[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.

                          ____________________