment
(#21) to H.R. 5672, FY 2007 Science, State, Justice and Commerce
Appropriations Bill.
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, or VRA, provides protections to
enable every American citizen to exercise their most fundamental and
important right--the right to vote. Voting is the most important tool
Americans have to influence the policies our government adopts that
affect every aspect of our lives. In short, voting is power.
Unfortunately, even today, many minority voters face impediments or
barriers to voting including language barriers.
The Stearns Amendment (#21) would eliminate funding for Section 203
of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). By eliminating funding for Section 203
enforcement, states and localities would be free to discriminate
against taxpaying American citizens and impede their right to vote.
The VRA that includes Section 203 has received bi-partisan support
from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and from

[[Page H4748]]

Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. The Tri-Caucus
strongly believes the VRA continues to effectively combat
discrimination and protect the gains achieved for minority voters.
It is well documented that language assistance is needed and used by
voters. For instance, the U.S. Department of Justice has reported that
in one year, registration rates among Spanish- and Filipino-speaking
American citizens grew by 21 percent and registration among Vietnamese-
speaking American citizens increased over 37 percent after San Diego
County started providing language assistance.
In Apache County, Arizona, the Department's enforcement activities
have resulted in a 26 percent increase in Native American turnout in 4
years, allowing Navajo Code talkers, veterans, and the elderly to
participate in elections for the first time.
The Stearns Amendment to H.R. 5672 would undermine the Voting Rights
Act reauthorization process and effectively disenfranchise language
minority voters through the appropriations process.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
Stearns Amendment (#21) to H.R. 5672, the Science, State, Justice,
Commerce Appropriations Act for FY 2007.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this mean spirited
Amendment, which would prohibit any federal funds to be used in
enforcing bilingual balloting.
Let's be crystal clear, we are not talking about undocumented
residents. These are citizens of the United States. Many of whom have
voted you and me into the office that we hold today.
It is apparent that instead of passing meaningful bi-partisan
legislation to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act; instead the majority
plans to use these little tricks and delaying tactics to disenfranchise
ethnic and minority voters.
From not counting votes, forced mid-century redistricting and voter
intimidation it is clear now more then ever that the Voting Rights Act
must be reauthorized as the original drafters of the legislation
intended--including bilingual assistance to voters.
These people have earned the right to vote just like everyone else in
this chamber.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Ms. De Gette

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

Amendment offered by Ms. DeGette:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by increasing the amount made available for ``Office
of Justice Programs--justice assistance'' and reducing the
amount made available for ``Department of justice--general
administration--salaries and expenses'', by $3,000,000.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 27, 2006, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, the Internet Crimes Against Children Task
Forces, or ICACs, are Federal-local partnerships that help track down
the perpetrators of online child exploitation.
Ninety percent of this important work occurs at the local level by
ICAC investigators all across the country. Their jobs become more
important every day as the incidence of child pornography rises to
nearly epidemic proportions.
I want to consider these chilling statistics: In fiscal year 2003,
ICACs received 3,741 reports of Internet crimes against children. In
fiscal year 2004, that number was 24,138. But, Mr. Chairman, in fiscal
year 2005, that number was 198,883, an increase of 5,216 percent in
just 2 years.
The increase is not just a result of better reporting. It reflects an
unthinkable rise in the worst kind of crimes. The ICACs are in need of
more funds for three reasons: number one, to increase investigations;
number two, to enhance law enforcement training; and, number three, to
conduct forensic analysis.
The budget for ICACs has increased incrementally the last few years;
and, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you and the committee for adding
$5 million to the Internet Crimes Against Children Tasks Forces, but,
frankly, with these increases in the crimes, even if we tripled the
ICAC budget, it would still barely manage to keep up with online child
pornography.
The extra funding is critical for training, for investigations, for
forensic exams, and to stop these terrible perpetrators from committing
these crimes against children.
Mr. Chairman, the problem of online child pornography is growing.
This amendment will simply increase the budget by $3 million. And I ask
my colleagues, what lengths are we willing to go to to save them? I
urge a ``yes'' vote on the DeGette amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

Mr. WEINER. 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. Weiner:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by increasing the aggregate amount made available for
``community oriented policing services'' (consisting of an
additional $476,574,000 for grants authorized under section
1701 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968, as amended by section 1163 of the Violence
Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act
of 2005), and by reducing the amount made available under the
item relating to ``science, aeronautics and exploration'' for
exploration systems (and conforming the aggregate amount set
forth in such item, accordingly), by $476,574,000.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment with Mr. Ramstad and other
Members of this body. It is very simple. It takes perhaps the single
most important anticrime program of the 1990s and the early part of
this decade, the COPS program, and restores the hiring component, which
is the portion of the program that puts cops on the beat.
It has been zeroed out in this budget. We are not going to restore it
completely to its authorized level, but we at least are trying to put a
little more funding in that would allow us to hire about 6,500
additional cops.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with the COPS program, this is
perhaps the most democratic, with a small ``D,'' program, anticrime
program Congress ever envisioned, from coast to coast, State by State.
West Virginia got 692 officers, Virginia got 2,400 officers, Texas got
600, big towns, small cities, all across the country.
This bill zeroes out the COPS program. What we seek to do is to
authorize an additional 6,000 or so police officers. The offset that we
seek is in the space exploration, the Mars program. We do not zero it
out by any stretch of the imagination. We still ensure a large increase
in it, about a 10 percent increase.
But this would be a way to take this single crime fighting program,
and, frankly, an antiterrorism program, and breathe some life into it.
We have already said in this body that we believe the COPS program
should live. We reauthorized it. Now this is an effort to put some
funds in.

[[Page H4749]]

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very, very, very, very strong
opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The COPS Program is already $468 million over the request, $57
million over last year. The amendment proposes reductions to NASA that
are devastating. If you are opposed to the space program or you do not
like the space program or you do not want America to be number one, you
ought to support this amendment.
But if you want America to have a strong space program, you ought to
strongly defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time;
and I especially thank him for his strong support for America's space
program. The Weiner amendment would take $477 million from NASA's space
exploration budget, essentially would cripple the CEV-CLV program.
Ladies and gentlemen, just so you know what that means, we are
scheduled to fly our last shuttle mission in the year 2010. We have a
bird on the pad. We hope we get it up July 1 or sometime soon. But we
will be down for sure by 2010. We will have no manned space flight
program after that unless we continue with the CEV development. This
amendment basically wipes out that development in this budget cycle.
I will tell you we need a next generation of vehicles or we will not
be in the human space flight business. The Weiner amendment raids the
account that is necessary to keep the workforce in place.
If you allow the workforce to disappear from 2010 to, say, 2015 or
2020, you can never replace these people. The expertise that you lose
cannot be put back together again. Once Humpty Dumpty and the skilled
workforce is dead and depleted, you can never put it back together.
But I am not here just to talk about America's space program. I want
to tell my colleagues about a firsthand experience I had. If you are
not concerned about space, you ought to be.
I was the first American, along with our colleagues Rick Larsen and
Mark Kirk, invited to see the Chinese human space flight program. They
got started in 1995. They are 35 years behind us in time, but they are
remarkable in how fast they have caught up in their human space flight
program.
The Shenzhou vehicle has flown five times now, twice with Taikonauts
that have come back successfully, and they have had extraordinary
success. While our workforce is basically keeping healthy a 40-year-
old, 30-year-old technology, the young Chinese engineers have put
together a remarkable new technology that will be very, very powerful
in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I want to read the Chinese announcement of their own
human space flight program. They say, by 2007, there will be a series
of unmanned satellites from the year 2007 through 2015. Starting in
2017, they expect to have unmanned missions to the Moon to bring back
lunar samples. By the year 2024, they say they will have landed men and
women on the Moon.
Folks, I think their real schedule is much more ambitious than that.
If and when we get back to the Moon under the Weiner amendment, we will
be looking at Chinese flags and maybe Chinese bases when we get there.
And if that does not stimulate your competitive interests, I am
telling you that they are producing 5 to 600,000 engineers a year, by a
factor of 8 or 10 what America is able to produce. Nothing stimulates
our math and science brains in middle and high schools more than space
exploration. The Weiner amendment would put an end to that.
Finally, I will tell you if you are not worried about human space,
China is developing the Long March 5 vehicle. It will be able to take
25 tons into orbit. It is not just their human space capabilities that
they are working on. They are trying to get space predominance so that
they can potentially incapacitate all of our communications satellite
and all of the satellites that America depends on for our force
multipliers that allow our military to be the most capable in the
world.
Ladies and gentlemen, please do not gut the human space component of
America's exploration; and, if you do, be prepared for what happens
when the Chinese beat us to outer space.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, with all of the discussion about China, I
am curious, is the crime rate high in China? Is the crime rate high on
Mars? No one is saying to zero out the program. I am saying give it a
10 percent increase.
Mr. FEENEY. Will the gentleman yield? He asked a question. Will he
yield for a second?
The COPS program has been completed.
Mr. WEINER. It is completed.
Mr. FEENEY. It was intended to put 100,000 officers on the street.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled by the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. FEENEY. I apologize. I thought he asked a question.
Mr. WEINER. Apparently, the gentleman from Florida is unfamiliar with
the rhetorical question which is so commonly used in New York and
frequently in Washington.
Florida got 7,400 police officers under the COPS program. The COPS
program was reauthorized in this body for additional hiring. We
reauthorized it.
Now I am saying, put a few dollars in there. And I am not saying, do
not go to Mars; I am not saying, do not go to the Moon. How about this?
Let's make a deal. Let's have a 10 percent increase in that program
that is so important. That is a pretty healthy increase. And if we do
that, then we do not go from 7,400 cops in Florida to what the bill
proposes, which is zero cops in Florida. That is what voting against
the Weiner-Ramstad amendment would propose.
We are saying that this is a successful program. When Tom Ridge said
that homeland security starts in our home towns, when John Ashcroft
said this has been a remarkable program, you know, frankly, it has been
a bipartisan, across-the-board success. We have reauthorized it in this
body. All I am saying is, breathe new life in it.
I would just remind the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee,
that large increase that you described still is zeroing out, I would
say to the gentleman from Virginia, the hiring component.

{time} 1845

What the Department of Justice has done is put a whole lot of
programs in this one line. The hiring component is zero, none, kaput,
despite the fact that we reauthorized.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment not because I not
recognize that we need lots of additional dollars in law enforcement
and particularly to support our State and local law enforcement, as we
have talked about a number of times on the floor today and throughout
this session.
This administration made a point of cutting local law enforcement,
and it is a travesty because the demand is out there, and there is this
real correlation between the reduction in Federal support to State and
local law enforcement and an increase in violent crime rates. It is
there. We can see it. That is why the gentleman is offering his
amendment.
But the bottom line is, we do not have the allocation, and this
offset is terrible. I mean, we are trying to keep these programs alive
throughout the bill.
The President came forward with a budget that devastated what in the
NASA budget? Science. What else? Aeronautics. Well, this amendment
would cut an additional, as I understand it, $100 million from NASA.
Science, aeronautics would be further cut. These programs cannot
survive in NASA with these kinds of cuts. We cannot do it.
We need to restore additional money to law enforcement. There is no
question about that. That is a debate that maybe will go beyond this
Congress; maybe it will go beyond this appropriation bill, and perhaps
that debate should be had across the land. But right now, given the
money that we have in the bill, we cannot afford the offset for funding
the COPS program or any other State and local law enforcement, and is
that not a sad comment?

[[Page H4750]]

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me just acknowledge that
I agree with much of what the gentleman says, except the part about us
gutting anything.
What we did is we took the space exploration program and limited the
increase to 10 percent. We by no means cut it to last year's level. We
by no means slashed it to the bone. What we did is we took a program
that grew the most and said, we are going go allow it to grow only 10
percent in the alternative.
I want to point out the program that did get slashed to the bone,
which was the COPS hiring component. You know, if you have a COPS
program which put 117,000 police officers on the street and you say, we
are going to reauthorize it but we are not going to provide any funding
to do the hiring component, then we are going to start seeing what we
are seeing now, which is, nationwide the seven index crimes are
starting to creep up again.
We saw the single best Federal program against crime perhaps in
history was the COPS program, and despite the protestations of some of
the folks who were here at the time, it was distributed throughout the
country. Now the COPS department at Justice in the hands of the
Republican party fervently says, you know what, having a COPS program
without having hiring in it is like having no COPS program at all.
Also, in the reauthorization, we acknowledged in a bipartisan way
some of the weaknesses of the program. Some departments said, you know
what, the way it was structured was too limited. They wanted
flexibility. We acknowledged that. The chairman, to his credit, and
this House, to its credit, overwhelmingly reauthorized that program,
but it is a hollow victory if we have the COPS program and no money.
So the offset admittedly is not ideal. I think you and the gentleman
from Virginia do yeoman's duty each year trying to squeeze more and
more into a smaller bag.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas to speak in
opposition to the amendment.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Weiner knows that I have
voted with him consistently on the COPS program and, of course, am
chagrinned to stand here to argue against a program that is so vital,
but Mr. Mollohan is correct.
These are tough decisions that have to be made, and the decision that
has to be made is whether we want to remain competitive in science and
technology, and we have to cut the science programs. It is a bad budget
that we have to operate under, but frankly, in the shadow of a pending
launch and the commitment to remain at the cutting edge of science that
generates out of exploration and technology and science that comes
under this particular funding, we are losing ground.
I would hope that we go back to the drawing board and get the money
that we need for the COPS program. It is a good program, but this is
not the kind of decision that draws anyone to a degree of happiness.
This is splitting the baby, and we have nothing when we get through
with it.
This is an important program to support, and that is the space
exploration, the science programs. The minimum moneys we have and the
fact that we have to take moneys for the COPS program, we need to fund
it from the President's budget. He needs to fund the COPS program. This
is not the way to do it.
I would ask my colleagues to oppose the Weiner amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to my colleague's
amendment, not because of the merit of the intent, but because of the
harm it does in taking money away from an already under-funded NASA.
This amendment would cut $476.5 million from science, aeronautics and
space exploration systems. I wish the President's budget had allowed
for full funding of the COPS program. The quarral is with the White
House not with NASA.
I wholeheartedly support the work of NASA, and I am committed to the
future of scientific and space exploration. I am deeply concerned that
the amount appropriated in the FY07 budget does not meet all the needs
for future space exploration as we move forward in this new century. A
lack of necessary budget authority makes scientific innovation and
space exploration very difficult. As I have stated before, this
Administration has made many bad budgetary choices, including zeroing
out the COPS program. However, it is not in the nation's best interest
to compound that mistake with this one.
My greatest concern at this point is that we may not allocate enough
money or resources to ensure the safety of all NASA astronauts and
crew. After the Columbia disaster, safety must be our highest priority
and it is worrisome that there is not a noticeable increase in funding
to address all safety concerns.
Additionally, I am concerned that pressure to retire the Shuttle by a
fixed date to free up resources for other activities, coupled with the
need to fly up to 28 Shuttle flights to assemble the Space Station,
could--if not handled properly--lead to the types of schedule and
budgetary pressures that were cited by the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board, CAIB, as contributing to the Columbia accident. I
know that this concern is paramount at NASA as we move forward in the
future.
NASA has the ability to inspire the generations toward untold
discoveries. As always I look forward to working with the good men and
women of NASA as we push the boundaries of our world once again.
Thus, because this amendment cuts funding so desperately needed by
the researchers, engineers, and innovators at NASA, I cannot support
it, and I urge my colleagues to follow my lead.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that if we were not immersed
in this stupid war in Iraq, the money that we are spending in just 2
months would correct all of the problems we have in all of these
appropriation bills and we would not be facing this tradeoff. We could,
in fact, afford to do both the COPS program and the space program that
others in this chamber would prefer to see us pursue.
But the fact is, our Republican friends have voted for a budget
resolution which has imposed these kinds of tradeoffs, and given that
fact, I worry a whole lot more about Chinese products wiping out
American jobs than I worry about Chinese flags somewhere else in the
world, although I do not like either.
Some people attack Members of Congress for having Potomac fever. I
think some Members of this House have Mars fever. The fact is, if we
are going to make a choice about where to put the best money, right
now, I think a far better bet is law enforcement.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member
and also my cosponsor. I rise as the cosponsor of this amendment.
President Clinton was right back in 1994 when many of us worked in a
bipartisan way to fashion the 1994 Crime Control Act and when community
policing was made part of that important legislation. I remember those
meetings at the White House, talking about community policing, and
President Clinton was right. The COPS program has been a key component
of the Federal effort to keep our communities safe, and crime has
dropped significantly.
President Clinton was right that community policing works to reduce
crime. Ask any cop on the street, whether it is in the Third and Fourth
Precincts of Minneapolis Police Department or my suburban police
departments in the Third Congressional District, they all say it is
shortsighted and counterproductive to underfund this critical law
enforcement tool.
I think it is simply wrong to shortchange public policy, and I
understand the dilemma faced by the appropriators, believe me. This
amendment, the Weiner-Ramstad amendment, would fund the COPS program at
its fully authorized level by adding about $476 million for the
program.
I understand how painful that offset is to many of you who prioritize
NASA, but I think we have to ask ourselves, all of us, the simple
question: What is more important, spending more money to fly to Mars or
keeping millions of Americans safe here on earth? That is the key
question.
As I said, I have seen in my home State of Minnesota firsthand the
importance of the COPS program to local

[[Page H4751]]

police in reducing crime and improving public safety. The COPS program
really does work, and it has helped State and local law enforcement
agencies in their hiring, technology, school safety grants, personnel,
equipment, training, technical assistance.
In short, the COPS program has been a critical tool in the war on
drugs and now in homeland security efforts.
So as cochair with my friend from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, of the
Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, I encourage my colleagues to
support this amendment to increase the funding levels for the COPS
program. I think it is critical to all Americans. Certainly Edmund
Burke had it right over 200 years ago when he said, the main reason we
have government is to keep people safe.
No question the COPS program has kept people safer, and I believe we
should pass this amendment to increase the funding here today. By
passing this funding, we also honor the sacrifices made each and every
day by our country's law enforcement community and give our Nation's
finest the support they need.
Again, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Let me conclude by saying that I have been listening to what has been
said, and I think I have got a compromise we can all accept.
What if we pass an amendment that increases the number of COPS by
6,500? There are none in the bill now. We make it 6,500, and we still
give a $300 million plus up, an increase of 10 percent in the
President's moon and Mars initiative, give an increase in space
exploration and COPS program? Sound like a deal?
Well, this is the amendment. That is what the Weiner-Ramstad
amendment does. It gives an increase to both. This notion that we are
eviscerating a program is just not true. We are taking a program and
giving it a 10 percent increase and funding another program that has
done this much good around the country. This is the number of police
officers around the country.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair would remind Members that the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Weiner) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining on his time, and the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 1 minute remaining. Who seeks time?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, if I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida, then if I strike the requisite number of words, I can get 5
minutes, correct?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
this amendment, and it is not exactly correct to say this is just going
to cut money from the Moon and Mars. We have a program underway to
develop a safer, less expensive, more reliable vehicle than the space
shuttle, and that is called the crew exploration vehicle. If this
amendment goes through, it is going to delay that program; it is going
to run up the costs, and it is going to create a situation where we are
going to have no way to get men and women into space.
Now, this program, I agree, sounds like a worthwhile program, but
frankly, when it got established, I had serious misgivings in the 1990s
because I thought we were going to have a real serious problem finding
the funding for it on into the future. It was originally sold as just a
short-term thing, but as you would expect, people are going to come
back.
This is really the Federal Government getting involved in a local
issue, and I would say the decline in the crime rate in the United
States was because of locking up repeat offenders and not because of
the COPS program.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, do not make any mistake about this. The
Weiner amendment will gut NASA. Do not make any mistake. This amendment
will transfer the preeminence that we presently have in space to India
and others and China especially.
As my friend, Mr. Feeney, from Florida was saying, China is investing
significant amounts of dollars in their program, and their program is
not a civil space program.
Our country's economy and success is because we prevailed in doing
hard things. That is why we have the technology and the ability to do
the computers, the cell phones, the satellites, that NASA helped
create.
Do not vote for this amendment. It is the wrong thing to do. Vote
down the Weiner amendment.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for this time. I am a
member of his subcommittee, and I appreciate his leadership and the
leadership of the ranking member as well.
I rise in opposition to this amendment, and it troubles me to do
that. I was a district attorney prior to my time in Congress, and so I
know a little bit about law enforcement and what law enforcement needs.
These programs that are the object of the Weiner amendment, they are
important programs, there is no doubt, but the chairman and the ranking
member have worked together in a bipartisan manner to restore $1.1
billion in proposed cuts to State and local law enforcement programs.

{time} 1900

Now, that is not as much as it should be, but that is a good-faith
effort within the budget allocation to get money here. This is the
wrong offset. Please vote against the Weiner amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I
rise in opposition to this amendment, regrettably for my friend from
New York.
I also am a very strong supporter of the COPS program, like my friend
from Alabama, a former prosecutor. I have always supported and continue
to support the COPS program. But robbing one vital program to support
another is not the answer.
Representing Southern California, the home of the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, I have seen the tremendous space science that has come out
of our robotic exploration of Mars and out of the entire space program.
This has manifest itself in health technology and telecommunications
technology. It has had tremendous benefits to all of our constituents.
I don't want to see that research go away. I don't want to see that
space science go away. And already there are dramatic cuts and delays
in some of the space sciences that we just cannot afford. We have to
find a different way to fund the COPS program. Taking the money out of
this vital NASA effort is not the answer, and I must oppose the
amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I strongly urge defeat of the
amendment. China is using their space program for military reasons.
They now have laser beams. For the members of the committee that came
to the subcommittee briefing, the closed briefing, you saw where they
are. It is frightening. China has 200,000 engineers working on the
space program, and we have 75,000.
If the Weiner amendment passed, the nmber of U.S. engineers would
drop. America, under the Weiner amendment, would no longer be number
one. That would be dangerous to our country and absolutely wrong. So I
strongly, strongly urge the defeat of this amendment, which I think
would almost guarantee, if it passed and stayed in the law, the loss of
American leadership in space.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that I disagree
with very little of what has been said on both sides. I think the
chairman and ranking member have done a remarkable job balancing the
equities, but it is simply not fair that the COPS program gets zero.
To keep saying that State and local enforcement has got additional
funds, let us not forget that we authorized the COPS program at $1
billion. This amendment doesn't seek to fund it at that level, but it
seeks to put some money in.
And if you think we are going to lose the edge in space exploration
because

[[Page H4752]]

we have the audacity to give it a 10 percent increase this year, I just
disagree. It is a matter of trying to find a way that we can do both.
We do not gut the space program. We give it a 10 percent increase
with the Weiner amendment. But what we do is we make sure that we don't
have this. This is what the bill presently has in the number of new
cops under the COPS program. None. Zip. Zero.
Crime rates around the country are creeping back up. I heard at least
one gentleman over there say, at least he is being honest, he believes
that cops deserve no credit for the reduction in crime. It is an
unusual position to take. The Fraternal Order of Police, the National
Association of Police Associations, and every law enforcement group
nationwide supports the Weiner amendment.
What we are seeking to do here is to say, you know what, we can't in
the Federal Government be at the sidelines in the fight against crime.
We need to be in the game. We need to participate.
The COPS program was a success. Congressman Sensenbrenner said it.
Attorney General Ashcroft said, and I quote, ``Let me say that I think
the COPS program has been successful. The purpose of the COPS program
was to demonstrate to local police departments if you put additional
people, feet on the street, that crime would be affected and people
would be safer.''
He is right. I am sure if he were here today he would say support the
Weiner amendment. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. WEINER. On that I request a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be
postponed.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Stearns

Mr. STEARNS. 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 No. 20 offered by Mr. Stearns:
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 the design, renovation, construction, or rental
of any headquarters for the United Nations in any location in
the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment would prohibit funds from the United States being used
for the design, renovation, construction or rental of any headquarters
for the United Nations in any location in the United States.
I offered this type of amendment 1 year ago, and then I agreed to
withdraw it. My honorable colleague, Chairman Wolf joined me in
requesting a GAO investigation of the United Nations headquarters
renovation. That ongoing investigation has done little to advance our
understanding of what the U.N. is doing besides how good the U.N. is at
spending our taxpayers' money.
One of the lead experts in the GAO's ongoing investigation, Thomas
Malito, testified in the Senate just last week. ``The U.N. is
vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement due to a range of
weaknesses in existing oversight practices.'' That is why I have
returned to ask that we withhold funding until the United Nations makes
public and transparent its contracting and disbursement information
relative to the renovations.
The United Nations estimates that the planned renovation of its
headquarters building in New York City would cost $1.7 billion,
billion, for a work site that is over 2\1/2\ million square feet.
The most expensive building sold in Manhattan, the General Motors
building, recently sold for $1.4 billion. The entire U.N. building
could be built again for under $2 billion. Still, repair and
refurbishing are activities that involve greater financial
opportunities, one would suppose.
Now, even if the U.N. cost estimates remain constant, a big if, the
U.S. share of renovation would be about $480 million. That would be in
addition to our regular annual dues of $423 million, plus all other
contributions of nearly $2.4 billion.
The General Assembly has yet to approve a plan amongst the four being
considered, but the U.N. has already spent almost $40 million on
preferred renovation plans, $20 million in the last month alone,
according to the GAO.
The GAO also found that the $1.7 billion cost estimate only scratches
the surface of the expected costs. The estimate does not include any of
the following: new furniture, at least $100 million per year for an
unknown number of years; new security costs, as well as temporary
security costs during construction; new phones and information
technology systems; and new office equipment.
Moreover, according to the GAO, ``While the U.N. has yet to finalize
a specific procurement strategy for the renovation project, to the
extent that it relies on current U.N. processes, implementation of the
planned renovation is vulnerable to the procurement weaknesses we have
identified previously.'' And the GAO continues: ``For example, it has
not,'' the U.N. now, ``has not established an independent process to
consider vendor protests that could alert senior U.N. officials of
failure by procurement staff.'' And the U.N. has yet to establish an
independent bid process, something that the U.S. Government has in
place and we all take for granted.
In addition, although the U.N.'s Office of Internal Oversight
Service, OIOS, has a mandate establishing it as an independent
oversight entity and to conduct oversight of the renovation, it lacks
the budgetary independence it requires to carry out its
responsibilities. The OIOS is dependent on the whims of the very
department and program heads it is auditing. The problems with this
setup were made plain in the Oil-for-Food program when OIOS was
prevented from examining high-risk areas where billions of dollars were
subsequently found to have been misused.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the patience of my good friend from
Virginia, Chairman Wolf, on this amendment, and his approach to the
very difficult work of crafting and passing the appropriation bill for
this subcommittee. In this case, dealing with the United Nations, we
have 61 years of patience, and this patience has to be very frustrating
for all of us. But, Mr. Chairman, do we simply continue to grant the
United Nations the possibility of continued corruption and possibly
graft with this project? I don't think so.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment; and I
would first like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes of my time to the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the chairman for yielding; and I want to join
him in opposing this amendment.
Really, to support this amendment you have to oppose the U.N.,
because this goes to the very ability of the United Nations to perform
its responsibilities. It has to have a home. It has to have a house. It
has to have space to operate in.
The U.N. is old. It is a fire hazard. There is a number of safety
concerns associated with it. There is a request in this bill from the
administration for $22 million to address these concerns, or our share
of these concerns, and I think that a limitation amendment is exactly
the wrong thing to do here.
We have had a lot of cuts in this bill, and this kind of a limitation
really is a statement that the United States of America does not want
to participate in the U.N. into the future. It is just that serious. It
has to have a home. It is, in my judgment, not only ill-advised but
really silly if you believe we should have a United Nations to begin
with.
I oppose the amendment and encourage very strongly that everyone
oppose the amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment, and let me read a letter from our Secretary of State,
Secretary Rice.
She says, ``I write in strong support of our contribution to the U.N.
Capital Master Plan.'' That is what we are talking about, CMP.

[[Page H4753]]

``The U.N. facilities pose a number of serious safety and security
concerns for the American and foreign staffs, diplomats, and
visitors.'' Many of these are American citizens. ``In particular, the
U.N. facilities do not,'' do not, ``meet fire and life-safety building
codes or modern security requirements. We support the renovation of the
facilities to address these deficiencies.
``The Department remains strongly committed to ensuring transparency
and effective oversight of the project. We have worked closely with
U.N. Under Secretary General Chris Burnham,'' who is an American, ``to
take steps to strengthen internal controls of the CMP. In particular,
Under Secretary General Burnham, with our support, has set up a U.N.
CMP Project Office as an independent office reporting to him. The U.N.
CMP Project Office has allowed access to project documents and review
of ongoing work. And, the CMP Project Office has used a value
engineering process and third-party contractor reviews of design
documents to improve cost and quality control.
``We realize this will be an ongoing effort and are committed to
close U.S. Government monitoring of the project's implementation
throughout its life span. I urge full funding for this important
renovation project.''
What if there were a fire at the U.N.? What if something happened and
we were to deny this money?
I have been as critical of the U.N. as anybody for their failure to
deal with the issue of Darfur and things like this. They stood by and
allowed Srebeniza to take place. They stood by and allowed Rwanda. But
I am not going to stand by and allow the building to crumble and not
have safety conditions in the building.
So I ask you, before you vote on this, take a minute to look at the
letter of the Secretary of State. The administration is not for the
Stearns amendment. It is a safety issue not only for American citizens
but also the foreigners at work in the building. But also American
visitors. If you go to the U.N., there are many tourists that go
through the building.
So I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment; and again I urge
you, if you have any doubts, come over and read the letter from
Secretary Rice. It is a safety issue.
I urge defeat of the Stearns amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.

{time} 1915

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be
postponed.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ROTHMAN. I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding
and would ask to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. Chairman, recent data released by the FBI shows violent crime on
the rise for the first time in 15 years. The violent crime rate rose
2.5 percent across the country. Areas of New Jersey, including the
cities of New York and Jersey City have disproportionately high rates
of crime, two to three times more than the average national rate.
These cities, while only about 5 miles apart are the two largest
cities in my State. Preliminary data for 2005 shows that the violent
crime rate for Jersey City, New Jersey, is 1,302 crimes per 100,000
people and the violent crime rate for Newark, New Jersey, is 1,008
crimes per 100,000 people. The national average is significantly lower,
478 violent crimes per 100,000 people, less than half of Newark's and
Jersey City's.
These high levels of violent crime, including murders, rapes and
aggravated assaults, tear families and communities apart. Just this
past Sunday evening, at least two people were killed and eight injured
in four separate shootings in Newark.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding there is $16 million in the bill
for 15 violent crime impact teams. These teams of ATF agents, U.S.
Marshals, DEA agents and Federal prosecutors work together to reduce
violent crime for an area. Will you, Mr. Chairman, work with me to
direct one or more of the violent crime impact teams to these areas of
New Jersey?
I yield to the chairman.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman. I completely agree with what he
said. I appreciate his efforts to combat violent crime, and I am happy
to do everything I can to work with the gentleman and the ATF to
address the crime in New Jersey. Quite frankly, there ought to be an
office in New Jersey.
I thank the gentleman, and will try to help.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Jones of Ohio

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

Amendment offered by Mrs. Jones of Ohio:
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 under this Act
may be used for operation of the National Contact Center
(NCC) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit any
funds under this act to be used for the operation of the National
Contact Center of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
something that was created and has already failed, and now they want to
make it permanent.
As a result of the support that I enjoy from my colleagues, I yield
1\1/2\ minutes to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. Congresswoman
Norton was the former member, actually Chair, of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission.
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman for her initiative. As a former
chair of the EEOC credited with bringing efficiencies that eliminated
the backlog, I strongly support her amendment. The efficiencies that I
brought to the commission included settling cases. At first, they were
controversial, but the civil rights community focused in and around
them. When the remedy rate increased, the businesses were very grateful
for them because they got them out of the city.
The call system is not such an efficiency. It makes work that has not
saved either work or money. Callers instead want to get to somebody who
really knows something, the way when you have a recording or a customer
service person and you say, let me speak to a real person who can tell
me some real information.
Meanwhile the Nation's civil rights enforcement agency is being
dismantled. What other agency has lost 20 percent of its staff since
this administration took power? What kind of message is the 109th
Congress sending to civil rights. Eliminate the call center. Let
trained staff do their work.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to support this amendment
because it properly refocuses the mission of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. The goal is to ensure that all Americans are
protected against discrimination in the workplace, and to do this, we
should make sure that EEOC offices are properly staffed with workers to
handle complaints and assist employees in taking action.
Instead, the current chair has pushed for the development of this
National Contact Center. In effect, we are outsourcing the protection
of civil rights on the job to entry level personnel who rely on scripts
instead of expertise. The National Contact Center, which costs $2.5
million annually, continues to have a backlog of cases. The caseloads
grow. The staff has expressed great frustration in dealing with this
new structure.

[[Page H4754]]

In fact, 91 percent of the employees when surveyed reported that the
process required through the call center is as long or even much longer
than when calls come directly through the field offices. That doesn't
sound like a streamlined process to me.
Focusing resources into the contact center is directly inhibiting the
EEOC's ability to perform its duty of protecting victims of
discrimination. I urge passage of this amendment that we may end
wasteful spending and refocus our energies in hiring more qualified
staff on the ground where the workforce is.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WOLF. In 2003, the National Academy of Public Administration,
NAPA, completed a study recommending the creation of the EEOC National
Contact Center. So NAPA, a nonpartisan, bipartisan group, has
recommended that the call centers, which the gentlewoman wants to shut
down, be established.
Following a 6-month startup period, the National Contact Center
handled 402,383 inquiries in a 12-month period in addition to the
118,322 hits on frequently asked questions. The National Contact Center
staff handled 302,622 of these inquiries, resolving 70 percent without
further involvement of EEOC field staff.
Also, it has been said, if you shut these call centers down, the
technology that EEOC would have to have would cost anywhere from $10 to
$12 million. Currently, the volume of inquiries coming into the
National Contact Center is increasing as field offices have begun to
route their calls through the contact center.
By handling these inquiries, the National Contact Center has not
caused any further staff reductions but rather has freed up EEOC
employees to devote more time to the critical functions of mediating,
investigating and litigating charges.
I do agree it has to be monitored, but to that, I believe the staff
and Mr. Mollohan's staff have worked together to provide oversight in
this regard. The report accompanying the bill includes language to
require the commission to implement the recommendations of the
Inspector General. We are working to ensure a better EEOC National
Contact Center, but prohibiting the funds for the center would increase
the workload on the EEOC front line, detract from the people that are
helping. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, in all due respect, that is not
what the IG report, in fact, stated. It stated that the EEOC backlog
continued to accelerate with 39,061 unresolved cases in 2006. In fact,
they are up from 33,562 in 2005. It only saves the agency six full-time
positions. The contractors do not understand their role as an agency.
That is the report of the IG.
The importance that I need to bring to your attention, sir, is that a
contract center for equal employment opportunity complaints is not like
a contact center for your utility bill or your telephone bill or your
gas bill. This is about employment discrimination in jobs across this
country.
Having worked as a trial lawyer for the EEOC, as a person who worked
in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I know that the contact
center is not the place in which you want to resolve your claims. If
you had an age discrimination claim, you wouldn't want to do it over
the telephone.
So what I am suggesting to you is, the reason I am opposing these
contact centers is because it is not giving people the opportunity to
do what they really do need to do, which is have the opportunity to
talk with a person who is experienced. It is like all the centers now
who are using India in order to take calls from people in America, and
you have to explain four or five, six times. I don't have anything
against Indians. But in order to make my complaint, I want to make sure
that I have someone who is experienced and knowledgeable of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and the laws and what I need to do.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Do I get to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has the right to close.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I want you to note, recently the Washington Post
published preliminary findings of a study commissioned by the EEOC
which highlighted various concerns by job performance commissions,
recommended significant changes, significant changes, or that the
national call center be eliminated. I agreed with them that the center
should be eliminated, that people across America who have claims with
regard to employment ought to have the opportunity not to deal with the
call center but to deal with an experienced employee who has worked
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and has the background
and experience to take those claims.
I want to thank my staffer, Terence Houston, for all the work he did
in helping us put this amendment together. I thank you for the
opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. But what I would
like to do, this is a pilot program, and the pilot, if my memory serves
me, ends in September of this year, September of 2006, so the pilot has
not finished.
So to destroy the pilot before the pilot is finished, what I would
like to do is, when we finish the pilot in September or maybe even we
could try to expedite it a little bit to see, is to invite the
gentlewoman up and ask NAPA to come up with us and sit down and have
NAPA take a look at that, maybe at an appropriate time.
But I think the pilot has to go. NAPA is a very good organization. We
have used the NAPA people with regard to the reorganization of the FBI
and many other agencies.
What I would ask is we have a ``no'' vote. At the end of the pilot,
in September, I am going to remind the staff; we will call NAPA up,
also call the EEOC. I would invite the gentlewoman to come to the
meeting and kind of see where we are. Fortunately, we will still have
time to kind of deal with the issue, because I don't believe that we
will be in conference by then.
But we are in the middle of the pilot; you don't kill it while the
pilot is still operating. This is the National Academy of Public
Administration, which so many individuals have used so many times.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for just a moment?
Mr. WOLF. Yes, I would yield.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. The reason I am making the amendment, I brought
up the amendment, is the proposal is to make the NCC permanent before
the pilot is over with. That is why I am screaming and hollering. If
you are saying to me that it is not going to be made permanent by this
bill and that we will have an opportunity after the pilot is completed
to have a conversation about this and make sure things are taken care
of, I am willing to work with you. I would love to be able to wait
until the pilot ends before we make an amendment.
Mr. WOLF. I can't answer that. The staff said they are going to vote.
But what I would like to do tomorrow is write the commission or ask the
commission that they not vote in July to make it permanent until the
pilot is finished.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I would love to join you in a letter like that.
Mr. WOLF. Does that mean you withdraw the amendment?
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Let me just say this, if I have the assurance of
the chairman, and I have not worked with you before, but I know that
you are a man of your word, you are willing to work with me to try to
keep it from being permanent until we hear what is happening with the
pilot, I will withdraw my amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Yes. I would do that. I would also ask if we can ask the
National Academy of Public Administration also be part of that process.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. If you would allow me, I would love to have my
colleague, Congresswoman Norton, join me. She was a former commissioner
and worked with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

[[Page H4755]]

Mr. WOLF. Sure.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw
my amendment based on the comments of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Ohio?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY. 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. Gingrey:
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 title IV of
this Act may be used for negotiating the participation of
additional countries under the visa waiver program described
in section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1187).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.

{time} 1930

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I believe our Nation needs to secure its
points of entry and we need to do it now. Specifically, I believe we
should prevent any additional countries from joining the United States
Visa Waiver Program until we have the technical and human resources to
secure our points of entry. And that is my amendment. I do not believe
our Nation can afford the security risk of allowing more visitors to
the United States without screening them prior to arrival. This
amendment would prevent funds from being used to negotiate additional
visa waiver countries.
Mr. Chairman, the State Department would not be using funds to
negotiate new visa waivers until the machine-readable and tamper-
resistant biometric identification standards on passports that were
mandated by the PATRIOT Act and the 9/11 Act in 2004 as the cornerstone
of this entry-exit system are fully operational. There are currently 27
visa waiver countries, and I believe it is simply too risky to
negotiate additional countries without first having our security
screening system in place.
Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow additional visa waiver countries which
could provide more opportunities for terrorists to breach a loophole in
our security. How long will it be before Immigration Customs
Enforcement, ICE, the Air Marshals, or TSA, Transportation Security
Administration, misses the next Richard Reid?
Mr. Chairman, I understand concerns about how spending or limiting
the Visa Waiver Program may adversely affect cultural exchange or
possibly hurt the airline and tourist industry. However, at what point
are we willing to risk security for new pen pals and business as usual?
Habib Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan descent and a
name we all know very well, used his French passport without a U.S.
visa on February 23, 2001, to fly from London to Chicago and on to
Oklahoma City where he began flight training at an aviation school. On
August 16, 2001, the INS arrested Moussaoui because he remained in the
United States well beyond the 90 days allowed for the Visa Waiver
Program entrants and was in violation of the requirement that Visa
Waiver Program travelers enter for business or tourism.
Had INS and law enforcement not been on top of their game, Moussaoui
could have been a part of the 9/11 attacks, thanks to a visa waiver. In
fact, we have referred to him as the twentieth hijacker.
So, Mr. Chairman, the Visa Waiver Program was only designed to be a
temporary program for a small and a select group of nations, starting
with the UK, Japan and France in 1986. Today, 27 countries are eligible
under visa waivers, opening the door widely for unscreened terrorists
to attack the United States. Twenty-seven countries are enough to keep
ICE and TSA exceedingly busy. Do we really need to fund efforts to add
a 28th and 29th country to their list of responsibilities?
I just don't want to see our Nation attacked because we couldn't
carry through with our commitments to security first.
So, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, please support this Gingrey
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for Dr. Gingrey. We
have talked about this amendment prior to him bringing it up; and I
know he is very, very sincere. But there is more that has to be told
about the visa waiver and the success of not the program itself but in
the way in which it is moving to get to an arena where we all want it
to be, where we want biometric passports, where we want identification.
I chair the Baltic Caucus. The Baltic Caucus has about 45 Members of
this body. The Baltic countries are Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Some
of the newly emerging democracies have only been in existence after the
fall of the Soviet Union, and yet they are some of our strongest allies
in the war against terror. They have had successful integration into
NATO, NATO membership. They are members of the European Union. They
have soldiers that have not only fought and died in Afghanistan but
also in Iraq. In fact, Lithuania is leading one of the provincial
reconstruction teams. These countries are doing everything that we are
asking them to do as a nation, as part of the coalition of the willing.
How does this relate to visa waiver?
Well, we have other allies who aren't part of the coalition of the
willing, who already have this venue of visa waiver. So what kind of
message are we telling these new emerging democracies, those that are,
by percentage of soldiers, committed by far outstripping some of the
larger countries that are part of our alliance? We say, these countries
have this visa waiver process, but you can't have access to that; and I
would say that that sends a terrible signal that we, in essence, now
are asking some of our strongest allies, and we are discriminating
against them.
And the point that really, the point about the amendment is that
Chairman Sensenbrenner, I think, is going to come down and speak on
this amendment. We disagree on some of this visa waiver debate. I would
like to see it happen now.
He wants to proceed on the plan with the State Department which says
there has got to be a road map. Let's bring in these new countries, but
let them meet these requirements, requirements like recidivism. Get
their numbers down. Process like biometric passports, things that
countries that have visa waiver now aren't even required to do.
So when you pull the money and freeze it from the developing of the
road map, then what you are, in essence, doing is stopping the
encouragement of people to do the very things we want to do to secure
our borders.
So, with that, I am going to strongly oppose this amendment.
I would like to yield to my colleague from Chicago for as much time
as he may consume, Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I completely understand the concerns that
the gentleman from Georgia has, talking about the potential that this
could have if we would just open up the Visa Waiver Program to any
country, to open it up wide.
But there are specific countries, Poland, for example. Poland was
included in the Senate Immigration Reform bill. Poland has been a great
ally of the United States, has been a fantastic ally, has given troops
to the war on terror; and, as Mr. Shimkus said, I believe that this
would be a very bad signal to say, no, no more countries can be
included here, even on a temporary basis, even if we put all these
other restrictions on. So I think we need to continue to allow other
countries to possibly be accepted into the Visa Waiver Program.
So I understand the concerns with terrorism, concerns with protecting
our country. Security needs to be up there foremost. But part of
security is also bringing in more of our allies.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H4756]]

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect for my colleague
from Illinois; and I know his passion for the Baltic countries and
particularly Lithuania. And this is not about them. This is not about
any specific country, although there are two that are in line to expand
this Visa Waiver Program from the current 27 to 29. It is not the
Baltic countries. But we are in a situation where we have got to accept
the reality of the risk that we are in.
If I really had my way, I would like to see the Visa Waiver Program
completely suspended, all 27 countries suspended. In fact, I have
introduced a bill to that effect and brought that amendment to the 9/11
bill. And I had a colloquy then, withdrew that amendment with the
agreement that hearings would be held and this issue would be
addressed.
The 9/11 bill in 2004, the PATRIOT Act called for making sure this
entry-exit system and the biometrics on the passports were secure by a
date certain. We are beyond that date certain, Mr. Chairman. And now,
from these countries, no, they weren't coalitions of the willing, but
France certainly has been our friend and for the sake of tourism, but
we can't afford to continue to do that in this time.
I urge my colleagues, I beg my colleagues to support my amendment.
I yield back.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I will just end in saying it is about
these new emerging democracies. It is about our friends, the smallest
countries and the new emerging democracies and the former captive
nations. If anyone understands freedom and democracy, it is the
governing officials of these Baltic countries who had fathers and
grandparents enslaved in Siberia. They know what it is about to defend
and fight for freedom. And you know what? They have chosen sides. And
you know whose side they have chosen? They have chosen the United
States.
What this amendment does is just like capital formation. You show
that there is no ability of return, you lose the investment. And this
is a loss of investment for our friends.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia Mr. Gingrey. His
amendment would deny any Federal funding to negotiate the addition of
other countries to the U.S. Visa Waiver Program.
This amendment would essentially kill the expansion of the U.S. Visa
Waiver Program, something that I believe is a diplomatic mistake for
our country to undertake.
The Visa Waiver Program enables nationals of certain countries to
travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90
days or less without obtaining a visa. The program was established in
1986 with the objective of promoting better relations with U.S. allies,
eliminating unnecessary barriers to travel, stimulating the tourism
industry, and permitting the Department of State to focus consular
resources in other areas.
Currently there are 27 countries participating in the Visa Waiver
Program, all strong allies of the United States. Currently South Korea
is seeking to become part of the Visa Waiver Program. We have very
strong economic, cultural, and diplomatic ties with South Korea and the
time has come to expand that relationship further to include the
citizens of South Korea under the Visa Waiver Program.
While the sponsor of this amendment states the Visa Waiver Program
makes the USA less safe, I argue the exact opposite. Not all countries
participate in the Visa Waiver Program, and not all travelers from Visa
Waiver Program countries are eligible to use the program. Visa Waiver
Program travelers are screened prior to admission into the United
States, and they are enrolled in the Department of Homeland Security's
U.S.-VISIT program.
The reason this program is needed is that processing visas in some
countries can tie up about 80 percent of American Embassy and Consulate
resources. If we extended the Visa Waiver Program to countries that
have met the requirements and conditions set by our Department of
State, we can free up much needed resources and devote them to other
tasks such as: stopping terrorists, combating illegal immigration, drug
trafficking, human trafficking, and weapons proliferations.
To stop funding the Visa Waiver Program, is wrong and dangerous for
Americans.
As a Representative from one of the most diverse districts in the
United States, I know first hand the contributions that our naturalized
citizens can make to a community.
I have constituents, that would like their families to legally come,
visit and enjoy the United States, but are having a difficult time
because the visa application process has become arduous and too time
consuming. On the behalf of my constituents, I say that we must expand
and continue the Visa Waiver Program.
I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Lipinski

Mr. LIPINSKI. 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. Lipinski:
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--state and local
law enforcement assistance'' for the Law Enforcement Tribute
Act program, as authorized by section 11001 of the 21st
Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization
Act (Public Law 107-273), and the amount otherwise provided
by this Act for ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--General
Administration--salaries and expenses'' is hereby reduced by,
$500,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan
amendment to provide $500,000 in funding for the Law Enforcement
Tribute Act program. This program provides one-time grants to help
State and local governments complete permanent tributes that honor the
men and women of law enforcement and public safety who have been killed
or disabled in the line of duty.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for their cosponsorship of this
amendment. This amendment would simply restore the funding for this
program to the fiscal year 2003 level.
There are currently 17,535 names engraved on the walls of the
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, including 72
who were killed on 9/11, so many heroes who have given their lives to
protect our families.
Many communities also want to honor their local law enforcement
heroes with memorials or other permanent tributes. This program
provides support to States and localities to help them do this. Without
this support, many of them could not provide these worthy tributes.
Mr. Chairman, law enforcement and public safety officers dedicate
their careers and their lives to protecting us. Tributes provide us
with a constant reminder of the sacrifices that they have made. The
least we can do is help local communities honor these brave heroes.
I urge my colleagues to join us with their support.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the committee has no objection to the
amendment and is prepared to accept it
Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Mollohan for
their support on this amendment; and I thank them for accepting the
amendment.
Mr. CULBERSON. We commend the gentleman for his amendment and are
willing to accept it.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
this amendment restoring funds for the Law Enforcement Tribute Act
Program to its FY03 funding level of $500,000.
Mr. Chairman, only seven weeks ago, the Fairfax County Police
Department suffered the loss of two officers in the line of duty, the
first fatal shooting in the department's long history.
As I join the Fairfax County community in mourning the loss of Master
Police Officer Michael Garbarino and Detective Vicky Armel, I also have
in my thoughts the roughly 740,000 officers nationwide who put their
lives on the line for the safety and protection of others on a regular
basis.
Mr. Chairman, every day, we are honored by the service these men and
women give to our communities. This amendment will allow us to give
those who sacrifice the most for our community and safety the
recognition they deserve. I am pleased that the chairman has agreed to
accept the amendment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, hundreds of thousands of men and women each
day put

[[Page H4757]]

on a uniform and put their lives in danger to protect our
neighborhoods. Just last year, 154 police officers were killed in the
line of duty in the United States. There were 17 police officers who
were killed in the line of duty in 2005 in my home State of California,
alone. These are men and women who serve us bravely and with
distinction, and they will not be returning home to their families.
When I introduced the Law Enforcement Tribute Act in 2001, the city
of Glendale had wanted to honor Officer Lazzaretto as well as three
other police officers and one sheriff's deputy that had been killed in
the line of duty. Chuck Lazaretto was tragically killed in a shooting
in May 1997. Because of this House's support, we enabled Glendale to
place a memorial honoring its fallen heroes outside its new police
department headquarters.
The parameters of LETA are very simple. Maximum grants are $150,000,
and they must have at least a 50 percent local match. This amendment
would appropriate $500,000 for fiscal year 2007.
In addition to the memorial that was erected in my district, the Law
Enforcement Tribute Act program provided funds in 2004 to 17 local law
enforcement memorials all over this Nation, including memorials in
Tacoma, Washington; Fairbanks, Alaska; Tucson, Arizona; and Memphis,
Tennessee.
It is a fitting tribute for the Federal Government to continue to
provide a small amount of assistance to honor these fallen heroes.
I ask for my colleague's support in honoring the fallen men and women
of law enforcement, and restore funds for the Law Enforcement Tribute
Act Program to its FY 03 funding level of $500,000.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas

Mr. McCAUL of Texas. 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. McCaul of Texas:
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 a United Nations peacekeeping mission if an
individual who is participating in that mission is under
investigation for alleged human rights abuses, including
sexual exploitation, and that individual has not been removed
from that mission for the duration of that investigation.

{time} 1945

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order on
the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 2006, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise to offer this amendment, which will prevent individuals who
are under investigation for human rights violations, including sexual
abuse, from participating in current peacekeeping missions.
The underlying bill includes good language that will prevent funds in
the bill from being spent on new peacekeeping programs until the
allegations of human rights violations have been investigated and the
guilty have been purged. My amendment simply expands on this initiative
and makes current U.N. peacekeeping missions accountable for human
rights violations.
Over the past year, several cases of human rights abuses,
specifically sexual exploitation and abuse, by individuals involved in
U.N. peacekeeping operations have raised the suspicions of many Members
of Congress and members of the International Relations Committee. The
U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services has opened an investigation
into these allegations, and the evidence in several of these cases is
compelling and very disturbing. Sadly, in some cases, the U.N. has
failed to remove the accused individuals from their posts, leaving them
in a position to continue abusing innocent victims. Whatever the world
gains by placing peacekeeping forces in an embattled country or region
we lose tenfold by having deviant and abusive members of the
peacekeeping force exploit the local populations.
Peacekeeping funds are an important and necessary part of what
America does for humanity and the rest of the world. It is a worthwhile
cause and a very important resource in spreading American goodwill to
other nations. However, I believe the U.N. peacekeeping program must be
reformed and Americans should not be spending their valuable tax
dollars on the program until this serious problem has been fixed.
I thank the chairman for allowing me to discuss this issue. I
understand it is subject to a point of order, and I will withdraw my
amendment with the hope that the chairman and ranking member will
address this issue in conference and in future appropriations bills.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

Ms. DeLAURO. 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. DeLauro:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by increasing the amount made available for
``violence against women and prosecution programs''
(consisting of an additional $2,000,000 for grants to assist
children and youth exposed to violence, $2,000,000 for
services to advocate for and respond to youth, and $1,000,000
for the national tribal sex offender registry, as authorized
by sections 41303, 41201, and 905(b), respectively, of the
Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005, and $5,000,000 for grants for
sexual assault services, as authorized by section 2014 of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as
amended by section 202 of the Violence Against Women and
Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005), and by
reducing the amount made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE--General Administration--salaries and expenses'', by
$10,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment, which I offer with Mr. Inslee, would provide $10
million for several newly authorized Violence Against Women Act
programs, including $2 million for children exposed to violence, $2
million for youth services and $1 million for the national tribal sex
offender registry, as well as $5 million for the Sexual Assault
Services Program.
The House last year voted almost unanimously to reauthorize the
Violence Against Women Act, which dedicated $50 million for the Sexual
Assault Services Program, funding vitally needed. It was the first
Federal program to provide direct funding for counseling, legal
accompaniment, training for law enforcement, and the prevention and
education services that rape victims rely on.
Sexual violence remains a problem in this country. Rape remains the
only violent crime to still be on the rise. One out of every six women
are raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, more than 200,000
in 2004 alone. Worse, only 36 percent of victims say they reported the
crime to the police.
Those most likely to be raped or sexually assaulted are young women
between the ages of 16 and 24, women with their whole lives ahead of
them. This one act of violence will alter their lives forever. But
absent proper treatment and timely counseling, it could destroy any
possibility of a healthy life, resulting in depression, addiction,
eating disorders and even suicide.
The need to take action is now. When Congress recognized the need to
authorize this program, it was one time when we spoke with one voice in
this

[[Page H4758]]

body. While the program was authorized at $50 million, the underlying
appropriations bill includes no funding for it whatsoever.
We can take a small step toward following through on a commitment for
direct services with this amendment, to get funding where it is needed
most, to rape crisis centers.
Let us start to truly make go ahead on this commitment that we made.
And by simply redirecting $5 million from the Department of Justice
general administration account to this program, we can give these women
hope that there are better days ahead.
Let us pass the amendment and let us do it today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, we know two things about domestic violence
and violence against women. Number one, it is still at epidemic levels
across our Nation. And, number two, it is almost an inherited trait
where children who are exposed to domestic violence themselves become
perpetrators frequently. Ten million children a year are exposed to
domestic violence in our country, and we know that men who have
experienced it and viewed it as children are twice as likely to become
perpetrators themselves.
So one aspect of this bill is to fund a portion of the Violence
Against Women Act to break that chain, nip this in the bud, stop that
chain from continuing across multiple generations. The other part of
our amendment will make sure that we treat children. Teenagers are a
special group that are increasingly submitted to sexual harassment,
sexual abuse and domestic violence themselves. These are bills that we
need to get funded. Third, this will deal with the tribal problem. We
need to have a tribal registry for sexual abuse.
And just in conclusion, there will come a day, I hope, where we
fathers are successful in teaching our sons that it is unmanly to abuse
women. That is an obligation upon all of us as fathers. But as part of
that, I am happy today and I hope this amendment will pass. It will
fulfill our obligation in Congress to help break this chain of domestic
violence.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the committee has no objection to the
amendment and applauds the authors for its intent and for bringing it
to the House tonight and are prepared to accept it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, we thank the gentleman, and we appreciate
the opportunity to move forward on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas

Mr. McCAUL of Texas. 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. McCaul of Texas:
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 administration and operation of the
United Nations Human Rights Council while countries
designated as state sponsors of terrorism by the Secretary of
State are members of the Council.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today to offer this amendment, which simply seeks to prevent
the funding of a Human Rights Council that represents state-sponsored
terrorists.
Currently, the United States provides 22 percent of the U.N. annual
budgets, over $900 million in fiscal year 2007, and some of that
funding goes to the Human Rights Council. My amendment states that no
funds in this bill may be used to fund the administration or operation
of the Human Rights Council while countries designated as state
sponsors of terrorism remain as members of the council. The reforms to
the Human Rights Council by the United Nations over the last year are
purely cosmetic and without substantive change.
Today, countries that sponsor terrorism and countries that have
atrocious human rights records still remain on this council, and the
American taxpayer funds them. And in my opinion, that is unacceptable.
Any Human Rights Council reform that allows countries that sponsor
terrorism to remain as members, such as Cuba, is not real reform. And
in the past, countries such as Libya, Iran and Syria have participated
on this council.
Additionally, any Human Rights Council reform that allows countries
with despicable human rights records to remain as members, such as
China and Saudi Arabia, is not real reform. I believe that it would not
only be a waste of America's valuable tax dollars, but it would be an
insult to some of our taxpayers who are also soldiers who have fought
so hard to defeat terrorism worldwide. It is an insult to elevate
countries that sponsor terrorism to a position of authority over other
countries for human rights abuses.
Until the United Nations engages in true reform to defeat terrorism,
we should send them a strong message through this amendment by cutting
off U.S. funding to the Human Rights Council.
I urge all my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment which
will work to prevent terrorism worldwide.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It is unfortunate that the United States did not participate in the
establishment of the Human Rights Council. We were one of four nations
out of over 170 that did support it who opposed it. But following the
elections to the Human Rights Council, the Assistant Secretary of State
for International Organizations, Kristen Silverburg, had this to say:
On the whole, we think this demonstrates some progress. Those are her
words.
And the truth is that the Human Rights Council is an improvement over
the discredited Human Rights Commission. Is it perfect? Of course not.
But it does require candidates to be elected for the first time by an
absolute majority of the General Assembly, not through selection. It
also requires that those who serve on the council have their human
rights records regularly reviewed and allows the human rights abusers
to be suspended from the council. And the reality is that the only
member of the council that is on the list of state sponsors of
terrorism is Cuba. Sudan, Syria, Libya, Iran and North Korea were kept
off. And the dominant majority of its members are democracies.
I note that my friend and colleague from Texas, the proponent of the
amendment, sent around a ``dear colleague'' about his amendment, and
therein was a statement that a council that includes China does not
signify reform. Well, I would submit that that puts him at odds with
our ambassador to the United Nations and the Bush administration.
Because Ambassador Bolton has initially suggested that the five
permanent members of the Security Council, which clearly includes
China, automatically be given membership on the Human Rights Council.
And the administration subsequently, through Ambassador Bolton and
Secretary Rice, have publicly committed to work with the council to
make it effective.
If the United States turns its back on the council, it will condemn
the principal international human rights forum to failure and allow the
handful of bad apples that remain in the body to dominate it.
Instead, the United States should work with the 37 democracies
elected to the 47-member council to strengthen and depoliticize it and
ensure future elections to the council exclude members that commit
human rights abuses.

[[Page H4759]]

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
It is amazing to me that anybody could agree that state sponsors of
terrorism, that it is somehow acceptable that they serve on the Human
Rights Council, and specifically countries like China, when we look at
their human rights record in Tiananmen Square and the oppression that
they have put on their people, countries like Iran, which is a state
sponsor of terrorism, which has oppressed women in their society,
oppressed their own people to a great extent.

{time} 2000

Also Libya and Syria. I think this is a commonsense amendment, and I
urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 2
minutes.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding the time; and I commend your efforts in this regard to limit
the funding to this council and limit the funding, in essence, to the
U.N. as well.
This council and even the process by which members are selected to it
are basically symptomatic of the problems that we see within the U.N.
not just today but over its entire 60-year history.
When we step back for a moment and say this is good and the next
forward step because these members are selected to it by the entire
body, we must remember what the entire body is made up of. This is the
same body that is made up of the G-77 that is basically thwarting all
efforts to reform the U.N., efforts that this House and this gentleman
has also worked for to make sure we would have going forward in the
U.N.
But the G-77 and the other minority nations have worked to make sure
that those reforms that this House has tried to envision and has
envisioned and tried to get across in the U.N. have been thwarted.
This same group of states, made up, as you indicate, of terrorist
states as well, have seen to it that they have selected nations such as
China, such as Pakistan and others, terrorist nation states, to be on
this body.
How can anyone sit back in good conscience and say that this council
is going to be able, therefore, to judge any other nation in the world
when their own nations have the problems within it?
And, yes, it is true that these nations may have the opportunity or
have the responsibility of having their human rights records reviewed
more intensely, but I don't think that a more extensive review is
necessary. The world has already seen these nations and how they
conduct themselves on the international scene, and the world has
already seen as well how they conduct themselves with regard to their
own citizens.
A nation that subjects their own people, a nation that puts their own
people under the thumb of their leadership, a nation that subjects its
own women to an inferior status within their country, is not a nation
that I wish to be judging the quality of life in this country or any
other country.
So I commend the gentleman for his work in this regard. I think that
this House should stand up behind him and make sure this legislation
passes.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge that it is not a perfect mechanism. Would
I have preferred to see a pure and pristine body created? Of course.
But the truth is, and the gentleman has acknowledged it, we live in an
imperfect world; and I would suggest the best example of that is the
allies that this Nation has brought into the coalition of the willing.
Let me just cite a few:
Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan, headed by an individual by the name of Islam
Karimov, who is responsible for the massacre of almost 1,000 innocent
civilians in Andijan.
Part of our coalition of the willing includes Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan,
where the son of the president recently came and visited with President
Bush in the White House. Read our Department of State's human rights
reports on Azerbaijan.
Another traditional ally of the United States, Egypt. Go read the
Department of State's human rights reports on Egypt.
And the gentleman is correct to talk about Saudi Arabia, where women
don't have the right to drive.
We are in a world that is imperfect, but there is no doubt that this
particular council represents an improvement and has the support of the
Bush administration.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read
the amendment so we can understand what amendment this is.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas:
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--juvenile
justice programs'' for the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention
Block Grant program, as authorized by Part C of the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, and the
amount otherwise provided by this Act for ``Broadcasting
Board of Governors--international broadcasting operations''
is hereby reduced by, $5,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to not offer my amendment concerning the
Juvenile Mentoring Program but will present this one concerning the
Delinquency Prevention Block Grant program.
Initially, the amount of money designated earlier for these programs
was $33 million. That was the initial amendment. However, that has been
reduced to $7 million, and I rise today to support the funding for
Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Grants, because the funding is limited.
Mr. Chairman, as violent crime continues to rise throughout this
country, it is important that we give our young people the support they
need to become productive adults. Delinquency Prevention Block Grants
do just that.
These grants provide assistance to at-risk youth through a number of
programs, including family strengthening programs, drug and alcohol
abuse treatment programs, gang prevention programs, job training and
employment programs, and youth development programs. These activities
are designed to prevent and reduce juvenile crime in communities that
have a comprehensive youth crime prevention plan.
Simply building more prisons is not an effective crime prevention
strategy. Mr. Chairman, we must give our children a path to success,
not a path to prison. Delinquency Prevention Block Grants give our
young people a chance to excel and become productive adults. Through
youth development, prevention and intervention efforts, we can keep our
children safe and out of trouble. Research has shown that early
investment in youth can dramatically reduce youth crime and violence.
Additionally, delinquency prevention programs offer a considerable
savings in the long term. For every dollar invested in prevention
programs, we save about $4 to $7 in the long term.
Providing all children and youth with constructive programs and
alternatives is essential for our Nation's at-risk children. We must
give our youth every opportunity to grow into responsible, productive,
healthy and law-abiding adults. I ask my colleagues for

[[Page H4760]]

their support for this important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I will not offer the amendment earlier we talked about.
I ask for support for this one. I think this is the one that we had
discussed. The one that I withdrew had to do with the mentoring program
that I was told already had funding in under various organizations like
Girls Clubs and Boy Scouts and organizations like that. So that is the
one that I withdrew.
This one was altered to show $7 million, which had been $33 million.
That was an agreed amount. It is reduced to $7 million.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Wolf.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta
Sanchez of California).
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman
Wolf for agreeing to enter into this colloquy with me on the subject of
intellectual property rights.
Discussions of international trade and intellectual property rights
are often dominated by talk about China, but I would like to bring up
that there is no country in the world who is doing a worse job at
fighting piracy right now than the country of Vietnam. Ninety percent
of all the software used in Vietnam in 2005 was pirated. That is more
than the deplorable rate of 86 percent that China has. Piracy in
Vietnam is costing our businesses $45 million a year.
I know that the chairman shares my disappointment with the lack of
action that we have seen from the administration on this issue so far,
but despite Vietnam's complete failure to protect intellectual property
rights, the administration and certain Members of this House want to
grant Vietnam permanent trade relations and WTO membership. I think
that it is a huge mistake.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady. I
want to be on record I am absolutely, opposed to granting PNTR to
Vietnam.
If you read the Human Rights Report of the State Department of
Vietnam, which probably not many people read, it is a disaster. It is a
disaster. I cannot understand why a bill would even come to the floor.
On the issue of intellectual property, if you look to see how they
are treating the Catholic Church and the Buddhists, do you think they
are going to be any better on intellectual property? No way.
President Bush is going to visit this fall. We are hoping that the
President will meet with dissidents here and also dissidents over there
and speak out on human rights, religious freedom and on the
intellectual property issue. So anything that we could do in this bill
that would be helpful with regard to beefing up intellectual property
and doing as much is helpful.
But, also, as I told another Member from your side earlier today, it
isn't just putting a couple dollars in. I want somebody who really
believes, and, as of now, I think this whole issue of trade trumps
everything.
I wish we could harken back to the days of Ronald Reagan, whereby
Ronald Reagan just spoke out so boldly on the issue of human rights and
religious freedom in Eastern Europe, called the Soviet Union the evil
empire, was laughed at by the liberal media, and lived to see the fall
of the Soviet Union.
That type of approach that Ronald Reagan took would be the right
approach to take with regard to Vietnam, whereby we could see
additional trade and human rights and religious freedom and, lastly,
the respect for intellectual property, so they are not just stealing
everything that we have.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I
represent the largest Vietnamese population outside of Vietnam in the
world in Orange County, California; and certainly our number one issues
with respect to how people are treated in Vietnam are the human rights
issues, the issues of freedom of the press. There is no press that is
not state-owned.
I remember being with an archbishop, and he said that he couldn't
even pass out information inside the church after the church service
because that would be considered the printed word, and that would not
be allowed because he was not a state agency, as well as confiscation
of land rights, which I have got a bill in the House and we are working
on to try to get that returned to religious institutions.
But certainly there are moneys in this bill for intellectual property
rights, and I would hope that this administration would concentrate
some of that. Of course, we need to do it on China. It is a large
economy that is growing there. But I think we really need to send a
message.
As I stated before, I have voted every single time against normal
trade relations with Vietnam because I believe that their human rights
record is so atrocious and they really haven't changed it.
By the way, I have also been denied three times entry into Vietnam in
the last few years, simply because I continue to bring up these issues.
So I hope that the chairman will work with me, especially as we move
forward as the President is deciding to go to Vietnam and as many in
this House have decided to push for WTO entry and for normal trade
relations with Vietnam. I would hope that people would begin to read
some of these reports to understand just how terrible the human rights
conditions are in Vietnam.

{time} 2015

With that, I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

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

Amendment No. 16 offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to carry out section 924(p) of title 18, United
States Code.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment will prohibit any funds in this bill from
being used to enforce the burdensome trigger lock law that was passed
and that went into effect on April 24 of this year. I believe this law
is needless and equivalent to a tax on citizens who purchase firearms.
The law states that all licensed manufacturers, licensed importers
and licensed dealers must provide a trigger lock with every handgun
they sell. This is not a cost that will be absorbed by the gun
industry; it is a cost that will be passed on to lawful gun owners.
Trigger locks do not stop gun crimes or accidental shootings.
Mandating gun buyers to pay for a gun lock is not making America safe;
it just is making guns and self-defense and personal protection more
costly.
Mr. Chairman, should the government mandate safety devices for every
possible household danger? Lawn mowers can be dangerous. According to
the American Academy of Pediatrics, approximately 9,400 children
younger than 18 years of age receive emergency care for lawn mower
related injuries every year. Should we mandate that all lawn mowers be
sold with a blade lock?
Medicine cabinets contain dangerous substances. According to the
Center for Disease Control, in 2000, over 1 million children younger
than age 6 were exposed to poison, with some of the most common
exposures being cosmetics and personal care products.
Should we make medicine cabinet locks mandatory? Knives, electrical
outlets, power tools. I could stand here and list hundreds of household
mechanisms. Safety needs to be a priority in all households; we all
know that. I believe that parents should be responsible

[[Page H4761]]

and store and manage household products in a safe manner.
But should lawn mower dealers be required to sell blade locks with
every lawn mower sold or every cabinet maker sell a cabinet lock with
every cabinet sold?
Mr. Chairman, my point is that many things around the home are
dangerous when used without proper instructions or supervision. But it
is not the government's job or responsibility to mandate every
conceivable protective mechanism imaginable.
Responsible adults do not need the government to force them to
purchase protective mechanisms for their homes or businesses.
Responsible gun owners who need a trigger lock would have purchased one
on their own without a government mandate. A government mandate is not
the answer.
Forcing gun buyers to purchase gun locks will not make guns more
safe; it will only result in gun lock manufacturers making larger
profits and increasing costs for all lawful gun owners.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow Members to vote in favor of my
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, when the legislation was passed, it was
passed with the help of 70 bipartisan Senators. With that, we had many
strong certainly gun rights Senators voting for the amendment. We talk
about gun safety. We talk about trying to certainly save and prevent as
many injuries as possible. We talk about, you know, having it mandatory
when you buy a gun. But we are not asking mandatory that the person use
the gun lock.
The whole idea was, hopefully, educational-wise, as we do with so
many other products, we will have that gun owner use it. Many gun
owners use storage locks. And that is great. We are trying to reach out
to more.
I have nurses around the country that actually go to gun stores and
hand out gun locks like this. They are not expensive. They are $5 to
$7. We have seen safety issues certainly at the forefront, helmets for
kids when they ride their bicycles. That has saved a lot of head
injuries.
When we look at the health care issues on gun violence,
unfortunately, especially to children, we see a lot of money in the
health care system being used. It is just one other step to hopefully
bring down certainly medical care costs in this country, but also more
importantly than ever before, certainly work with children to save
their lives.
In this past week, we had an incident in New Jersey. A 12-year-old
unfortunately got hold of a family gun. Playing with it with his
friend, he shot and killed his friend. It was an accident. It was an
accident that certainly could have been prevented.
I happen to think that when the Senators on the other side voted, and
by the way, this House also voted for the bill, to pass it with the gun
safety locks mandatory in that legislation, it is one more thing. Is it
a perfect answer? No. We do not have perfect answers.
Since I have been here, I have been trying to convince people that I
am not out to take anybody's right to own a gun. But I also talk to an
awful lot of gun owners. And they understand the responsibility that
they have. Now, if someone buys a gun and it is mandatory to have a gun
lock with that gun, they can choose to use it or not to use it. I hope
that if they choose not to use it, they would at least give it to
someone that would.
As I said, my nurses, they do not have large budgets. But because
they work in the emergency rooms and because they are the ones on the
front line when these young kids come in, we have done, in my opinion,
a very good job on bringing down the number of deaths with children,
especially those under 18.
To take away something that this Congress and certainly the other
body felt was important enough to put into legislation is something
that I think that we should be fighting for. I hope that my colleagues
will oppose this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire how much time I have left?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) have 2 minutes remaining.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from South Carolina.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank
Congresswoman Musgrave for her leadership on this amendment, which
would prohibit any funds in the appropriations bill being used to
enforce the mandatory trigger lock provisions, essentially a tax on
citizens who purchase a handgun.
It is my view that the new trigger lock bill is bad public policy.
The new bill provides, or the law is a tax on citizens who purchase
firearms. Responsible and law-abiding gun owners do not need the
government to tell them to be safe. Responsible gun owners will take
protective steps without the government mandating trigger locks.
Responsible users who will use a provided lock would also be using
safer and more secure methods, such as a lockbox, quick-action safes or
full gun safes. I would like to thank Congresswoman Musgrave for her
leadership in understanding there can be unintended consequences.
It is my view that many people who in good faith are working for
restrictions on the use of weapons are actually not achieving what they
meant. My experience with this, I worked in the State of South Carolina
in the State senate. To provide concealed weapons permits, we were
warned that if persons who were law-abiding citizens could apply for a
concealed weapons permit, it would lead to the shoot-out at OK Corral.
The exact opposite has occurred. There has been a reduction in gun
violence, a reduction in crime, almost 50,000 people in my home State
now have a concealed weapons permit.
And people who were opposing our bill now tell me that it works. And
so I would like to commend Congresswoman Musgrave on her vision to
protect the people of the United States.
Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I think we are trying to change the
debate again. Again, it is about gun safety. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1
minute to my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New York for
yielding me time.
I rise to strongly oppose this amendment, which if enacted will lead
to more accidental gun shootings in this country, including more deaths
of children. Just last October, this Congress passed a piece of
legislation that brought broad immunities to the gun industry. And we
can have our differences on that issue.
But as part of that legislation that was passed by this Congress and
signed by the President back in October, there was a provision, Child
Safety Lock Act of 2005. Let me just describe the purposes: To promote
the safe storage and use of handguns by consumers; to prevent
unauthorized persons from gaining access to or use of a handgun,
including children who may not be in possession of a handgun.
Who can argue against those purposes? That was the intent of the
legislation. It said, if you are a gun dealer and you are selling a
gun, let's at the very least ensure that you have to sell at the same
time a gun safety lock to protect against accidental shootings. We know
the terrible statistics of accidental shooting deaths of children in
this country. Let's not change what this Congress did on a bipartisan
basis.
And when this came up in the Senate, there was a bipartisan vote in
support of this.
Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am here on the floor to present a
different amendment. But I listened to the debate on this, and I am
really amazed. This House voted overwhelming to require v-chips on
television sets so parents can protect their children from improper
programming.
But it would be absurd to do that and then say we are not going to at
least have a gun lock to protect children who may pick up a gun and use
it inappropriately, use it out of ignorance.
So I want to join you in opposing this amendment. I see nothing wrong
with a

[[Page H4762]]

gun lock. I do not think that means people want to take away the guns
or anything else, just to make sure that it is locked so if it gets in
the hands of a child, that the child will not use it, kill someone or
do harm to other children and members of the family.
We do have requirements of locks on all sorts of products in order to
protect children. I think the rule that is in effect ought to be
allowed to be continued without this amendment stopping it.
Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, with that being said, you have to
remember, we are not forcing anyone to use the lock. We are trying to
educate them to save lives. It is a commonsense law. Hopefully,
everybody will oppose this amendment.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the law is needless and
equivalent to a tax on law-abiding citizens who buy guns. I urge
Members to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman

Mr. WAXMAN. 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. Waxman:
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--
(1) the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Chemicals,
Pharmaceuticals, Health/Science Products and Services (ITAC
3) unless the membership of the committee is ``fairly
balanced in terms of the points of view represented''
pursuant to section 5(b)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act (5. U.S. App.); or
(2) the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual
Property Rights (ITAC 15) unless the membership of the
committee is ``fairly balanced in terms of the points of view
represented'' pursuant to section 5(b)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, the law for advisory
committees requires that it be fairly balanced in terms of points of
view represented, pursuant to section 5(b)(2) of the Federal Advisory
Committee.
Well, there are two trade advisory committees that influence a wide
array of policy and negotiating decisions that impact access to
medicine, both domestically and overseas. One is known as ITAC 3. It
covers chemicals, pharmaceuticals, health products and services.
The other, ITAC 15, advises the USTR on intellectual property rights.
Pharmaceutical companies are represented already on these panels. But
input from the public health community is nonexistent.
To its credit, in December of 2005, the administration moved to
rectify this imbalance by soliciting nominations for public health
representatives to be added to the two committees.
Yet more than 6 months later, despite numerous applications from the
public health community and repeated inquires from Congress, no
appointments have been made.

{time} 2030

The longer the USTR delays, the more we need to be concerned about
biased advice that is resulting in controversial trade policies on drug
pricing, drug competition and reimportation and other sensitive issues.
For example, recent free trade agreements extend patent terms, delay
generic competition and make it more difficult for governments to
respond in the case of a public health crisis.
The USTR's 2006 Special 301 Report on intellectual property
violations threatens sanctions against our ally Israel because the
Israeli government declined to adopt drug regulations that go beyond
the requirements of the WTO and even U.S. law.
Our FTA with Australia interferes with the pricing system they use to
keep down drug prices.
Well, the consequences of not getting a balanced input from these
advisory committees could lead to serious problems for people in these
developing countries because, unless they have access to generic drugs,
their people will not be able to afford the drugs that could be as
successful in dealing with HIV/AIDS treatment programs, and it could
even have an impact on the price of drugs in the United States.
The status quo is unacceptable. USTR ought to live up to its
commitment to add public health representatives and meet its obligation
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and that is what the
amendment seeks to do.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia rise?
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I understand the Ways and Means Committee has
concerns with this amendment. Although, looking around, I see no one
from the Ways and Means Committee.
We also are aware that the Office of the United States Trade
Representative has committed to ensuring public health experts are
included on this advisory committee. We have been led to believe this
issue will be resolved in the near future, but with that understanding,
I have no objection to the amendment personally. So I would accept the
amendment.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I hope this will be resolved very quickly.
This is to give a push so it will be resolved.
Mr. Chairman, I have time, and I yield the balance of the time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a cosponsor of this amendment,
who wishes to speak on it.
(Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding.
I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) and the work of his staff, Zahava Goldman, and
Jamila Thompson on my staff for their tireless advocacy for access to
affordable medicines for all people.
I am delighted this amendment has been accepted tonight because it is
a very important policy that we must have. It is not really an
extraordinary request.
Basically, we just are asking that what has been required in the
past, public health officials, that they actually be appointed to these
committees. Unfortunately, 7 months later, neither the USTR nor the
Department of Commerce has provided a name or a plan or even a timeline
to begin these appointments.
Now, with these very aggressive bilateral and multilateral trade
negotiations continuing, we cannot afford to wait.
So this is a very important step in the right direction, and I thank
both sides for accepting this amendment.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

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

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
Page 110, after line 8, insert the following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more
than 50 employees from a Federal department or agency at any
single conference occurring outside the United States.

[[Page H4763]]

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I come to the floor this evening with an amendment that, quite
frankly, I have offered and has been accepted on various other
appropriation bills throughout this process, and I think it is time to,
once again, thank the various chairmen of those respective committees
for accepting some of those similar amendments.
We may differ on each side of the aisle as to how we exactly got to
the point that we are today, but one thing that we do agree on, as I
have said on this floor in the past, one thing we do agree on is that
we spend too much and our deficit is way too high.
So my amendment that I come to the floor with tonight is basically a
commonsense approach to see, how do we rein in that spending? How do we
deal with the angst of our constituents at home that say we are
spending too much of their hard earned dollars?
What does that amendment do? It places a limit, a number, a ceiling,
if you will, on the number of staffers that can travel on international
conferences. The number that we place on here, the limit that we place,
is 50 staff members. I am not saying that staff are not important. All
we have to do is look around us and recognize the significance that
staff plays in the role of the House of Representatives and right here
on the floor as well, but we are just saying that, when it comes to
going over to other international conferences, there should be some
reasonable limit to numbers that go there.
In the other House, the Senate has held hearings on this, and Senator
Coburn from Oklahoma has actually pointed out egregious examples of
over 100 or more staffers attending various conferences and literally
close to millions of dollars for those respective conferences. If I
wanted to take the time, I could go through a litany of such egregious
examples.
But I will be brief and just simply say that, to rein in the
spending, to put some appropriate, reasonable standards on this, we are
going to try to do the same on this legislation as we have in the past
and say that all agencies of the Federal Government should be
responsible in the number of staff they send.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
read.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. For ``Office on Violence Against Women--violence
against women prevention and prosecution programs'' for the
Jessica Gonzales Victims Assistants program, as authorized by
section 101(b)(3) 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
``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--General Administration--salaries and
expenses'' is hereby reduced by, $5,000,000.

[[Page H4764]]

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can
properly fund the Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistance Program. We owe
victims enforced protection against their attackers, and we must ensure
that the next time a woman is attacked, she knows that reporting a
crime and obtaining a restraining order are not fruitless gestures.
I thank the chairman, and I thank my colleague.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. 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. Garrett of New Jersey:
Page 110, after line 8, insert the following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. (a) Annual Report Required.--Not later than 90
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and
annually thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a
report listing all assessed and voluntary contributions of
the United States Government for the preceding fiscal year to
the United Nations and United Nations affiliated agencies and
related bodies.
(b) Elements.--Each report under subsection (a) shall set
forth, for the fiscal year covered by such report, the
following:
(1) The total amount of all assessed and voluntary
contributions of the United States Government to the United
Nations and United Nations affiliated agencies and related
bodies.
(2) The approximate percentage of United States Government
contributions to each United Nations affiliated agency or
body in such fiscal year when compared with all contributions
to such agency or body from any source in such fiscal year.
(3) For each such contribution--
(A) the amount of such contribution;
(B) a description of such contribution (including whether
assessed or voluntary);
(C) the department or agency of the United States
Government responsible for such contribution;
(D) the purpose of such contribution; and
(E) the United Nations or United Nations affiliated agency
or related body receiving such contribution.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 2006, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I come to the floor tonight to address the issue of funding for the
U.N. We have heard some discussion about it already, whether we are
spending too little, not enough; whether we should not be making
cutbacks in the various funding for the U.N.
The real question is, how can we make any of those decisions if we do
not know the total amount of money that we are spending for the U.N.
and its programs and its services?
Each year, the United States spends literally billions of dollars to
fund the United Nations and its work. We fund the U.N.'s work year
after year, regardless of how it is used or misused, and certainly,
with the countless instances of waste, fraud and abuse, scandals and
corruption over the last several years that we have talked about on
this floor in the past, we can at the very least question the body's
ability to police itself, at the very most call for that money as being
misused.
At this time, the United States Government does not have a method for
knowing the total amount of money we send to the U.N. While we can
tally what is paid in dues, what we can contribute to various
peacekeeping operations, additional funding is spent on voluntary
programs and other support; there is no collective number for it. There
is no comprehensive and public report of all the different ways that we
fund U.N. operations with U.S. tax dollars.

{time} 2045

So the amendment that I bring to the floor today calls for such a
comprehensive accounting of all those dollars. Not for a cutting, not
for increasing, just an accounting so we know what is being spent.
A similar amendment was made on various legislation on the Senate
side.
Reform at the United Nations, that is that this Congress has
encouraged in the past, has been complicated, as I have indicated
earlier this evening, by the fact that the majority of the nations in
the U.N. General Assembly oppose even the most modest forms of reform
put forth by this House or even by the General Secretary. For instance,
almost 5 years after the events of September 11, the U.N. has not yet
even today agreed on a definition of terrorism. As I spoke earlier,
they have also not agreed on a definition of genocide, even though that
continues to go on to this day.
How can the U.N. expect to contribute to the fight against genocide
or continue to fight against terrorism, one of the greatest threats to
peace in the world today, if it can't even decide how to define it? Yet
while the majority of the nations at the U.N. stand in the way of
progress, they only fund 10 percent of the U.N.'s budget.
So it is up to the United States to lead for the U.N. That has worked
in the past. In 1979, the Camp-Moynihan amendment successfully limited
the U.N.'s support of terrorist organizations simply by the threat of
withholding funds. And when the U.N. budget was ballooning in the
1980s, our use of financial leverage helped to bring about a compromise
in 1986. And in 1992, Congress again had to withhold funds in order to
see that an inspector general would be appointed to expose and fix
mismanagement.
You see, Mr. Chairman, reform is possible at the U.N., but only if
the United States is willing to lead. And for us to be able to lead, we
must be fully aware of just how big a stick we carry; that is, how much
we are funding. We must be fully aware of how much U.S. tax dollars
goes from this House to the U.N.
So on behalf of the citizens that we represent at home who demand
that we call for accountability in the U.S. Government, we should be
doing the same from the U.N. We must have an accounting for those
dollars spent.
I reserve the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation
in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The
amendment imposes additional duties.
I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's
citing the point of order; and I am in agreement that the point of
order appropriately falls within this amendment that I bring before the
House tonight.
It is, of course, a frustration for us when we are dealing with
spending of dollars that we do not know exactly how much of the total
dollars we are spending for a particular purpose, especially when that
purpose is the U.N. and especially with their dismal record of the
past.
With that said, Mr. Chairman, at this point I seek unanimous consent
to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler:
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 issue a national security letter to a health
insurance company under any of the provisions of law

[[Page H4765]]

amended by section 505 of the Uniting and Strengthening
America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits any funds from being used to
issue National Security Letters to health insurance companies to obtain
people's private and personal medical records.
Currently, under section 505, any FBI field office director can
demand your personal medical records without a warrant or any judicial
approval and the insurance company is legally required to give it to
them and is legally prohibited or gagged from telling you or anyone
else about the order.
Last year, almost 10,000 unreviewed National Security Letters were
issued by the FBI without showing any connection between the records
sought and any suspected foreign terrorist. Post PATRIOT Act
reauthorization, I remain very concerned, because National Security
Letters are still issued without court approval simply on the letter's
assertion that the request is relevant to a national security
investigation, without any showing of a connection to a suspected
terrorist.
The right to challenge the gag order is not real, since the
government's mere assertion that lifting the gag order would pose a
threat to national security must be treated by the court as conclusive,
with no evidence necessary as to the truth of that assertion.
Government officials already have access to so much of our personal
information, such as credit reports, library user, and telephone
communications. Do we want the government to have such unchecked access
to personal and private information as revealed by our medical history:
psychiatric profiles, lab studies, and diagnostic tests like CAT scans
and MRIs?
If somehow your medical records are necessary in fact to a terrorist
investigation, the government should be required to explain to a judge
why they are needed, as is provided in section 215 of the PATRIOT Act,
rather than simply allowing an FBI field agent to demand those records
in secret.
The FBI already has far-reaching compulsory powers to obtain
documents when it is investigating terrorism under both its criminal
and intelligence authority. The FBI can obtain a search warrant if
there is judicial finding of probable cause that a crime has or will be
committed. The FBI can use Grand Jury subpoenas; and, in terrorism
cases, the FBI has sweeping authority to obtain all the records,
including medical records, under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. But it
has to go to a judge.
Given these existing search powers, there is no reason to authorize
the FBI to issue unchecked National Security Letters demanding medical
records without any showing of anything to a judge.
Mr. Chairman, if you have visited a doctor's office or a hospital in
the last few months, you may have seen a notice telling you that your
medical records may be turned over to the government for law
enforcement or intelligence purposes. We can all agree that giving the
FBI access to our most intimate private information is too great an
intrusion on our privacy to leave unlimited and unsupervised.
There may very well be reasonable legitimate reasons for the FBI to
need this information in terrorist investigations. Section 215 of the
PATRIOT Act provides for them to get that information if they simply go
to a judge and tell them why they need it. The NSLs, which this
amendment would stop, or would say you can't spend money on, skips the
necessity of even going to a judge in private, in secret, and saying
why they need that.
Let them use section 215. We had almost a majority on this floor to
eliminate section 215, but at least that requires a showing to a judge.
The National Security Letters allows any FBI field office director to
get these most private records without any showing to a judge. That is
wrong, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
We are talking about terrorism. Every time the gentleman gets up, he
paints something that really is inaccurate; and I think the gentleman
from California will explain what you said. There have been changes in
the PATRIOT Act.
The threat of terrorism and espionage is real. Thirty people from my
district died in the attack on the World Trade Center. Two of my
children live up in your congressional district. And if you read the
article the other day about gas in the subways, you sort of make these
statements, and you act like the Justice Department and the FBI is
going to go after somebody's medical records. They are trying to stop
terrorism. They are trying to stop what took place on 9/11 from taking
place again.
We have a letter from the Justice Department. ``National Security
Letters are extremely valuable to investigations of international
terrorism.'' Not your MRIs, but international terrorism and espionage,
al Qaeda.
This Congress stood by and did nothing while Osama bin Laden lived in
Sudan from 1991 to 1996. I was the author of the National Commission on
Terrorism, which came out in the year 2000. In 2000, Nancy Pelosi
supported me in the committee when we got the funding for it. On the
cover of the Bremer Commission report that came out in the year 2000,
there is a picture of the World Trade Center on fire, and this body did
nothing. It stood by and it watched, and the previous administration
did nothing. And now there are people that have died because they have
done nothing.
This is a bad amendment. The PATRIOT Act has been authorized by the
Judiciary Committee. Mr. Lungren will tell you the changes that have
been made. There have been protections put in it.
My goodness, do we want to tie the FBI's hands when they are trying
to catch bin Laden and people like that? This is a bad amendment. We
went through it on the authorizing act.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear what Mr. Lungren has
to say before I use the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York reserves his time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has the right to close.
Mr. WOLF. How much time do I have?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Let us be clear what this would do. The Nadler amendment would
prohibit the FBI from using these NSLs to obtain any financial records
or health records from health insurance companies even if those records
are indisputably relevant to an international terrorism or espionage
investigation.
Indeed, the FBI would be prohibited from using the NSL to obtain
financial records of a known terrorist from a health insurance company,
no matter how much evidence the FBI possessed of the target's
involvement with terrorism. It would not just prevent the FBI from
obtaining medical records.
Currently, the FBI can obtain health insurance records through the
use of administrative subpoenas without the approval of a judge to
investigate not terrorism but health care fraud offenses. So if the FBI
is allowed to use administrative subpoenas to obtain these records to
investigate health care fraud by dirty doctors, then it should be
allowed to use these NSLs, which are similar to administrative
subpoenas, to obtain these same records in international terrorism
investigations which may involve dirty bombs.
This is basically the same amendment Mr. Nadler offered to last
year's appropriation bill that was defeated on

[[Page H4766]]

this floor. The only thing that has changed since that time is not the
language of his amendment but in fact the enactment of the
reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act which contains several new
protections to prevent abuse of this authority.
However, even without the new protections, there is no evidence of
the abuse of these letters. Nonetheless, in March of this year, the
President signed the bill; and it adds these protections which were not
present last year when we debated this same amendment:
Clarification that recipients may disclose that they have received an
NSL to an attorney or others necessary to comply with the NSL.
Secondly, explicit language that a recipient may challenge an NSL in
court.
Third, explicit language that a recipient of an NSL may challenge the
prohibition on publicly disclosing that he or she has received an NSL.
Next, for the first time, language requiring public reporting on the
use of NSL authorities.
Next, requirement for additional classified reporting to Congress on
the use of NSL authorities so we can exercise oversight in a more
effective way.
And, finally, requirement that the Inspector General conduct two
audits of the Justice Department's use of NSLs.
Last year, we debated this same amendment, same issue, similar
appropriation bill. The only difference is we have added protections
since that time by the reenactment of the PATRIOT Act and the signature
of the President.
So if you voted against it last year, if you thought we should defeat
it last year, you have more than sufficient reason to defeat it this
year.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. NADLER. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I thank the gentleman.
Right now, everybody has access to your medical records. Obviously, I
would like to support more privacy. But, frankly, your insurance
company has a right to your medical records, all the data processing
companies have a right to your medical records, and all the financial
institutions that are collocated with the insurance companies have your
financial records.
The Health Care Information and Privacy Act in this country has no
teeth. Some nurse or doctor can sell your medical records and not be
liable civilly or criminally. Someone can sell your records to a
tabloid, and you have no right to sue the tabloid. They can obtain it
under illegal and false pretenses. No recourse whatsoever.
This notion of privacy is really bunk. We have no privacy in terms of
medical records. And I would ask the American people, please call your
representative and demand medical privacy from our HIPAA laws.

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members to address their remarks
to the Chair and not to a viewing audience.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I respect everything that the gentleman from Virginia
said. 9/11 happened in my district. Terrorism is terrible. We are
waging a war against it, and we have to wage that war against it, and
we have to protect ourselves. The question is intelligent protection.
The FBI should not have the right to get our medical records without
going to a court. That is what this question is about. Should they have
the right to get these records simply on an assertion or a letter that
nobody even has to look at, that it is simply relevant to an
investigation, without going to court?
Yes, certain protections were put into the bill. Those protections
are insubstantial. For example, you can challenge the gag order. Yeah,
but if the government says that lifting the gag order would harm
national security, that assertion must be taken as dispositive. The
court can't say, really? The court can't say, what evidence?

{time} 2100

For all practical purposes, they have an absolute right to these
records without showing them to a court. I am not saying they should
not get the records. My amendment doesn't say they shouldn't get the
records. What it says is a general principle, one that we should always
adhere to, if they think they need the records for a terrorist
investigation, go to a court, go to a FISA court, go to a secret court.
Use section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
But we shouldn't allow the FBI to have access to private records
without some showing in court of necessity of probable cause or
something. That is why this amendment should pass.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, just one last point. We
have no medical privacy in this country now. The health care and
privacy act is nonexistent. It has no teeth in it. Your medical records
can be found out from anybody anywhere.
They pass through a million different institutions as they get
processed through transaction companies, insurance companies, financial
companies. It is absolutely bogus.
We haven't even passed the genetic nondiscrimination act here in this
place, which means, if you have genetic disposition to a particular
illness, you are not protected. There is no privacy in our medical
records. Let us just understand that from the get-go.
The American people are outraged by not having privacy, they have to
get to their Members of Congress and request that we do more to
strengthen the HIPAA law, the healthcare information and privacy act.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I agree with the gentleman from Rhode Island on the medical records'
safety and privacy. I think the gentleman makes a valid point, but that
is really not what we are talking about tonight. We are dealing with
the FBI dealing with terrorism.
As I mentioned, a newly released book by a Pulitzer Prize winning
author states that al Qaeda came within 45 days of attacking the New
York subway system with lethal gas. We never completely know why they
didn't move ahead, but within 45 days. If a National Security Letter
would stop something like this, and they are still out there. Al Qaeda
is still out there. They are still committed.
There is a book by Mary Habeck, Knowing the Enemy. They are still out
there and committed to coming. So if a National Security Letter could
stop what took place on 9/11 at the World Trade Center or at the
Pentagon over in that area or in the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the
USS Cole or the Marine barracks or places like that, we certainly would
want to stop that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding. Let us be clear what we are talking about here. We are not
talking about, generally speaking, about the question of the privacy of
medical records. We are asking whether NSLs are an appropriate means
with which to obtain information from health insurance companies as
they are utilized or a similar process, that is administrative
subpoenas that are not obtained by a court, are utilized to look at
health care fraud.
One of the things that we got out of the 9/11 Commission was the fact
that we had failed to not only connect dots but failed to adapt our
criminal justice investigative procedures in the face of this new
threat, which is terrorism. Some people would say, well, why would
health records be relevant to such a case?
Well, in the instance of anthrax, for instance, it would be relevant
if someone had sought medical attention that would, in fact, basically
inoculate them if they came into contact with anthrax. It would be of
some assistance if a group of people involved, that we had suspicion
were involved with a terrorist group, were inoculated for smallpox. I
mean, these are those sorts of things that help us connect the dots.
Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Yes.
Mr. WOLF. I appreciate what the gentleman said. Members should know
in our bill our committee established

[[Page H4767]]

in the Justice Department an Office of Privacy and Civil Liberty for
the very reason that Mr. Serrano used to raise, and rightly, to protect
to make sure something did not happen.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentleman will recall,
the Judiciary Committee has been very aggressive in oversight of
Justice Department actions with respect to the PATRIOT Act. Several of
the changes made in the law that I referred to before give us a greater
handle on that because it requires more reporting to the Congress on
what has been done with respect to NSLs in this regard.
So as I said, the biggest difference between our consideration of the
gentleman's amendment last year and this year is there are more
protections built in to the use of NSLs by the Justice Department than
there were before. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I submit the letter that I referenced
earlier.

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, June 28, 2006.
Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State,
Justice, and Commerce and Related Agencies, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We have been advised that Congressman
Nadler may offer an amendment to the pending Justice
Appropriations bill that would restrict the use of National
Security Letters (``NSLs'') relating to medical records.
Congressman Nadler offered a very similar amendment last
year. That amendment was defeated. We remain opposed to any
such amendment.
NSLs are similar to subpoenas and may be used by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to obtain from
specified companies information relevant to authorized
investigations of international terrorism and espionage. It
is unwise to create carveouts from the scope of these
important investigative tools, particularly since there has
been no allegation of abuse regarding medical information,
the subject of the proposed carveout. NSLs are generally used
to obtain: (1) billing and transactional records maintained
by telephone companies and Internet service providers; (2)
credit reports and other consumer information maintained by
consumer reporting agencies; and (3) financial information
maintained by financial institutions. It would be an
exceedingly rare circumstance in which an NSL issued to one
of these institutions would capture medical records.
Moreover, the Congress addressed in a full and considered
manner the concerns of critics of the use of NSLs when it
passed the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act
earlier this year. That bill included numerous changes to all
the NSL statutes to clarify and improve the laws' privacy
protections. Congress also mandated a comprehensive audit by
the Department's Inspector General on the use and
effectiveness of NSLs. The findings of that review are
expected to be available early next year.
It is also interesting to note that Congress has already
provided the FBI the authority to obtain health insurance
records through the use of administrative subpoenas (without
the approval of a judge) when investigating criminal health
care fraud. NSLs and administrative subpoenas are very
similar except for some of the additional civil liberty
protections added to the NSL statutes during the debate to
reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act. It would be odd if the
Congress were to make a different policy determination when,
rather than a health care fraud matter, the investigation
involved international terrorism.
NSLs are extremely valuable to investigations of
international terrorism and espionage. Information obtained
through NSLs has significantly advanced numerous sensitive
terrorism and espionage investigations and has assisted the
FBI in discovering links to previously unknown terrorist
operatives. We see no justification for artificially
restricting the reach of those investigative tools.
Thank you for this opportunity to express our concerns. The
Office of Management and Budget has advised us that from the
perspective of the Administration's program, there is no
objection to this letter.
Sincerely,
William E. Moschella,
Assistant Attorney General.

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

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Mica

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

Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Mica:
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 the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.
10a et seq.).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a Buy America amendment. I usually don't offer these. I
believe in free and open competition. But I am pleased that the
committee is going to entertain this amendment. Just for the record, I
want to enter into the record why I am here and why I think this is
necessary.
For the record, the Department of Commerce has awarded for nearly two
decades a contract which promotes United States products and goods
overseas in European trade fairs to a Dutch firm. Now, this has gone on
for some two decades.
Several years ago, I was contacted by a U.S. firm that was interested
in competing back in 2004. They contacted me and said they wanted to
compete, and there were problems in entering.
NOAA handles the contracting and solicitation for, again, for this
civilian business and awards the contract. They issued a solicitation.
When I was contacted, this firm said, all we want to do is compete.
This Dutch firm has had this for two decades. They made some moves
toward considering others, but then they gave the contract to the
European Dutch firm and excluded the U.S. They just continued the
contract.
I told the American firm, well, maybe next year, we will try it
again, a little late, see if you can't get fair competition. Then they
opened it again this past year, and in fact, they put out a request for
proposal. The American firm was allowed to compete, and then once this
process and submissions had started, they ended the competition; they
changed the rules. They changed the rules to favor the European firm,
the Dutch firm, which has had the contract for 20 years.
Now, I think all that should be fair is that an American firm also
gets the opportunity, and this is to put on an exposition of United
States goods sponsored by the Department of Commerce and the U.S.
taxpayers. All I want is a fair shot for Americans to compete in
putting on exhibitions and compete in a fair and open manner. That is
the purpose of this, and I want that as part of the record.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. We accept the amendment.
Mr. MICA. Thank you. Again, I am pleased, I appreciate the
cooperation and want to make certain that hopefully this amendment
corrects an unfair situation, unfair competition.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio for a colloquy with the chairman.
Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman, Mr. Wolf, for his
leadership in helping to keep our NASA centers healthy in the long
term, a concern that I share and that requires extremely difficult
decisions under tight funding caps.
At the same time, I am concerned with the bedrock of NASA's success,
its world class workforce. The 2005 NASA Authorization Bill enacted a
moratorium on involuntary reductions in force until March of 2007.
In addition, the act required 11.5 months between the submission of a
complete workforce plan and the end of a ban on RIFs. However, NASA has
thus far been unable to determine their existing skills mix and future
skills mix demand. Any hasty action would cause NASA to lose
irreplaceable intellectual capacity and institutional

[[Page H4768]]

memory and would harm its recruiting capabilities.
Any workforce reshaping should therefore only be implemented after
clearly establishing the agency's current and future workforce needs
and after exhausting all cost-effective voluntary means to maintain
critical skills and to fill any gaps. This is especially true given
that so much Constellation work on the horizon relies heavily on Apollo
era and shuttle era design elements.
Mr. WOLF. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. I share the gentleman's concerns about NASA's high quality
workforce, and I expect NASA to develop and move forward with a long-
term strategy to replenish the skills of its aging workforce while also
maintaining key institutional memory. I urge NASA to address and
correct any imbalances through an aggressive campaign of retraining,
work transfer across centers, judicious buyouts and carefully managed
recruitment, all with a minimum of disruption to the workforce. The
people really have to be treated fairly, fair in the sense that
everyone will say it is fair.
I expect that NASA will respect the moratorium on reductions in force
in the 2005 NASA Reauthorization Act and will not engage in any
reduction in force until they have met the workforce planning
requirements in that act and provide it sufficient time for
congressional oversight. So I would be happy to continue to work with
the gentlemen on these issues as the gentleman moves forward in
conference.
Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman for his commitment and
thank him for the outstanding work that he has done in the past in
helping us on these matters.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, thank you Mr. Mollohan.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. 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. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of the bill, insert the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to support programs that target segments of the
Muslim and Arab communities for national security
investigations.

Mr. WOLF. I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 2006, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I intend to ultimately
withdraw this amendment, but I thank the chairman for allowing me to
rise to discuss, I think, a very important element of our foreign
policy.
First of all, I will like to acknowledge the U.S. Global Leadership
Campaign that brought to my attention, after meeting with former
Secretary Powell and former Secretary Albright, the very poor state of
foreign aid in terms of dollars. Previously, we had some $35.1 billion,
and now $32.28 billion.
Obviously, working under the constraints of the budget amendment
passed by this administration and this Congress certainly misdirected
or at least caused confusion among the population because they believe
we spend too much on foreign aid; whereas it really shows it is only
about 1.2 percent.
I say that because my amendment specifically talks about eliminating
funds for supporting programs that target segments of the Muslim and
Arab American communities for national security investigations.
Now, Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I
am not standing here in complete ignorance of the war on terror and of
the importance of securing the homeland and ensuring that all of our
law enforcement agencies are able to conduct the investigations
necessary to secure the homeland.

{time} 2115

In fact, I am a strong proponent, as a member of the Subcommittee on
Intelligence of that Homeland Security Committee, of increasing
intelligence, if you will, backed up by civil liberties and other
necessary protections.
But it is well known that after 9/11 the Muslim community and the
Arab community in America have been racially profiled. In fact,
recently, at an Arab American Economic Summit just held in Houston this
week, some of the diplomats, dignitaries, individuals with the
appropriate paper, if you will, ambassadors that were traveling from
the District of Columbia to Houston were, in fact, detained by our
local airports and other authorities. And one would say that an ounce
of prevention is worth a pound of cure, if you will, and I have
probably made that particular phrase up, but I do understand the
cautiousness.
But what we are doing is we are discouraging the legitimate travel
for business, cultural exchange, diplomacy and education. We are
distracting focus and attention from the guilty to the innocent, and we
are diverting scarce Federal law enforcement resources by utilizing
them in a targeting fashion.
I hope that we will have an opportunity in this Congress to focus on
the issues of intelligence so that we can target individuals who are
truly here to harm us.
But I also hope that we can establish the fact that racial profiling
for your last name, for your religious faith, is clearly un-American
and that what we should be doing is encouraging travel from the Mideast
of those who are here for cultural reasons, those who come for business
and, yes, the many, many students who have been discouraged from coming
to the United States because of the tough requirements on visas
directing and their family sending them to European countries, as much
for not being able to get visas as being fearful for their young people
to be here, that they might be racially profiled.
This is a concern that I believe is necessary to express to this
body, and I hope as the various initiatives of this particular
appropriations through Justice, through the State Department, really
become concerned with the unfair targeting of the Muslim American and
Arab American community.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. Wolf, I intend to withdraw this amendment.
Mr. WOLF. That is what I was led to believe. I still reserve the
point of order.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I accept the unfortunate aspect of
legislating on an appropriations bill. But I do believe it is an
important enough issue that I hope, as it is placed in the Record, we
will know that it is important as we proceed with the appropriation.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sodrel

Mr. SODREL. 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. Sodrel:
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 the purpose of enforcing the final judgement
of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana issued in Hinrichs v. Bosma.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. SODREL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today as a means to protect the
rights of State legislatures and the speech, conscience and
independence of State legislators from unelected and unaccountable
judges serving for life. While my amendment is only half the solution,
it is a step in the right direction which I hope this body will adopt
until a broader solution can be enacted.

[[Page H4769]]

A Federal court in Indiana has imposed itself on the independence of
State legislators. A Federal district court judge, David Hamilton, in
the case of Hinrichs v. Bosma, has made a ruling to limit religious
speech within the Indiana State Legislature and to impose this
restriction on the legislators themselves. This decision threatens
freedom of speech and imperils the separation of powers in the U.S.
Constitution. If Federal courts can regulate any speech of the members
of a legislative body, it follows that those courts can regulate all
speech.
Our neighboring State, Kentucky, adopted what is known as the
Kentucky Resolutions on November 10, 1798, when our republic was in its
infancy. These resolutions were adopted as a protest against the Alien
and Sedition Acts passed by Congress. This historic document protesting
violations of the first amendment states in part, and I quote,
``Another and more special provision has been made by one of the
amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares that Congress
shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech or of the press: Thereby guarding in the same sentence, and
under the same words, the freedom of religion or speech and of the
press; insomuch, that whatever violated either, throws down the
sanctuary which covers the others.'' End quote.
These words are not my own. They come from the pen of Thomas
Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and our third
president, who wrote the Kentucky Resolution. They were adopted by the
Kentucky Legislature and are a matter of historical record. Jefferson
understood these rights were, and are, inseparable. A Federal judge is
not above the law. A judge cannot amend the Constitution, nor should a
judge be permitted to ignore the context of a constitutional right.
Mr. Chairman, the Indiana Legislature did not make any law. They
didn't enact any statute. They didn't even pass a resolution. The
legislature was only carrying out a 188-year tradition by beginning
each session with a prayer just like the U.S. House of Representatives.
Many other legislative bodies throughout the Nation practice this same
tradition. But Judge Hamilton ruled the Indiana Legislature must not
make any reference to Jesus Christ or to the Christian religion. In
addition, the judge specified he would review the speech of the
legislators to ensure that they also did not make reference to
Christianity or Jesus Christ as Lord. The judge did not make any
reference to other religions for any similar restrictions.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the use of funds in this
bill from being used to enforce Judge Hamilton's erroneous decision and
send a message that Congress is serious about judges legislating from
the bench. The Indiana State Legislature is appealing the Judge's
decision in this case, but I believe Congress must exercise its right
to protect the independence of State legislatures from overzealous
judges.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 4776 to limit the
review of Federal courts over the content of speech in State
legislatures. My amendment does not encompass all of H.R. 4776, but it
does enough to send a signal to the judiciary that Congress will not
tolerate legislating from the bench. Congress cannot permit the court
system to rewrite our Constitution.
I have heard the argument that some were offended at hearing a
Christian prayer, and that was the reason for the lawsuit. Mr.
Chairman, I have searched the U.S. Constitution, and I have found no
mention of the right that protects any citizen from being offended.
Members of this body, in this Chamber, say things that offend me. But
as the patriot Patrick Henry once said, ``I do not agree with what you
say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.''
Mr. Chairman, some may question why this amendment is necessary. I
would counter by saying what can be more necessary than upholding the
U.S. Constitution? We all took an oath to do so. If Congress cannot
correct the court when it has strayed from the letter and the intent of
the U.S. Constitution, who can? If we don't, who will?
Right now, Indiana legislators must huddle in the back of the
chamber, hidden from public view, to pray.
The courts are now going beyond interpreting laws and have begun
inserting themselves in the legislative process. The U.S. Constitution
prohibits the legislative branch from restricting the free exercise of
religion. Why should the judicial branch be an exception?
Judge Hamilton's court is presuming to dictate what State legislators
may or may not say and decide how they should represent their
constituents. It violates the principles of separation of legislative
and judicial powers and separate sovereignty between State and Federal
power.
As Jefferson wrote 208 years ago, they are guarded in the same
sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion or speech
and of the press. To fail to uphold any of these puts them all at risk.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to stand up for freedom
of speech and the autonomy of the State legislators.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment can be very simply summed up simply by
reading the one sentence of it. None of the funds made available in
this Act may be used for the purpose of enforcing the final judgment of
the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued
in Hinrichs v. Bosma.
I listened to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana as he told us
why he disagrees with this, the judgment of the court, of the Federal
court of Indiana and why he thinks the court is wrong. He is entitled
to his opinion. But let the litigant appeal the decision. That is why
we have courts.
The Soviet Union under Stalin in 1936 adopted a constitution. That
constitution had a bill of rights, freedom of speech, freedom of
association, freedom of the press, freedom of religious and anti-
religious propaganda, as they quaintly put it. The problem, of course,
was that if you tried to assert the rights they shot you instead of
letting you go to court.
No rights are worth anything. There is a maxim in the law, there is
no right without a remedy. No right is worth anything if you can't
enforce that right. The way we enforce rights in this country is in
courts. We tried it a different way once. We had a civil war.
Either Mao is right, that power comes out of the barrel of a gun, or
we do it the way we do in this country. We obey court orders.
When a court says something unpopular, you shall not have Jim Crow
segregated schools in the South, we obey the law. The President sends
in the National Guard in Little Rock in 1957 if he has to. No matter
how unpopular the court's decision is.
And here we have an amendment that says, because we disagree with a
given decision of a local court, a Federal court in Indiana, no funds
will be expended to enforce that decision. That way lies tyranny, Mr.
Chairman.
If the gentleman from Indiana doesn't like the opinion, it should be
appealed. And if he still doesn't like it, if he doesn't like the final
judgments, let him bring an amendment to the Federal Constitution to
this body. We can amend the Constitution.
But to say that when a court has decided on a matter of rights, the
court has decided that something or other, I am not sure what this case
was about, but something or other, some action that someone was taking
violated some plaintiff's civil rights, that we should say that no
funds will be expended to obey the court order to protect the civil
rights of whoever the plaintiff was that the court found that somebody
was violating; that some agency of government was violating someone's
rights. The Court said that that is the case and, therefore, they
should stop it; and we should say, no, no, no? No funds should be used
to enforce the order of the court because the victim of the
discrimination or the violation of civil rights is unpopular, unpopular
with our constituents or unpopular on this floor?

[[Page H4770]]

The whole point of religious liberty is that it is not subject to a
popularity contest. Minority religions have the right to be protected.
Your liberty is protected because you are an American, because we value
liberty, not because you can win a vote on the floor of the House or
the Virginia Legislature or the Indiana Legislature.
It is absolutely destructive of the structure of our society, the
structure of our government and of our guarantees of liberty to say,
with regard to any court order, I am not going to defend this court
order because I don't know much about it. But to say we will not allow
the expenditure of the funds to enforce a court order, that is not our
judgment.
If you want to destroy the Constitution, destroy the Constitution,
destroy the Bill of Rights, vote for this bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana's time has expired.
Mr. NADLER. I will take the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I will simply say again, it is extremely subversive of
liberty, of civil rights, of civil liberties to vote for this bill. I
cannot recall a worse bill. To say that we won't enforce a court order
because we don't agree with the court, change the judges. You have got
the President. Amend the Constitution if you think it is that bad. But
don't say that we are going to usurp the function of the courts and let
somebody who went to court, exercised his American right to go to
court, won in court, and we are going to shaft him and say your rights
are violated. The court found your rights are violated, but we, because
you are unpopular, we won't let the court enforce your rights. We will
take the money away. For shame.
Vote against this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SODREL. 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 Indiana will be
postponed.

{time} 2130

Amendment Offered by Mr. Baird

Mr. BAIRD. 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. Baird:
Page 110, after line 8, insert the following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to file a motion under section 3730(b)(3) of title
31, United States Code, for an extension of time of more than
6 months, or to file more than one motion under such section
in any one case.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment is about something that we talk about a lot in this
body, and that is reducing waste, fraud and abuse and the waste of U.S.
taxpayer dollars. People are concerned about this in the Katrina area.
They are concerned about it quite a bit in Iraq as well.
What this amendment would do is ensure that contractors are held
accountable for any fraudulent claims they may make against the U.S.
Government and the American taxpayers. The most pressing need for the
amendment is in Iraq, where the Department of Defense reports spending
$6 billion a month, a substantial portion of which currently goes to
contractors.
Under present law, whistle blowers may sue contractors suspected of
defrauding the government. The administration is then granted 60 days
to decide if they will join the case or not. However, the
administration can also continually request extensions and thereby
delay making a decision, which keeps the cases sealed and unable to
proceed through the courts, thereby effectively allowing any fraudulent
practices to go uninterrupted and unpunished.
Since the cases are sealed, we can only estimate how many are
actually pending in the value of the contracts. But one estimate that
is well informed suggests that at least 50 cases are currently awaiting
action.
The American taxpayers deserve their day in court. If contractors are
being paid for services which they did not perform or when they did not
fulfill contracted objectives, those dollars must be recovered on
behalf of the American taxpayers.
My amendment would limit the Justice Department to one extension of 6
months. This mirrors a provision of the Stop Fraud in Iraq Act, H.R.
5290, which I introduced along with my colleague, Congresswoman Lofgren
of California. Once the 6-month period lapses, the administration would
have to decide to either join the case or to let it proceed without
administration participation. One way or another, the cases must be
brought before a court and resolved.
Again, this is about ensuring the taxpayer dollars are managed
better, and for too long we have seen these cases delayed.
I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the Baird-Lofgren amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I am inclined to accept the amendment, but before doing so, I yield
to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
address this issue. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, we do have
concerns about our jurisdiction over this particular subject matter.
But it is certainly true that there are whistle blower cases where
multiple requests for extensions by the Department of Justice
unnecessarily delay a final resolution of the case in the courts. But
this amendment in its rigidity is not an appropriate solution, and I am
concerned about this.
The courts currently make the decision as to whether an extension
should be provided to the government in these cases. The government
cannot singularly decide to stall the case, and the use of the False
Claims Act has proven to be one of the most effective tools we have to
go after fraud against the government, especially large-scale fraud.
But in those cases where a whistle blower has brought large acts of
fraud to the attention of the government, the fraud is spread
throughout a large enterprise. And in those cases, there may be a very
real need to request multiple extensions in order to establish a viable
prosecution on behalf of the government and therefore maximize the
chances of recovery. In those cases, multiple extensions are to the
benefit of both the government and the whistle blower.
I point out some issues that have to be dealt with by the Department
of Justice in these cases, and that would be, first of all, that if the
government has a tip, they will have a 5-year statute of limitations to
bring a criminal charge, a 6-year statute of limitations to bring a
civil charge. And when you look at all the things that a case has to
do, first we should keep in mind, each case is different, and they
cannot all fit in necessarily to a 6-month extension clause, but they
might be stretched out across that. They might be less time than that.
The whistle blower often agrees to those extensions, but it is the
judge that has to decide.
And then, think in terms of the work that must be done by the
Department of Justice. First of all, they have got to interview the
whistle blower and document evidence and establish an investigative
team and then to consider whether to conduct a criminal investigation
and coordinate that with the agency. They may need also to issue
subpoenas for documents, interview relevant witnesses and even perhaps
defer a decision in case to case and also perhaps also include a grand
jury. All of these things are things that have to be considered into
this amendment that is offered by Mr. Baird.
So I would suggest also that, of these kinds of whistle blower cases,
a list of some of the very high dollar cases that took extensions
beyond what the limitation of this amendment would be, for example,
these are the things that would not have happened if we had been
limited to a 6-month extension: HCA, $1.7 billion claim; Serono, $700

[[Page H4771]]

million claim; GlaxoSmithKline, $140 million claim; TAP
Pharmaceuticals, $875 million; Astra Zeneca, $354 million; and I
hesitate to say this, King Pharmaceuticals, $124 million; Advanced PCS,
$137 million; Schering-Plough, $345 million.
You get the understanding. That is about half of my list that I
present here. I know there is a lot more discussion to take up. But all
extensions must be approved by the judge, and I think it is worthy of
deliberation.
I appreciate the gentleman for bringing the amendment, and I am
hopeful that we can find a resolution that is constructive to the
justice we all seek and the efficiency that we seek within the judicial
branch of government and the Department of Justice.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Renzi

Mr. RENZI. 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. Renzi:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by increasing the amount made available under title I
for ``community oriented policing services'' and reducing the
amount made available under title IV for ``International
organizations--contributions to international
organizations'', by $5,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the chairman for working with me on this amendment. My
amendment increases the funding for tribal law enforcement through the
COPS program by $5 million, while decreasing the funding for the United
Nations.
I appreciate your help on this.
I represent the largest land mass of poverty in America. And many of
my colleagues also represent areas in America as shown on the 2000
census that are poverty ridden. Some of you represent areas that have
more concentrations of poverty than I do, but I represent an area the
size of West Virginia that is the largest land mass of poverty in
America.
You want to see children malnutritioned with extended bellies? You do
not need to go to Africa. You can go to Kaibito in the Navajo Nation.
You want to see children who have not seen a doctor in 30 days, whose
jaws are so swollen shut, so infected with pus because they haven't
seen an oral surgeon in 30 days, you can go to San Carlos Reservation.
The map proves it and shows it.
And you lay on top of this poverty the fact that there is a
lawlessness that has come back. The days of the Wild West are back, and
they exist on tribal lands. They have no police officers, no equipment.
They do not have the tools to bring back the rule of law. On the Navajo
Nation, the size of West Virginia, there is one police officer per
4,000 residents. Do you know what the rest of us have in America? We
get one police officer for every 800 residents in America.
I am really sorry to interrupt your conversation and bother you all
back there. Not real funny.
The people of the San Carlos Reservation, 1.8 million acres, they
have five police officers at any time patrolling the San Carlos, 13,000
residents, 20,000 offenses reported last year. Do you know that 25
percent of their babies are born testing positive to meth? Fifty
percent of the babies born in the San Carlos test positive to drugs or
alcohol. The gangs have taken over. It is a lawlessness.
If you are a felon in Los Angeles, do you know where you run to hide?
Do you know a safe haven in America? The Navajo Nation. Safe haven. Do
not tell me about terrorist safe havens. I got you a safe haven in
America right here in our backyard. All of us share this
responsibility.
Now, I realize this bill and the parameters of the bill and the fact
that we needed to cut and eliminate pork and earmarks and Members'
spending, and this bill is reduced $3 million from last year for tribal
law enforcement. My amendment simply says, give back a little bit, one
first step towards helping tribal law enforcement, those police agents
out there in tough areas in the Wild West trying to pull back a whole
generation of Native American youth who are losing their heritage, who
are losing their culture, who have become so addicted that no one can
even help pull them back. This is a first step.
I ask my colleagues, please, to help me and join with me. I beg on
behalf of the Native Americans for $5 million from the U.N. Before you
spend it overseas, let us spend it at home. I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
I will certainly accept it, and I think the gentleman makes a very
powerful case. I had an amendment several years ago which was defeated
on this floor which would have set up a national commission to really
go in and look at the conditions on the reservations. I used to work
for former Congressman Jon Kyl, the father of now Senator Jon Kyl, who
had really a great burden for many of the Indians, particularly in that
area in Arizona. And it is a disgrace. And I really believe, not to
make this too controversial, but I think this whole issue of gambling
on reservations has almost made people say, well, now, they can have a
gambling casino, so we are not going to put any money in.
Many of these reservations are in areas that are very difficult to
access, very difficult to get there. Some are in very barren areas, and
others are in very cold areas, so people aren't going to go there. So
listening to the gentleman, at an appropriate time, I think maybe next
year, I am going to offer this thing again. I think it got tied up in
the whole gambling issue, which I think is corrupting this Nation, and
unfortunately, this Congress and this administration have been too
silent on the issue.
But the gentleman makes a very powerful case. So what I think I may
do when we come up next year at the appropriate time is offer an
amendment to set up a commission that doesn't get involved with the
gambling issues but looks at crime. I read the New York Times series
about 2 or 3 months ago, back in February, about some of the
reservations where organized crime was coming in and the meth problem.
And I want to see if we can put together some bold new way to really
help the first Americans, the Native Americans.
So I accept the amendment. We will work hard to keep it in
conference, too, not just to kind of get out of your hair, to accept
it, but to really kind of keep it. And I think listening to you
sensitizes me to next year offer this amendment to create this Blue
Ribbon Panel of people who really care about the conditions on
reservations and see what we can do to really make it concrete.
But I do accept the amendment.
Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Just to compliment the gentleman on his argument, I am very
supportive of his amendment. I support the chairman's comments. And I
invite the gentleman to testify before our subcommittee next year. He
is obviously well versed on the issue, and the committee and the
Congress need to be more sensitive to the concerns that the gentleman
raises.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the
gentleman for his passion in advocating on behalf of Native Americans.
I salute him entirely in his efforts to represent his district but also
all of Native American country.
Growing up, I had a picture in my house of my Uncle Robert Kennedy
out in Pine Ridge Reservation, and the pictures were of like a
developing country

[[Page H4772]]

that we would never think was here in our own country. And your
description today of the conditions are no different than the
descriptions that occurred 40 years ago when people were thinking what
a tragedy it is, the way we are treating our Native Americans. And what
is even more of a tragedy is that, over all of these years, we have
done nothing to improve the conditions of Native Americans in this
country who have absolutely been decimated in so many ways because the
United States has failed to fulfill its very basic trust responsibility
to our first Americans.
I cannot thank the gentleman enough for his passion and his advocacy,
and I think he has done an admirable job laying out the statistics for
the American people. I think if the American people only knew how bad
these situations were, their conscience would be raised and we would be
about trying to solve the problems that the gentleman talked about in
his speech.

{time} 2145

Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 1\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of you for helping me on
this. It is something that is so big, it is something that is so
severe, it is going to need all of our help.
Patrick, you have come out and you have seen San Carlos. Your family
has visited there. There is a school named after your uncle there, and
that schoolyard is filled with gang leaders right now. So I need your
help, and I need the ranking member's help and all of those who weighed
in on this issue, and I am grateful for it.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you also for your understanding on
this. This money doesn't go to Arizona or for me. It is for all of us.
It is for the gentlelady from South Dakota. It is for the gentlemen
from New Mexico and Arizona, everyone who represents our first
Americans, who are watching them become addicted. They are watching the
gangs take over. They are watching their whole culture be destroyed, be
wiped out. Much like in the 1800s when they were wiped out by alcohol
and smallpox, the same thing is occurring with methamphetamines. They
are more susceptible to it.
I also want to want to say I also appreciate the view on the gaming
issue. The Hopis and the Navajo don't engage in gaming. It is against
their spiritual foundations. So there are no extra revenues to pull in,
and I recognize the social ills tied to that.
But these are safe havens for drug dealers and for felons. When you
have five police officers on the San Carlos Reservation, 13,000 people,
there is lawlessness, there is no rule of law, and the gangs are
running the show and the rats have taken over the ship. And I need help
on this issue.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
read.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read 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 may
be used in contravention of section 3109 of title 18, United
States Code.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed
will each 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, I am introducing this amendment today with my good
friend and colleague, Ron Paul. It is a bipartisan amendment.
This amendment simply states that none of the funds in this Act can
be used to obtain evidence in contravention of the United States Code
pertaining to the knock and announce policy.
The history of the knock and announce requirement can be traced back
to common law. The rule requires officers with a warrant to knock and
announce their presence before entering a private residence.
Earlier this month the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in
Hudson v. Michigan that evidence can still be obtained even if the
officer or officers violated the knock and announce policy.
In that case, Justice Breyer gave a passionate dissent. Among his
dissenting objections were these. He said, ``As a result of this
decision, the Court destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply
with the Constitution's knock and announce requirement, and the Court
does so without significant support in precedent. At least I can find
no such support in the many fourth amendment cases the Court has
decided in the near century since it first set forth the exclusionary
principle in Weeks v. The United States back in 1914.''
This ruling goes against the precedents set by the Supreme Court most
recently in Wilson v. Arkansas, 1995. The court held that the fourth
amendment's reasonable search and seizure clause requires police
officers to knock and announce their presence before entering a private
residence.
Just a couple of years ago, in United States v. Banks, 2003, the
court held that officers must wait at least 15 to 20 seconds before
breaking a door down, again reaffirming the knock and announce rule.
This ruling by this activist Supreme Court will create a slippery slope
unless we stop it.
Justice Breyer also mentioned in his dissenting opinion the slippery
slope and in mentioning it stated that if a warrant specifies that you
can search the home on Monday, can police officers arrive on Tuesday?
We have a very serious issue before us, and that is a Supreme Court
which has taken it upon itself to enact new law, in contrary not just
to existing law, but in contrary to the Constitution of the United
States, and this particular decision against the knock and announce
policy goes markedly against the fourth amendment to the Constitution.
It is something against which this Congress must stand up. We cannot
have a Supreme Court which continues to infringe upon the rights and
privileges of American citizens, a Supreme Court which continues to
insist on violating the privacy rights of American citizens which are
protected in the fourth amendment to the Constitution. That is why I am
offering this amendment this evening.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, you are hearing history tonight. A member of the House
Appropriations Committee is offering an amendment to repeal, overturn,
a Supreme Court decision. I think that is unbelievable. At first, when
I asked what the Hinchey amendment was, then I said, the Hudson case,
was that the case 2 weeks ago on June 15? And they said it is.
The gentleman's amendment would overrule a Supreme Court decision
through a funding limitation on an appropriations bill. If this ever
passed, I think it would be just horrible.
This is not an appropriate way. There is much more I can say. I will
just end, the Justice Department sent a letter up here, and we will
submit it for the record, that says, ``The department also believes
that it is inappropriate to hamstring law enforcement efforts that are
permissible under the Constitution. If the Constitution does not
require the application of the exclusionary rule to knock and announce
searches that are subsequently deemed by a judge to have been conducted
in an unreasonable manner, then Congress ought not force Federal law
enforcement agents to play by rules not constitutionally required,
especially when there is no way procedurally to comply with the
amendment.''

[[Page H4773]]

We ought not on the floor of the House at 10 minutes before 10
overrule Supreme Court decisions, no matter what you think of the
decision. I don't think this is the way to go.
If the gentleman wants to offer a constitutional amendment, go
through the Judiciary Committee. But with 5 minutes on this side, 5
minutes on that side, 10 minutes, to overrule the Supreme Court of the
United States I think would be a mistake.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to debate the Hinchey amendment, but I
do want to make one observation: We have just been told by my good
friend from Virginia that we should not overturn a Supreme Court
decision. I don't disagree with that. But just a few minutes ago this
House considered an amendment overturning another court decision or
insisting that no money be allowed to enforce that decision, and a few
weeks ago you had this House vote to deny funds to enforce another
court decision on eminent domain.
Now, I happen to disagree with that court decision on eminent domain.
Demagogues, when they attack me on that, will forget that fact. But I
would just say it is interesting to me to see the selectivity with
which we produce sudden concern about vacating court decisions.
I don't think this institution has any business trying to, by law,
deny funds for the enforcement of any court decision, even if I
disagree with those court decisions, because I respect the processes of
law defined by the Constitution.
But if we are going to attack this amendment, then I would suggest we
go back and take a look at the other amendments that this House has
whooped through without a modicum of thought about what it means if
politicians start arbitrarily refusing to support funding for any court
decision. That crosses the line.
I attended a meeting at the Supreme Court, a luncheon called by the
Supreme Court, where the previous majority leader, Mr. DeLay, informed
Justice Scalia and Justice O'Connor, roughly this: You need to
understand we are coming after you, and we are going, we are coming
after you with your jurisdiction, and you need to listen to us because
we are the only ones connected with public opinion. That is what Mr.
DeLay said to Justice Scalia and Justice O'Connor.
So although I greatly respect the gentleman from Virginia, I don't
think we need to hear any lectures suddenly expressing concern for this
Congress trying to withhold support for court decisions. It is a little
late, given the track record of the majority on that score.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I would simply like to point out that this amendment differs
fundamentally from the Sodrel amendment that we heard a few minutes
ago. The Sodrel amendment is subject to the disparaging comments that
the gentleman from Virginia just made, because the Sodrel amendment
does say no funds herein appropriated shall be used to enforce the
court decision in a certain case and says we are not going to enforce a
court decision.
The Hinchey amendment doesn't do that. Nor does the Hinchey
amendment, contrary to what we heard from the distinguished chairman,
overturn a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court decision in this
case said you may do something. You may execute a search warrant
without knocking. What this amendment says is, because we may doesn't
mean we should.
So what the gentleman's amendment is saying is, despite the fact that
the Supreme Court gave us permission to do this, we will deny funding
to do this because we don't think it is right. So the gentleman's
amendment is not overturning an Supreme Court decision. It is saying,
thank you for the permission; we choose not to exercise the permission
you gave us.
It is very different from the Sodrel amendment, which says do not
enforce the court order. Do not spend any money enforcing the court
order. That is subversive of the Constitution. That is subversive of a
liberty.
Mr. Hinchey's amendment, whether you agree with it or not, does not
subvert the court order, does not subvert what the court said, and
simply says, what you gave us permission to do, we choose not to do.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would point out that
the Supreme Court said that the actions that were taken were wrong.
That is what the Court said. They just suggested there were other
remedies.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

{time} 2200

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time
remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, let's be clear about what we are
talking about here. This is a case where the police officers had a
warrant, and it was a legitimate warrant, and that is not in question.
And then, when they approached the location to serve the warrant, they
knocked, and within about 3 seconds, and they admit this, then they
entered to conduct the search, there was the subject of the warrant.
And the question is, did the police officers then wait a reasonable
time? Did they meet that reasonableness standard? And they agreed that
they did not. But the issue really is, the warrant was there. It was a
legitimate warrant. It was a warrant that, had it been served exactly
according to the letter of the intent of previous case law and the
Constitution, then that evidence would have been admissible in court,
not excluded.
So the court ruled that simply because the officers were abrupt in
their entry was not a reason to exclude the evidence from the court.
That is the case here with Hudson v. Michigan. That is the kind of
thing that the Hinchey amendment would seek to preclude.
Now, I do not know what the motivation is for that. I do not know why
one would want to, because we had some maybe abrupt or rude police
officers exclude evidence from a court, especially criminal court. I
would think we would want to have that evidence available to the court,
and then we would want to take a look at the kind of activities on the
part of those officers, because there are other remedies that can be
found.
Those other remedies are in the civil courts, the remedies are in
police officer enforcement, and there is also a particular Federal
statute that allows for that relief. So I would submit then, Mr.
Chairman, that there is plenty of relief here to resolve this, and the
Hinchey amendment goes the wrong way.
Furthermore, by the time, it would be impossible for Justice to
comply with this amendment, because by the time the court ruled that
they had not complied with the Hinchey language, they would have
already served the warrant, already taken action on this, and already
the funds would have been expended. So it would be impossible to comply
with this particular amendment.
The effect of it would be to tie the hands. If they did, they would
have to be very, very cautious about how they take care of these
activities, and that would mean that there will be times when these
criminal cases that would not be investigated, warrants that would not
be appropriately served for fear that they would be in violation of
this amendment, even though there is a not a way to avoid it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.
Let me simply say, without getting into the merits of the Hinchey
amendment, I would simply suggest that if arguments are going to be
made on that side of the aisle, that they not be based on the question
of whether we should be vacating court decisions, and the majority has
already tried to do that on two separate occasions
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not believe
that was my argument, was the practicality of how we comply with the
Hinchey amendment, and the fact that it is impossible to comply with
the Hinchey amendment, however impractical it is.

[[Page H4774]]

So I would submit that this does tend to circumvent Hudson v.
Michigan, and I would ask for opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear what we are
doing here. The knock and announce policy is enshrined in the
Constitution, in the context of the fourth amendment. It goes back at
least to the 13th century. It is enshrined in common law. It is held up
by numerous Supreme Court decisions over the last 100 years, going back
at least to 1914, and several of them in recent years, late 1990s, one
again in 2003.
Now, all of a sudden, we have this more activist Supreme Court coming
to the fore and intruding itself on the law, a Supreme Court which
believes it can make the law, not just interpret it. One of the most
brilliant aspects of our Constitution is the separation of powers
provision. Every law in this country can be made only by this Congress.
Now I know some of my friends on the other side want the President to
make the law. But if they do so, they are violating the Constitution
again. Every law in this country, according to the Constitution, can
only be made by this Congress. Not by the President, not by the Supreme
Court. The Courts can only interpret the law.
What this court has done is attempt to make the law and to intrude
itself upon previous Supreme Court decisions and, by doing so, violate
the fourth amendment to the Constitution and the knock and announce
provision which has been in effect for many centuries.
It is up to this Congress to stop that. That is why this amendment is
being offered.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, it is not appropriate, no matter what the gentleman
from New York thinks, for a House Appropriations Committee to take this
action tonight. I think it is wrong and therefore urge a defeat of the
Hinchey amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Wolf

Mr. WOLF. 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. Wolf:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 801. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by increasing the amount made available for the item
``community oriented policing services'', and by reducing the
aggregate amount made available for ``Department of Justice,
General Administration, Salaries and Expenses'', by
$2,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
I am offering this amendment to add $2 million for prisoner reentry
programs. I think that reentry programs help offenders to move back
into their communities and be productive citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for
bringing this to my attention. I think the more we can help people, and
there is a record number of people that are being released from prisons
at this time, the more that we can do and help them as they reenter and
become good citizens is good.
Mr. Chairman, so I offer that amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf.)
The amendment was agreed to.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 21 by Mr. Stearns of Florida.
Amendment by Mr. Weiner of New York.
Amendment No. 20 by Mr. Stearns of Florida.
Amendment No. 16 by Mrs. Musgrave of Colorado.
Amendment by Mr. Nadler of New York.
Amendment by Mr. Sodrel of Indiana.
Amendment by Mr. Hinchey of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Stearns of Florida

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

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167,
noes 254, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 340]

AYES--167

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Carter
Chocola
Coble
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Foley
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Latham
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Otter
Paul
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)

NOES--254

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson

[[Page H4775]]

Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Petri
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--11

Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Ford
Gerlach
Holden
Holt
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Sherwood

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in the vote.

{time} 2232

Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. SWEENEY, and Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. CONAWAY, WELDON of Florida, TERRY, HUNTER, BACHUS, PORTER,
SCHWARZ of Michigan, Ms. HARRIS, Messrs. ISSA, GILLMOR, and FOSSELLA
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) 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 185,
noes 236, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 341]

AYES--185

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boswell
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Butterfield
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hefley
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCollum (MN)
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Renzi
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Shimkus
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Walden (OR)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--236

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capps
Cardin
Carnahan
Carter
Castle
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Honda
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Keller
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Myrick
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Northup
Nunes
Ortiz
Osborne
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Ford
Gerlach
Holden
Holt
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Sherwood

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 2236

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

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Stearns

[[Page H4776]]

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 342]

AYES--131

Aderholt
Akin
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hostettler
Hunter
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Rehberg
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--288

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Reyes
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
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
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn

NOT VOTING--13

Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Ford
Gerlach
Holden
Holt
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Reynolds
Sanders
Sherwood

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 2242

Mr. POMBO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 342, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs.
Musgrave) 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

[Roll No. 343]

AYES--230

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Dent
Dingell
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)

NOES--191

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin

[[Page H4777]]

Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Olver
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--11

Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Ford
Gerlach
Holden
Holt
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Sherwood
Mr. CONYERS and Mr. TOWNS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. STRICKLAND, BACA, KUHL of New York, BILBRAY, GREEN of
Wisconsin and Mrs. KELLY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 2249

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 344]

AYES--189

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Poe
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOES--230

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

NOT VOTING--13

Bishop (UT)
Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Ford
Gerlach
Holden
Holt
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Marchant
Sherwood

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 2253

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sodrel

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel) 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.

[[Page H4778]]

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 345]

AYES--246

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Hostettler
Hunter
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--174

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Honda
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Watt

NOT VOTING--11

Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Ford
Gerlach
Holden
Holt
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Sherwood

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 2258

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
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

[Roll No. 346]

AYES--109

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boucher
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson
Clay
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Olver
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Solis
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--310

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth

[[Page H4779]]

Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Oxley
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Cannon
Davis (FL)
Evans
Ford
Gerlach
Holden
Holt
Hyde
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Obey
Sherwood
Sullivan

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 2304

Mr. MARKEY and Mr. BLUMENAUER changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscal
year 2007 Science, State, Justice Commerce Appropriations bill. I am
particularly pleased that Chairman. Wolf included language that directs
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to renew agreements with local governments
housing federal criminal aliens, as long as the facilities meet Bureau
of Prisons' standards and a fair and reasonable price is offered.
This provision of the bill is notably important to Big Spring, Texas
and Garza County, Texas, both of which are located in my district,
because these communities currently house federal criminal aliens and
operate under an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the BOP.
Renewing IGA's in west Texas will ensure that the federal government
can meet the increasing demand for the incarceration of criminal aliens
and continue to build upon already strong relationships for the long
term.
This language also proves that Congress is committed to fiscal
discipline. Big Spring and Garza County offer secure facilities to
house dangerous individuals, while providing the American taxpayers
some of the lowest per diem rates in the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, in closing I urge my colleagues to support this
important piece of legislation.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support
for the fiscal year 2007 Science-State-Justice Commerce appropriations
bill. The subcommittee has taken a difficult allocation and done an
admirable job of funding important federal programs within these
agencies. I am particularly grateful to the subcommittee for dedicating
funding for Houston Community College's Public Safety Institute within
the Department of Justice's accounts.
The Houston Community College has taken the steps to build a much-
needed Public Safety Institute in Houston, Texas. PSI will be a state-
of-the-art facility that will offer specialized training for area fire
fighters, law enforcement, medical technicians and other first
responders. While Houston-area first responders will be the first to
benefit from PSI's training programs in bio-hazards, command and
control, shipboard spills and swift water rescue, I have no doubt that
first responders from across the state--if not the Nation--will soon be
traveling to PSI for this high-tech training.
Houston is home to the country's fourth largest metropolitan area and
the Nation's second largest port in terms of foreign tonnage. We are
also home to the world's second largest petrochemical complex and the
world's single largest petrochemical refinery. Given the critical
nature of these assets, the PSI's training programs will help further
not only our local law enforcement but also our homeland security.
Mr. Chairman, with great pride that we are working to secure federal
funding for PSI, which will be located in our district. While no
training scenario can fully simulate a true emergency, the offerings at
PSI will be as close as technology will allow. First responders will
benefit from PSI's ``skills village,'' which will house a number of
structures that simulate a real-world training environment for
participants. PSI will also house a 10,000 square foot burn building to
create fire-fighting scenarios and a 10,000 square foot tower for fire
and rescue training.
I appreciate the subcommittee's recognition that PSI is an important
project worthy of federal investment. The Congress can be as proud as I
am that this funding will further PSI's mission to provide
comprehensive training to the firefighters and local law enforcement
who serve as first responders to any threat the City of Houston, and
the national security assets in our area.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McCaul of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington,
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 5672) making appropriations for Science, the Departments of
State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.

____________________