[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 87 (Thursday, June 29, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4799-H4808]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SCIENCE, STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 2007
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 890 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5672.
{time} 1020
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5672) making appropriations for Science, the Departments
of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Hastings of Washington in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, June
28, 2006, the amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey)
had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 110, line
8.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 2006, no
further amendments to the bill may be offered except those specified in
the previous order of the House of that day, which is at the desk.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. PORTER. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, and I wish to engage
in a colloquy with the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, there are many areas throughout the country that have
extremely high tourism rates. The local
[[Page H4800]]
law enforcement agencies of these areas have the difficult task of
providing services to these tourists on the top of their responsibility
to the base population that they represent.
For example, the community of southern Nevada has about 1.8 million
people, although we have visitors of over 40 million tourists a year
into our community. Local law enforcement is responsible with the
safety of these visitors, which places a huge financial strain on the
various public safety departments.
The Judiciary Committee has agreed to consider tourism as a factor
for law enforcement grants that they authorize and for which your
committee provides funding.
Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's concerns,
and I am glad the Judiciary Committee has agreed to work with him on
this matter. The subcommittee will keep his concerns in mind.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this and look forward to
working with you and the authorizing committee.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Andrews
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Andrews:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement the revision to Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-76 made on May 29, 2003.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to take a policy that
promotes the idea of fair competition and make that policy actually
happen in practice.
The A-76 Circular policy ensures that in instances where a Federal
Department wishes to contract out a certain function, that there is a
fair competition that would ensue between the Federal employees who
believe they should continue to serve that function and those who would
wish to have the function contracted out. There is a process by which
the various costs and benefits are reviewed, there is a process where
the consequences are reviewed, and then a decision is made.
The problem with the present process is this: when the contractor
wins the competition, the employees do not have a right of appeal if
they wish to dispute the finding. On the other hand, if the employees
win the competition, the contractor does have the right of appeal. We
think that this is an unfair and unfortunate policy.
The purpose of our amendment is to suspend the A-76 process in the
Departments covered by this bill until there can be reform and
improvement of that process. I wanted to especially thank and commend
my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), who is the
cosponsor of this amendment and who has worked very diligently and very
intensely on this matter. He has a scheduling conflict at this moment,
but has worked very hard on this; and I want to be sure that due credit
is given for his efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge adoption of the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee accepts the amendment.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the chairman and again thank my coauthor, Mr.
Jones, and once again urge adoption of the amendment.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to
H.R. 5672, the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2007, offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones). This
amendment would prevent expenditure of funds in Fiscal Year 2007 for
the implementation of a key revision to OMB Circular A-76 that was made
on May 29, 2003.
I join many of my colleagues in expressing deep concern over the A-76
process. Adoption of this amendment would encourage conferees for this
bill to establish balance in the A-76 process. Federal employees
subjected to the A-76 process should be afforded the ability to appeal
to the Government Accountability Office a decision to contract-out
their position. Private contractors are already afforded a similar-
appeal right, under the current process. This is a clear cut issue of
fairness.
The A-76 studies conducted and piloted on Guam by the Department of
Defense during the late 1990s offer telling examples of the flaws
inherent in A-76 implementation. The process on Guam was carried out in
a manner which resulted in the depletion of important inherently
governmental functions previously performed by federal employees. And
in some instances these decisions are proving to have cost the Federal
Government precious resources and human capital.
I support reforming the A-76 process to afford public and private
parties comparable treatment under this process. This amendment would
give federal employees working for agencies funded by this bill the
same appeal right currently enjoyed by contractors for those agencies.
This is just one piece of the effort to institute some more fairness in
the A-76 process.
I urge my colleagues' support for this amendment.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Poe
Mr. POE. 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. 18 offered by Mr. Poe:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title), the following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Secretary of State to implement a plan under
section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1185 note) that permits
travel into the United States from foreign countries using
any document other than a passport to denote citizenship and
identity.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today strengthens security at our
borders. This amendment will require a universal document, a passport,
to enter the United States.
Now, people from Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean islands can enter
the United States with a host of documents, including baptismal
certificates or no identification at all.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 acted on
the 9/11 Commission recommendations and mandated that all travelers
entering the United States present a passport or some other type of
identification and citizenship documents when entering the United
States beginning January 1, 2008, thus eliminating the current Western
Hemisphere passport exception loophole that allows U.S. citizens and
nationals of other countries in the Western Hemisphere to present
little or no documentation of their identity and citizenship when they
cross into our country.
Implementing this simple statutory requirement has been difficult.
Over the last couple of years, the State Department has spent a lot of
time and a lot of taxpayer money to come up with documents that are
alternatives to passports to comply with the law under their Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The question is: Why are they going to
other documents?
They are doing so because of pressure from outside groups who say
passports cost too much, or that they will stifle commerce, which, of
course, is not true. This efficient document is a universal document
and will actually streamline the crossing of people from Mexico and
Canada into the United States. To date, there has been no agreement
between State and these groups on the type of alternative documents
that will be accepted, and it is unlikely they will come up with some
type of alternative document before the deadline.
[[Page H4801]]
Essentially, these outside groups have been successful in persuading
Congress to consider delaying any changes until they get these types of
documents; threatening to kill implementation of the Terrorist
Prevention Act and leaving America wide open for maybe another
terrorist attack. An example of this has already been found in section
135 of the recently passed Senate immigration bill, which postpones the
deadline for compliance until alternative documents have been issued.
Why other types of identification? Why set up a new bureaucracy to
issue them? We should use the passport.
Mr. Chairman, we already have a document that denotes citizenship and
identity to comply with the law, and it can be used to meet the
deadline. It is called the passport. Why do we have to reinvent the
wheel of identification? The State Department should be using its
resources to reduce costs and expand the issuance of passports and
abandon efforts that will ultimately lead to making our borders less
safe.
Let me give an example of why this amendment is necessary. The
Government Accountability Office, back in 2003, did an investigation to
see how vulnerable we are with this Western Hemisphere exception to
passports. Here is what their lead investigator said:
``We created counterfeit identification documents in order to
establish fictitious identities and entered the United States from
Jamaica, Barbados, Mexico, and Canada. The Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection staff never questioned the authenticity of these counterfeit
documents and our agents entered with absolutely no difficulty entering
the United States.''
With the recent terrorist arrests in Canada this month, Mr. Chairman,
we cannot afford to wait any longer to secure our borders. If we are
forced to wait longer, the next group of people using fictitious
documents won't be GAO investigators; they could very well be
terrorists.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage the adoption of this commonsense amendment
to require passports to enter the United States.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in opposition
to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Hampshire is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I certainly understand and appreciate my
friend from Texas's interest in making sure that people are identified
at the border. But, quite honestly, this amendment is far, far too
restrictive.
I cannot imagine what the impact of this amendment would be on
commerce between Canada and the United States. The 49th parallel is the
longest undefended border in the world. The trade that goes on between
Canada and the United States is amongst the freest in the world.
I would point out that my home State of New Hampshire trades almost
$2 billion a year with Canada. The State of Texas trades over $17
billion a year, and 370,000 jobs in the State of Texas are supported by
Canadian industry.
I can't imagine, Mr. Chairman, what would happen in Michigan or in
the Detroit area with the auto manufacturers if all these people that
go back and forth between Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit had to get
passports.
Now, the government has worked, with the support of the Judiciary
Committee here, on a plan to provide a pass that would be cheap, it
would be counterfeit proof, and the Federal Government will issue it.
{time} 1030
It will be somewhat like a driver's license. I understand my friend's
concern about the fact that driver's license and other forms of ID are
not universal and are easy to counterfeit, but we are working on a plan
that will provide this kind of identification without having to go
through the cumbersome expense and time required to get a U.S.
passport.
The passage of this amendment would have serious implications for our
relationship with Canada. I appreciate the gentleman's concern with
Mexico to the south, but this amendment, in its restrictive nature,
will really limit the economy. It would be devastating to the United
States. It would be devastating to the lifestyles of people who are
used to going back and forth over the border. It would be devastating
to the tourism industry along the Canadian border. It would be
devastating to trade. I urge that this amendment not be accepted.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POE. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close.
The CHAIRMAN. No, the gentleman from Texas has the right to close.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, as I said a moment ago, this amendment is far
too restrictive. We have all sorts of different programs that are under
development right now, the NEXUS card, the SENTRI system and the PASS
card, as I mentioned a minute or two ago. If this amendment were to
pass, all those programs would be for naught.
The passport is indeed as secure a document as you can get, but time
has passed since passports were developed in their present form, some
40 or 50 years ago. There is modern technology that can provide
American workers and tourists and citizens the proper identification at
a much lower cost and make it possible for them to get back and forth
across the border more quickly than they would and less expensively
than they would with a passport.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, because the impact of
it would be devastating for the economy of the United States. It would
be devastating for the relations that we have with our neighbor to the
north, which are amongst the best in the world.
I met with seven members of the Canadian Parliament yesterday, and
they brought up this very issue, that they were concerned about the
restrictions that might be placed upon American travel to the north. So
I hope this amendment is not successful, despite the fact that I
respect my friend from Texas' good intentions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
also rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this is a simple solution to a complicated problem that
is being worked on at a number of different levels. I know that the
authorizers, which you just heard from in the authorizing committee,
they are very supportive of the implementation of the Western
Hemisphere Travel Initiative and they are working hard on that. Because
it is a complicated problem, we have experts not only in the House of
Representatives and the United States Senate in the legislative branch
but also in the executive branch; and they are working to accommodate
this problem to all of the real needs out there.
The U.S. military, Federal agencies, travelling, they are working on
identification processes. This amendment, for example, would preclude
the use of secure identification issued by the U.S. military and
Federal agencies that would not be accepted under this amendment.
It would be extremely unfortunate as all this work has been done in
order to ensure that we can have quick access across the border and
perfectly adequate, secure identification and do it in a way that
accommodates all of the needs.
Finally, I would like to say, this is an authorizing issue and really
not an issue appropriately considered here on this appropriation bill.
It is complicated, as the gentleman has mentioned. It is too simple a
solution and not appropriately considered in this forum.
Mr. POE. How much time do I have, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment provides a universal document.
Every country in the world requires passports to enter their nation. A
passport is a secure document. Why are we trying to invent another type
of identification, or multiple types of identification, so that we can
have people from Canada and Mexico come up with those documents to
enter the United States?
[[Page H4802]]
That is part of the problem we have now. There is no identification.
There is some identification like baptismal certificates or marriage
licenses to prove identity. Use the universal document like a passport.
Then we can record who comes into the United States and who leaves the
United States. We don't even do that now.
With a universal passport that everybody has, provided by their
government, it will streamline the process. It will make it quicker and
easier for Canadians to come into the United States, for Americans to
travel back and forth across our common borders.
I urge adoption of this amendment, this commonsense amendment to
require a passport to enter the United States.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POE. I will.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentleman really answers the question why should we
even consider it here. You say, why should we not use this?
That is exactly why this ought to be considered by the authorizing
committee. We ought to have testimony taken by the authorizing
committee to explore the questions why we should not jump to this
simple solution to a very complicated problem. The gentleman's
question, I think, is proof in and of itself of why we shouldn't be
considering this question here on the floor today.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I understand the frustrations with the
Mexican border that drove my good friend, Representative Ted Poe, to
offer this amendment. But this amendment is a sledgehammer to kill a
gnat.
The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) applies to all air,
sea, and land entries into the United States by January 1, 2008. There
is a vast difference between the Mexican and Canadian land borders. As
Chairman of the Canadian-U.S. Interparliamentary Group, I know that
requiring everyone crossing the U.S.-Canadian border to have a passport
is unrealistic, would devastate our economy, and would divert precious
limited resources away from prosecuting true threats to our national
security. Just yesterday, I met with a group of Canadian Members of
Parliament from Alberta visiting Washington, DC who once again raised
this issue as the top irritant in our bilateral relations.
Only 40 percent of Canadians and 20 percent of Americans have
passports. I am not a fan of WHTI. But at least it attempts to solve
the conundrum of improving border crossing documents without requiring
everyone to spend $97 to purchase a passport that takes six to eight
weeks to get delivered. Already, the rumors that a passport is required
for Canadians to drive into the United States have cost our economy
over half a billion dollars. It also obviously affects the Canadian
economy. One planned multi-million dollar resort complex in British
Columbia was scrubbed based on the threat of a passport requirement.
Yes, it's true that the Canadians are more liberal with their
immigration and asylum policies than we are. But I am satisfied that
the Canadians are addressing border security in a responsible fashion.
With the new Conservative government in power in Canada, I am more
confident that they will continue to fix the problems in this area left
undone by the previous Liberal government.
Finally, it's important to remember that no
9/11 terrorist came from Canada. In the only documented case from
Canada--the Millennium bomber--the terrorist was caught by our border
officials not because of documentation problems but because of human
intuition. Some assert that Canada has at least 50 terror groups
present and strongly infer Canada's alleged incompetence for not
rounding up these individuals. Yet, they fail to recognize that if
these individuals do nothing illegal, you can't arrest or deport people
indiscriminately. U.S. authorities believe that there are somewhere
between 50 and 100 Hamas and Hezbollah operatives in America and that
al-Qaida sleeper cells are believed to be operating in 40 states,
awaiting orders and funding for new attacks on U.S. soil. Yet, we
haven't arrested these people. Why should Canada be held to a different
standard?
When there is evidence of terrorist activity, the Canadians act.
Earlier this month, the Royal Mounted Police captured the latest
terrorist cell inside Canada, thanks in part to good cooperation with
U.S. law enforcement officials, and have acted forcefully and
effectively in intercepting these and other terrorists before they can
enter into the United States. This is where our efforts should be
directed, not in forcing U.S. schoolchildren to obtain a passport
simply to play in a Pee-Wee hockey tournament in Thunder Bay. Mr.
Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the Poe amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
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 Clerk designated the amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment be read in its entirety.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
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 for
``Office of Justice Programs--justice assistance'' may be
used to fund State or local anti-drug task forces that do not
collect, and make publicly available, data as to the racial
distribution of convictions as result of their operation.
The CHAIRMAN. 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 want to share with Mr.
Mollohan and Mr. Wolf that, as we proceeded through the bill, we
recognize the challenges that you face as appropriators and the
difficulties of this legislative process in the appropriations process.
I want it to be known that I have legislation on this Tulia example
that this example or amendment tries to track.
Tulia, Texas, is a community that experienced abuse of power. We
always want to celebrate good law enforcement, and they have a tough
job. I meet with my local law enforcement. I try to find more resources
for them to do their jobs, as I am attempting to do in Houston, Texas,
as we work together to provide more funding for some of the challenges
we have in the criminal justice system.
But in Tulia, Texas, more than 100 persons in that community were
eventually tried and convicted in false drug charges; and it was on the
testimony of one single law enforcement officer who ultimately, of
course, was removed and himself indicted for perjury.
The Jackson-Lee amendment seeks to restore justice into justice
systems by making the operation of federally funded State and local
anti-drug task forces more transparent in order to prevent civil rights
abuses such as those that occurred in Tulia, Texas, and more recently
in Hearne, Texas. Grants for the local State and anti-drug task forces
come from the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Programs.
I am an ardent proponent of initiatives that strengthen and support
our law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, as a member of the Committee
on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and
Homeland Security, I make it a goal whenever possible to advocate for
increased funding facilities, better facilities, training and
equipment, and for improved interruptible communications for first
responders and law enforcement officials.
However, with this amendment, I seek a simple concept, something that
is not an extra added burden. The data is already there. I seek to
restore the integrity, the honesty, the even-handedness and even
judiciousness of our law enforcement agencies by asking them to collect
and make publicly available data as to the racial distribution of
convictions they garnered as a result of their operations.
The question is whether one population over another is targeted.
[[Page H4803]]
By asking for the collection and publication of such data, the
Jackson-Lee amendment holds State and local recipients accountable for
the manner in which they conduct their anti-drug programs and deter law
enforcement agencies or individual rogue cops from engaging in racial
profiling if they seek to receive Federal funds under this bill.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say this is not a labeling of our
law enforcement on the front line. This is just simply asking for
reporting that is prescribed under the amendment that is authorized in
law as filed in 42 U.S.C. 3782, 42 U.S.C. 3759 and 42 U.S.C. 3789(e),
the Byrne program, as well as 42 U.S.C. 3751 and 3753.
Section 3782 lays out the parameters of the establishment of rules,
regulations and procedures that are necessary for exercise of agency
functions in carrying out the provisions of Byrne. Specifically, it
authorizes a promulgation of rules and regulations that ensure that the
entire program has a high probability of improving the criminal justice
system and is likely to contribute to the improvement of the criminal
justice system and a reduction and prevention of crime.
More importantly, Mr. Chairman, however, the rules and regulations
promulgated must help the reporting agencies determine the program's
impact on communities and participants. The very negative results of
the program that we saw in Tulia and Hearne, Texas, clearly and
unequivocally contravene these provisions. The Jackson-Lee amendment
seeks to correct this problem.
Mr. Chairman, lives were interrupted. Mothers lost sons and daughters
to jail time. I would ask for those who are unfamiliar with this case
to just look on the Web site. You will find this is a unique case, when
more than 100 people were sent to the judicial system, incarcerated,
tried, convicted, and they were innocent. There were people who were
not even around that this officer, through funding, testified against.
I would simply ask that this amendment be accepted by my colleagues,
because what it does is ask for justice, and it asks for the facts. If
you have done the crime, you do the time. We understand that.
But what we want to say is that 15 percent of the African American
population of Tulia was arrested, prosecuted, sentenced to decades in
prison based on uncorroborated testimony of a federally funded
undercover officer who had a record of racial impropriety in the course
of enforcing the law. Let us not have this happen again.
I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 5672, which states
that none of the funds made available in this Act under the heading
``Office of Justice Programs--Justice Assistance'' may be used to fund
State or local anti-drug task forces that do not collect, and make
publicly available, data as to the racial distribution of convictions
as a result of their operation.
The Jackson-Lee amendment seeks to restore ``justice'' into the
justice system by making the operation of federally funded state and
local anti-drug task forces more transparent in order to prevent civil
rights abuses such as those that occurred in Tulia, Texas, and more
recently in Hearne, Texas.
Grants to fund state and local anti-drug task forces come from the
``Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance
Programs (Byrne Program),'' in Title 42 U.S.C., Subchapter V. I am an
ardent proponent of initiatives that strengthen and support our law
enforcement agencies. Furthermore, as a member of the Committee on
Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and
Homeland Security, I make it a goal whenever possible to advocate for
increased funding, better facilities, training, and equipment, and for
improved interoperable communications for first responders and law
enforcement officials.
However, with this amendment, I seek to restore the integrity,
honesty, evenhandedness, and judiciousness of our law enforcement
agencies by compelling them to collect and make publicly available data
as to the racial distribution of convictions they garnered as a result
of their operations. By compelling the collection and publication of
such data, the Jackson-Lee amendment holds state and local grant
recipients accountable for the manner in which they conduct their anti-
drug programs and deters law enforcement agencies from engaging in
racial profiling if they seek to receive federal funds under this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the type of reporting that is prescribed under my
amendment is authorized in law as found in 42 U.S.C. 3782, 42 U.S.C.
3759, and 42 U.S.C. 3789e, the Byrne Program as well as 42 U.S.C. 3751
and 3753.
Section 3782 lays out the parameters of the establishment of rules,
regulations, and ``procedures that are necessary to the exercise'' of
agency functions in carrying out the provisions of Byrne. Specifically,
it authorizes the promulgation of rules and regulations that ensure
that the entire program has a ``high probability of improving the
criminal justice system'' and is ``likely to contribute to the
improvement of the criminal justice system and the reduction and
prevention of crime.'' More importantly, however, the rules and
regulations promulgated must help the reporting agencies determine the
program's ``impact on communities and participants.'' The very negative
results of the program that we saw in Tulia and Hearne, Texas, clearly
and unequivocally contravene these provisions, and the Jackson Lee
amendment seeks to correct this problem.
Section 3789e contains a report to the President and to Congress that
relates to the nature of the activities conducted under this program.
The Jackson-Lee amendment seeks to ensure that unethical and dishonest
application of anti-drug task forces funded under this program do not
slip through the cracks. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is vital to
protecting the integrity and the evenhandedness of the activities
funded under this program. Many years of Civil Rights jurisprudence and
law have been ignored and thrown out the window when America permitted
situations such as that in Tulia and Hearne to take place with
impunity.
In recent years, it has become clear that programs funded by the
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program have borne
opportunities for the abuse of the penal system, racially disparate
treatment, corruption and tainting of law enforcement agencies, and the
commission of civil rights abuses across the country. This is
especially the case when it comes to the program's funding of hundreds
of regional narcotics task forces. Operation of anti-drug task forces
around the country, which has lacked state or federal oversight, has
been riddled with corruption and is the root of some of America's most
horrific law enforcement-related scandals.
One of the better known federally-funded anti-drug task force
scandals occurred in Tulia, Texas, several years ago. Fifteen percent
of the African American population of Tulia was arrested, prosecuted,
and sentenced to decades in prison based on the uncorroborated
testimony of a federally-funded undercover officer who had a record of
racial impropriety in the course of enforcing the law. The Tulia
defendants have since been pardoned, but these kinds of scandals
continue to plague the Byrne grant program.
More recently, on May 11, 2005, the District Attorney of Robertson
County in Hearne, Texas, and the South Central Texas Narcotics Task
Force, in a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf
of 28 African Americans, offered to settle their case after 5 years of
litigation. This case arose from the arrest of 28 individuals--out of
4,500 other residents of Hearne in November 2000 on charges of
possession or distribution of crack cocaine. During litigation, the
presiding judge was asked to dismiss the charges because they were
based on evidence from an unreliable informant, as reported to the
Houston Chronicle.
These scandals are not the result of a few ``bad apples'' in law
enforcement; they are the result of a fundamentally and systemically
flawed bureaucracy that is prone to corruption by its very structure.
Byrne-funded regional anti-drug task forces are federally funded, state
managed, and locally staffed, which means they do not really have to
answer to anyone. In fact, their ability to perpetuate themselves
through asset forfeiture and federal funding makes them unaccountable
to local taxpayers and governing bodies.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure that state
and local law enforcement agencies are held accountable and discouraged
from engaging in racial profiling.
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. It, 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 requires a new determination.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I know that procedurally,
[[Page H4804]]
even though I cite a number of sections which I believe would comply
with removing the point of order, might I say that, in the course of
the gentleman's response, I would just simply say to him that, because
this is such a repetitive incident, such as the one that occurred in
Hearne, Texas, and a South Central Texas narcotics case and a case
filed by the American Civil Liberties on behalf of 28 African-
Americans, that the case was offered to settlement, this case arose
from the arrests of 28 individuals out of 4,500 other residents of
Hearne in November, 2000, on charges of possession or distribution of
crack cocaine.
That, again, was an example where this individual, using Federal
monies, had given misinformation to the judicial system. These scandals
point out the bad apples. I think this is sufficient.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will suspend. The gentlewoman must
confine her remarks to the point of order.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will.
I wish there were a waiver of the point of order, but on the basis of
the gentleman's point that was made, I hope that we have made our
point.
At this point, I will concede the point of order, looking forward for
my legislation to pass, and ask to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Hefley:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 801. Total appropriations made in this Act are hereby
reduced by $598,390,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,
2006, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
{time} 1045
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise again today to offer an amendment to
cut the level of funding in this appropriations bill by 1 percent. This
amount equals more than $598 million, which is one penny off of every
dollar appropriated in this bill.
As you know, I have offered these kinds of amendments for most of the
appropriation bills that we have considered so far this year, and if
they had all been accepted, one penny off a dollar, we would have saved
$2.2 billion.
The appropriations made in this particular bill represent an increase
of approximately $140 million more than the administration's request
for 2007. In addition, this bill also reflects an increase of more than
$2.6 billion over last year's appropriations bill, an increase that I
think is just unacceptable in light of our deficit.
Mr. Chairman, I would encourage support of the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
gentleman's amendment to cut $598 million from the bill. As the
gentleman can see from the debate, and the other amendments offered on
the bill, many Members feel the funding for a whole host of programs in
this bill is already inadequate. The budget resolution passed by the
Congress has imposed upon us a very restrictive spending climate. This
amendment constitutes attempts to reopen the decisions we have already
made in the budget resolution.
The bill we are considering today stays within the budget resolution
framework and represents a lot of hard work and hard decisions to match
limited funds to competing national priorities. A number of accounts in
the bill are funded very close to the bone. A reduction of 1 percent,
many salaries and expenses would have a fairly dramatic and highly
negative impact.
I would ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Knowing your history, Mr. Chairman, and
many of these important efforts, particularly in the State funding, I
just wanted to mention that any 1 percent cut would impact child
survival and health programs, global funds to fight AIDS, tuberculosis
and malaria, the Development Assistance Fund, the International
Disaster and Famine Assistance. These are varied programs that simply
cannot afford any more of a cut.
We are obviously fighting international poverty. The U.S. Global
Leadership Campaign has been on the Hill this past week. Secretary of
State Powell and Secretary Albright have begged us to maintain our
investment in these areas. And I can't imagine what a 1 percent cut
would do to this very, very small part of the budget, which is 1.2
percent. And I would hope that our colleagues would see the necessity
of having a better face or a continuing face to fight against issues
dealing with children, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria.
I hope that we can oppose this amendment for the devastation it would
do to many programs that put the face of America to the world.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to the gentlewoman
from Texas that these amendments are couched in such a way that they
are not 1 percent across the board in every program in any of these
bills. It is 1 percent total out of the bottom line or the top line,
whichever way you want to say it, in the bill. And that means that the
administration, the Department, can look at it and decide what is
really needed and what is not. And if you will notice from some of the
amendments we have had in the last day or two, this bill is riddled
with earmarks for special little projects across the country in various
districts. And, frankly, I don't know why the people of Colorado should
have to pay for things in other districts that are strictly for those
other districts like we had in some of the Flake amendments yesterday.
So we are not talking about a 1 percent. You can always mention, in
every bill there is lot of good stuff. I have great respect for the
chairman and the ranking member here. They have worked hard on this.
There is much that is very, very good that I too would not want cut in
this bill. But if we can't find one cent out of every dollar, then I
think there is something very wrong.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I just want to thank the Chair for presiding very, very fairly and
for correcting me on mistakes that I made without people knowing that I
made the mistakes. But I think it was always very good to look up there
and see your fair face, and you were very, very fair, I think, on both
sides. I personally want to thank you very, very much on this bill but
on many others that I have watched, but seeing you all day yesterday.
So thank you.
Also thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for the great job
that they have done and the Members, and again, Congressman Hastings, I
thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. 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 Colorado will be
postponed.
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. 18 by Mr. Poe of Texas.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Hefley of Colorado.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
[[Page H4805]]
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Poe
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) 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 90,
noes 318, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 347]
AYES--90
Aderholt
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Beauprez
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Burgess
Buyer
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Chandler
Chocola
Cramer
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dent
Doolittle
Duncan
Everett
Foley
Foxx
Gibbons
Gingrey
Goode
Gordon
Graves
Hall
Harris
Hayworth
Hunter
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Jones (NC)
Kelly
King (IA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lynch
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
McIntyre
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Saxton
Sessions
Shays
Shuster
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Wamp
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wu
Young (FL)
NOES--318
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Granger
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--24
Abercrombie
Bishop (UT)
Cannon
Culberson
Diaz-Balart, L.
Evans
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Gerlach
Hayes
Holden
Holt
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Manzullo
Marshall
Millender-McDonald
Moran (VA)
Olver
Rush
Sherwood
Whitfield
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain
in this vote.
{time} 1118
Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Ms. CARSON and Mrs. McCARTHY and Messrs.
TIERNEY, MELANCON, GUTKNECHT and MURPHY changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Ms. BEAN, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia and Mrs. BONO and Messrs.
GORDON, SAXTON, ISTOOK, STEARNS, BOOZMAN, NEUGEBAUER, DAVIS of
Tennessee, LYNCH and BOREN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 347, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 347, I was
detained and was unable to get to the floor before the roll closed. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehner was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Legislative Program
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to give all the Members an idea of
what the schedule for the day is. After the passage of this bill, we
will move to the rule on the Deep Water Recovery Act, the OCS bill, and
the rule on the resolution with regard to the disclosure of the SWIFT
Program. Once those two rules have been considered, there will be
votes, and then we will move to the OCS bill and then finally to the
resolution.
We expect to complete our week's work by 6 or 6:15 this evening. I am
trying to give everyone as much notice as we can. That is the schedule
as I see it.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the 5-minute vote will continue.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Hefley
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 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 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 94,
noes 316, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 348]
AYES--94
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Campbell (CA)
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cooper
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gohmert
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Jindal
Jones (NC)
Keller
King (IA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
McCotter
McHenry
[[Page H4806]]
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)
NOES--316
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--22
Abercrombie
Bishop (UT)
Brady (TX)
Cannon
Conyers
Culberson
Evans
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Gerlach
Hayes
Holden
Holt
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Manzullo
Marshall
Moore (WI)
Rush
Sherwood
Young (AK)
announcement by the chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain
in this vote.
{time} 1127
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, the Clerk will read
the last lines.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Science, State, Justice,
Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2007''.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the United
Nations.
The mission of the U.N. today is as relevant as it was in 1945 when
this global forum was established: preserving peace through
international cooperation and collective security. Cutting U.S. funding
to the U.N. not only undermines the efforts of the U.N. but also
reduces the United State's ability to influence reform at the U.N.
Government entities by their very own definition are not perfect
institutions, and the U.N. is no exception. But the U.N. is actively
engaged in review and assessment of its organizations to ensure that
they are effective and consistent with the core mission. The U.N. has
already taken some important steps in much needed reform, like the
creation of an ethics office. It has created new bodies to address the
new threats of the 21st century, like the Peacebuilding Commission that
will work to assist countries in the difficult transition from conflict
to sustainable peace. I believe that the U.S. must be an active
participant in the U.N., and push for appropriate reforms that make the
U.N. more responsive to the changing challenges of the 21st century.
The U.S. and Congress in particular, can support these reform efforts
by robustly funding the U.N. and not undermining U.S. standing at the
U.N. with amendments and rhetoric that unnecessarily criticize the U.N.
without assigning any value to the important work they do.
Now more than ever, the world needs the United Nations to be
successful.
Mr. LEVIN. I rise to point out a serious shortcoming in the FY07
Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations bill. Manufacturing
has a proud history in this country as the engine that created our
middle class--a source of good jobs, steady benefits, and quality
products for consumers. While I will support the overall bill, I am
concerned that it does not provide adequate resources for the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP.
MEP is a small, but proven program that helps small manufacturers
compete globally by giving them access to technologies and processes
that improve their productivity and their products.
By proposing to cut MEP by more than 50 percent, the President has
again demonstrated his upside-down priorities and refused to
acknowledge the manufacturing jobs crisis in this country. Since 2001,
manufacturing states like Michigan have lost a median 17 percent of
their manufacturing jobs--an average of more than 75,000 jobs per
state. Yet the Bush Administration has ignored the importance of
preserving our manufacturing base at every turn--refusing to enforce
U.S. trading rights here and overseas, failing to take advantage of
opportunities to create new markets for American goods, and repeatedly
proposing funding cuts for programs that spur innovation and forward
progress here at home.
I understand that the Subcommittee has tried to do its best with
inadequate resources, and I appreciate that the $92 million provided
for MEP in the bill is a significant improvement over the President's
request. But we have to do more than turn a 50 percent cut into a 15
percent cut.
I hope that as this bill moves forward, we will be able to restore
funding for MEP to the current level of $106 million. The consequences
of not doing so are serious: 2,100 fewer manufacturers would receive
MEP's valuable services, resulting in 5,760 fewer manufacturing jobs in
this country. By way of comparison, last year in Michigan alone, MEP
helped create or retain almost 2,000 jobs and almost $190 million in
sales.
In a word, fully restoring funding for MEP to the current level is
critical. It is critical to our small manufacturers and to the workers
and families that rely on them.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Science,
State Justice and Commerce Appropriations bill for Fiscal 2007 and
commend the Chairmen and Ranking Members of the full committee and the
subcommittee for producing a bill that is worthy of support.
While there are many laudable provisions of this bill, I would like
to turn the House's attention to an amendment offered in full committee
last week by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Sweeney.
My colleagues, many American families have long stood vigil on behalf
of their family members who were murdered on December 21, 1988 on Pan
Am 103 over Lockerbie Scotland. We must never forget the pain and
suffering of the families affected by this horrible act and Muammar
Qadhafi and others must be held responsible.
It is our job today to ensure that America requires Libya to fully
honor its commitment to the victims of Pan Am 103.
In recent years, the Libyan government has come forward and expressed
an interest in becoming a member of the international community.
However, at the same time, I remain concerned that Libya has yet to
meet its financial
[[Page H4807]]
commitments to the families of the Americans killed in Pan Am Flight
103 and may be implying that all claims in this case are settled.
It is imperative that the Libyan government meet its commitments
before diplomatic relations are restored. We must be resolute in the
face of terrorism and we must hold Libya to their commitment to their
victims' families.
As we are aware, Libya made a commitment in 2003 to pay compensation
to these families in the amount of $2.7 billion. While part of that
package has been paid, $536 million of the settlement is still
outstanding.
Under the agreement reached with the families, this money was to be
paid upon Libya's removal from the list of state sponsors of terror.
Now that this has happened, the United States Government must stand on
principle and prevent our families from being victimized again.
The Sweeney amendment has a simple purpose--to bar our Government
from funding any activity related to restoring diplomatic relations
with Libya until Libya honors the financial commitments it made to the
families of the victims of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103.
And, even more important than the financial obligation is the need to
bring those responsible for the destruction of Flight 103 to justice.
Money can never compensate for the cold-blooded murders by state-
sponsored acts of terror.
Mr Chairman, I urge support for the amendment and the base
appropriations bill.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Science, State, Justice,
Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007
because I refuse to pretend that partially restoring the President's
reckless cuts to important programs is the best we can do. We are
administering death by a thousand cuts to the basic functions of
government to finance tax breaks for millionaires and an open-ended war
in Iraq. And we're going to borrow over $300 billion to do it.
In this bill, I find particularly objectionable the $563 million cut
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including a
$47 million cut from the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund; the $20
million cut from economic development projects in distressed areas; and
the $117 million cut for dues to the United Nations and other
international organizations. The bill robs from these and other
critical programs to avoid eliminating assistance to state and local
law enforcement, as requested by the President, although law
enforcement still suffers a $150 million cut from last year.
I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting this bill to force the
Bush Administration and Republican Congress to start making responsible
choices with the American people's money.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for
H.R. 5672, the Science-State-Justice Commerce Appropriations bill.
This legislation includes approximately $176,000,000 for a DNA
analysis and capacity enhancement program and other local, State, and
Federal forensic activities. Of this funding, not less than
$151,000,000 is directed toward the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant
Program which help to reduce and eliminate the backlog of DNA samples
and increase State and local DNA laboratory capacity.
I met Debbie Smith five years ago when she came to Washington to
testify at a hearing about the importance of DNA evidence. The evidence
collected from her rape sat on a shelf for years waiting to be
analyzed. After hearing her story, I resolved to do something about the
hundreds of thousands of rape kits that were sitting on shelves,
unanalyzed, because of a lack of funding. ``The Debbie Smith Act''
became law in 2004, and with the critical funding provided by Congress,
DNA evidence will be analyzed and rapists put behind bars. I commend
Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan for their steadfast support
for this issue.
I also am pleased that this legislation contains $21,488,000 to
enhance State and local efforts to combat trafficking of persons, as
authorized by legislation that I sponsored with Representative Deborah
Pryce (R-OH), the ``End Demand for Sex Trafficking Act.'' This funding
will also go toward conducting comprehensive research and statistical
review of sex trafficking and unlawful commercial sex acts in the
United States.
Approximately 600,000 to 800,000 people are trafficked across
international borders each year. However, trafficking is not just a
problem in other countries. Each year, men, women, and children from
all over the world are brought into the United States for the sole
purpose of being bought and sold by American citizens for commercial
sex. And the victims are often Americans.
I have worked on the trafficking issue for many years including
working to stop sex tour operators like Big Apple Oriental Tours, which
is based in New York City, from sexually exploiting impoverished women
and girls in developing countries.
It is important that we protect the victims of the sex trade
industry, and punish the predators that exploit them. This funding is
an important step in preventing the many human rights abuses inflicted
on men, women, and children around the world.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. WOLF Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Gingrey) 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 directed him to report
the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 890, the
previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 393,
nays 23, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 349]
YEAS--393
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
[[Page H4808]]
Marchant
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--23
Cooper
Delahunt
Duncan
Eshoo
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Green (WI)
Hefley
Hensarling
Hostettler
Jones (NC)
Matheson
Miller, George
Paul
Pence
Petri
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Stark
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
NOT VOTING--16
Bishop (UT)
Cannon
Clyburn
Evans
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Gerlach
Hayes
Holden
Holt
Johnson, Sam
Kanjorski
Manzullo
Marshall
Sherwood
Woolsey
{time} 1146
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________