Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 120 (Wednesday, July 25, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 25, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8467-H8496]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2008

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 562 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.
3093.

{time} 1837

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. 3093) making appropriations for the Departments of
Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Hastings of Florida (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier
today, the amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe
Lofgren) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page
48, line 3.

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King) 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today,
this is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 19,
noes 389, answered ``present'' 16, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 726]

AYES--19

Bishop (UT)
Buyer
Cannon
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gohmert
King (IA)
Lamborn
McHenry
Pearce
Pitts
Rogers (AL)
Sali
Sessions
Tancredo
Westmoreland

NOES--389

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays

[[Page H8468]]

Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--16

Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Blackburn
Bonner
Delahunt
Doyle
Green, Gene
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Jones (OH)
Kline (MN)
Latham
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
Roybal-Allard
Sensenbrenner

NOT VOTING--13

Broun (GA)
Christensen
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
Hill
Hunter
LaHood
Marshall
Rangel
Royce
Young (AK)

{time} 1844

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida changed his vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
Mr. GINGREY changed his vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

juvenile justice programs

For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (``the 1974 Act''), the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act''), the
Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162), and other
juvenile justice programs, including salaries and expenses in
connection therewith to be transferred to and merged with the
appropriations for Justice Assistance, $399,900,000, to
remain available until expended as follows:
(1) $725,000 for concentration of Federal efforts, as
authorized by section 204 of the 1974 Act;
(2) $81,175,000 for State and local programs authorized by
section 221 of the 1974 Act, including training and technical
assistance to assist small, non-profit organizations with the
Federal grants process;
(3) $53,000,000 for demonstration projects, as authorized
by sections 261 and 262 of the 1974 Act;
(4) $100,000,000 for youth mentoring grants;
(5) $70,000,000 for delinquency prevention, as authorized
by section 505 of the 1974 Act, of which--
(A) $17,500,000 shall be for the Tribal Youth Program;
(B) $25,000,000 shall be for a gang resistance education
and training program; and
(C) $25,000,000 shall be for grants of $360,000 to each
State and $6,640,000 shall be available for discretionary
grants to States, for programs and activities to enforce
State laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to
minors or the purchase or consumption of alcoholic beverages
by minors, prevention and reduction of consumption of
alcoholic beverages by minors, and for technical assistance
and training;
(6) $20,000,000 for the Secure Our Schools Act, as
authorized by part AA of the 1968 Act, as amended by section
1169 of Public Law 109-162;
(7) $15,000,000 for programs authorized by the Victims of
Child Abuse Act of 1990; and
(8) $60,000,000 for the Juvenile Accountability Block
Grants program as authorized by part R of the 1968 Act, as
amended by section 1166 of Public Law 109-162 and Guam shall
be considered a State:

Provided, That not more than ten percent of each amount may
be used for research, evaluation, and statistics activities
designed to benefit the programs or activities authorized:
Provided further, That not more than two percent of each
amount may be used for training and technical assistance:
Provided further, That the previous two provisos shall not
apply to demonstration projects, as authorized by sections
261 and 262 of the 1974 Act.

public safety officers benefits

For payments and expenses authorized by part L of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796), such sums as are necessary, as authorized by
section 6093 of Public Law 100-690 (102 Stat. 4339-4340)
(including amounts for administrative costs, which amounts
shall be paid to the ``Justice Assistance'' account), to
remain available until expended; and $5,000,000 for payments
authorized by section 1201(b) of such Act; and $4,100,000 for
educational assistance, as authorized by section 1212 of such
Act.

General Provisions--Department of Justice

Sec. 201. In addition to amounts otherwise made available
in this title for official reception and representation
expenses, a total of not to exceed $60,000 from funds
appropriated to the Department of Justice in this title shall
be available to the Attorney General for official reception
and representation expenses.
Sec. 202. None of the funds appropriated by this title
shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the
life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were
carried to term, or in the case of rape: Provided, That
should this prohibition be declared unconstitutional by a
court of competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null
and void.
Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated under this title
shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate
in any way the performance of, any abortion.
Sec. 204. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the
obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to
provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to
receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided,
That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect
of section 203 intended to address the philosophical beliefs
of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
Sec. 205. Not to exceed five percent of any appropriation
made available for the current fiscal year for the Department
of Justice in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than ten percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any
transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section: Provided
further, That none of the funds appropriated to ``Buildings
and Facilities, Federal Prison System'' in this or any other
Act may be transferred to ``Salaries and Expenses, Federal
Prison System'', or any other Department of Justice account,
unless the President certifies that such a transfer is
necessary to the national security interests of the United
States, and such authority shall not be delegated, and shall
be subject to section 505 of this Act.
Sec. 206. The Attorney General is authorized to extend
through September 30, 2009, the Personnel Management
Demonstration Project transferred to the Attorney General
pursuant to section 1115 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002, Public Law 107-296 (6 U.S.C. 533) without limitation on
the number of employees or the positions covered.
Sec. 207. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
Public Law 102-395 section 102(b) shall extend to the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the conduct
of undercover investigative operations and shall apply
without fiscal year limitation with respect to any undercover
investigative operation initiated by the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that is necessary for the
detection and prosecution of crimes against the United
States.
Sec. 208. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Justice in this Act may be used for the purpose
of transporting an individual who is a prisoner pursuant to
conviction for crime under State or Federal law and is
classified as a maximum or high security prisoner, other than
to a prison or other facility certified by the Federal Bureau
of Prisons as appropriately secure for housing such a
prisoner.
Sec. 209. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be used by Federal prisons to purchase cable television
services, to rent or purchase videocassettes, videocassette
recorders, or other audiovisual or electronic equipment used
primarily for recreational purposes.
(b) The preceding sentence does not preclude the renting,
maintenance, or purchase of audiovisual or electronic
equipment for inmate training, religious, or educational
programs.
Sec. 210. None of the funds made available under this title
shall be obligated or expended for SENTINEL, or for any other
major new or enhanced information technology program having
total estimated development costs in excess of $100,000,000,
unless the Deputy Attorney General and the investment review
board certify to the Committee on Appropriations that the
information technology program has appropriate program
management and contractor oversight mechanisms in place, and
that the program is compatible with the enterprise
architecture of the Department of Justice.
Sec. 211. (a) Section 589a of title 28, United States Code,
is amended in subsection (b) by--
(1) striking ``and'' in paragraph (8);
(2) striking the period in paragraph (9) and inserting ``;
and''; and
(3) adding the following new paragraph:
``(10) fines imposed under section 110(l) of title 11,
United States Code.''.
(b) Section 110(l)(4)(A) of title 11, United States Code,
is amended to read as follows:
``(A) Fines imposed under this subsection in judicial
districts served by United States trustees shall be paid to
the United States trustees, who shall deposit an amount equal
to such fines in the United States Trustee Fund.''.
Sec. 212. (a) Section 1930(a) of title 28, United States
Code, is amended in paragraph (6) by striking all that
follows ``whichever occurs first.'' and inserting the
following: ``The fee shall be $325 for each quarter in which
disbursements total less than $15,000; $650 for each quarter
in which disbursements

[[Page H8469]]

total $15,000 or more but less than $75,000; $975 for each
quarter in which disbursements total $75,000 or more but less
than $150,000; $1,625 for each quarter in which disbursements
total $150,000 or more but less than $225,000; $1,950 for
each quarter in which disbursements total $225,000 or more
but less than $300,000; $4,875 for each quarter in which
disbursements total $300,000 or more but less than
$1,000,000; $6,500 for each quarter in which disbursements
total $1,000,000 or more but less than $2,000,000; $9,750 for
each quarter in which disbursements total $2,000,000 or more
but less than $3,000,000; $10,400 for each quarter in which
disbursements total $3,000,000 or more but less than
$5,000,000; $13,000 for each quarter in which disbursements
total $5,000,000 or more but less than $15,000,000; $20,000
for each quarter in which disbursements total $15,000,000 or
more but less than $30,000,000; and $30,000 for each quarter
in which disbursements total more than $30,000,000. The fee
shall be payable on the last day of the calendar month
following the calendar quarter for which the fee is owed''.
(b) This section and the amendment made by this section
shall take effect January 1, 2008, or the date of the
enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
Sec. 213. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to plan for, begin, continue, finish, process, or
approve a public-private competition under the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any successor
administrative regulation, directive, or policy for work
performed by employees of the Bureau of Prisons or of Federal
Prison Industries, Incorporated.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Sessions

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

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Sessions:
Strike section 213.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 213 of
this legislation which, as drafted, would have the same anticompetitive
effect as language already included in a number of the Democrat
majority's other appropriations bills by preventing funds from being
spent to conduct public-private competitions.
In this case, it would prevent funds from being used to allow the
private sector to compete against the government for jobs at the Bureau
of Prisons or Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated.
While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to the
public-sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and
for Federal agencies because agencies are left with less money to spend
on their core missions when Congress takes the opportunity to take
competition away from them.
In 2006, Federal agencies ``competed'' only 1.7 percent of their
commercial workforce, which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of
the entire civilian workforce. This very small use of competition for
services is expected to generate savings of $1.3 billion over the next
10 years by closing performance gaps and improving efficiencies.
Competitions completed since 2003 are expected to produce almost $7
billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means
that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every dollar
spent on competition, with annualized expected savings of more than $1
billion.
This provision, included by the Democrat Appropriations Committee,
directly contradicts a number of legislative provisions recently passed
on this issue by the House, including: The conference report for the
1997 omnibus appropriations bill, which specifically directed the
Bureau of Prisons to undertake a prison privatization demonstration
project; also, the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Act of 1997, which directed the Bureau of Prisons to
rehabilitate D.C. inmates in private prisons; and since 2001, every
Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill has directed the Bureau of
Prisons to contract for prison services.
I think the answer is clear, Mr. Chairman, that when the Democrats
claim that these services are ``inherently governmental,'' despite
numerous citations in the A-76 circular that these activities are
exempt from this definition, and prevent competitive sourcing from
taking place, that the Democrat leadership is clearly hearing from
labor bosses that this bill represents another good opportunity to
increase their power at the expense of taxpayers and good government.
In this time of stretched budgets and bloated Federal spending,
Congress should be looking to use all of its tools it can to find
taxpayer savings and reduce the cost of services that are being
provided by thousands of hardworking companies nationwide.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer-
first amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit public-
sector union bosses by keeping cost-saving competition available to the
government.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this provision is simply a provision of fairness. It
provides that contracting out of Federal employees in the U.S. Bureau
of Prisons cannot be done under these A-76 guidelines and puts a
prohibition on that.
Now, we have accommodated in our language in our manager's amendments
all of the concerns that we received from private industry. We have
accommodated that. And the bill and report language were modified in
the full committee's manager's amendment to clarify that the general
provision does not impact the Bureau of Prisons' practice of
contracting with State, local and private entities to meet needs for
existing and new prison capacity.
This language is compromise language. It protects Federal employees,
professionals working in the Bureau of Prisons, who obviously have a
very sensitive job and position, at the same time it accommodates the
concerns of private industry with regard to appropriate contracting out
by State and local and private entities.
I urge opposition to the amendment on that basis. The bill is a good,
balanced approach and accommodates the Federal employees who risk their
lives every day working in correctional situations, but at the same
time it accommodates the legitimate concerns of the private sector.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to support the Sessions amendment. I
believe in the A-76 process. I do think public and private competition
is important. The contracts are important. The A-76 process I do think
provides more efficiency and is definitely better for the taxpayers. So
I support his amendment quite strongly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for
5 minutes.
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join the subcommittee
chairman in opposition to this amendment.
Members who believe in a balanced and fair competition where the
taxpayers get the greatest value for the dollar should oppose this
amendment and support the underlying bill. The underlying bill, as the
chairman said, is a carefully crafted compromise that permits a
rational assessment of the cost and benefits of contracting out, and
provides for a fair appeal process where whichever side loses that
process would have the opportunity to bring its case to another level
and have it reexamined.
So I think that the bill is neither pro-contracting out nor anti-
contracting-out. I think the bill strikes a fair balance, and it says
in instances where someone decides a contract should be permitted, it
happens; and for instances where it should not be, it does not.
I commend the chairman for crafting a fair compromise. I join him in
urging defeat of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

[[Page H8470]]

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
Page 56, after line 7, insert the following new section:
Sec. 214. The amounts otherwise provided by this title are
revised by reducing the amount made available for ``General
Administration--salaries and expenses'', and increasing the
amount made available for ``Office on violence against
women--violence against women prevention and prosecution
programs'' (consisting of an additional $6,000,000 for grants
to assist children and youth exposed to violence, $6,000,000
for services to advocate for and respond to youth, $1,000,000
for the national tribal sex offender registry, and $1,000,000
for research relating to violence against Indian women, as
authorized by sections 41303, 41201, 905(b), and 904,
respectively, of the Violence Against Women and Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005), by $14,000,000.

Mr. INSLEE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an important amendment that
will help continue our work in Congress to break the cycle of domestic
violence from which we still suffer. We started that work in the
Violence Against Women Act of 2005. We now need to extend it.
I want to recognize the chairman's strong showing of support for
efforts against violence in this fashion by $60 million of funding. We
appreciate that. But we do have several new programs that the Congress
has authorized, has approved, has recognized as a valid effort that
have not had an appropriation to date. We aim to fix that with an
effort to provide that appropriation.
It would direct the Department of Justice to administer grants to
fund four priority new programs for children and Native women in order
to break this chain, this multigenerational chain of violence.
The amendment offered by myself and Mr. Burton would, for the first
time, provide Federal funding to local domestic violence programs that
provide direct intervention services to children who have witnessed
domestic violence in their families. We know how witnessing violence
ends up perpetuating violence down the chain of generations. We have to
nip this in the bud.
We have to get kids treatment early. We know this amendment will do
it. Men who have experienced violence in their families as children are
twice as likely to become perpetrators themselves.

{time} 1900

This amendment will also, for the first time, fund a competitive
grant program for nonprofit organizations to provide community services
to teens and young adult victims of domestic violence, sexual assault
and stalking. We know girls and young women between age 16 and 24 have
the highest rate of intimate partner violence. Teens need to learn at
an early age about healthy relationships. This amendment will help
that.
My amendment also ensures that we can track crimes against American
Indian and Alaska Native women through a national tribal sex offender
registry. This is a place where we have been lacking resources in the
tribes. One out of every three American Indian and Alaska Native women
are victims of sexual assault on reservations.
Currently, every State has a sexual offender registry, but crimes
against native women are rarely entered. We need to pass this to fix
that problem.
So we know that this epidemic of domestic violence affects every
State and community. We know that these VAWA programs can help break
the cycle, and we know that we've authorized these programs, but we
have not appropriated a dime for them. We have done this with some
other new programs in this bill.
We have carefully selected four programs. This has the wide support
of groups across the country who have selected these four programs as
the highest priorities of those programs that have been authorized but
not appropriated.
The Chair's done a good job with limited resources, but we hope that
we can extend this effort and these authorized programs to nip and end
this circle of violence.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. First of all, I want to thank Mr. Inslee for
introducing this amendment. I'm very proud to cosponsor it with you.
It's very needed, and the reason I know it's very needed is because the
things you talked about I experienced as a boy. I won't be redundant
and go into the things that you have mentioned and the reasons why this
program is so necessary.
But I do want you to know that I don't normally support changing
money from one area to another like from the Department of Justice to
these programs, but this is one of the most urgent needs in America,
and it's been like this for the last 50 to 60 years.
I can remember when we went to police headquarters with my mother
after we'd been beaten and my father had beaten my mother, and the
police sergeant said, If you don't get these kids home, I'm going to
have you arrested for child abuse. That's the way it was in those days.
There was no place for a woman to hide, and the children had to
experience this.
At 4 o'clock in the morning, when you hear your mother being beaten
and you come down the stairs and your hair is standing straight up on
the back of your head and your father turns and says to you, If you
don't get back up the stairs, you're going to get some of this, kids
should not have to endure that. They should not ever have to endure
that. And the women who are treated like that should never have to
endure that as well.
It's a shame that there aren't more people talking about this because
this is something that's an urgent, urgent need.
Mr. Inslee's absolutely right about the chances for a child who's
been abused like this to do the same things throughout the rest of
their life. I was very fortunate that didn't happen, but I've known a
lot of people who experienced that who did, and I think it's a tragic
thing.
We really need to find a way to get these women and kids into shelter
and away from these abusive parents, fathers and sometimes mothers, and
we need to help the women who are abused.
As he just said, in the Native American community, there are women
who are being raped and beaten, and there's really no place for them to
turn. There's no registry so we can track these guys. That's a horrible
thing to have to experience.
So I just want to say to my colleagues, and as I said, I won't be
redundant, but I was reading in our information that we use when we
discuss these issues, I was reading that between 3.3 million and 10
million children witness domestic violence every year. Can you imagine,
up to 10 million kids that witness domestic violence in the home and
elsewhere every single year? That's unforgivable. And at one time, in 1
day, one 24-hour period, there were 18,000 children in the United
States that received services and support because they were
experiencing domestic violence, in one day. That's something, in my
opinion, that's inexcusable.
This is a very, very important piece of legislation. I would urge all
of my colleagues to vote for this. There should not be one negative
vote on this, not one, because there are kids and women who are
suffering, sometimes every day. Sometimes the husband will beat the
child and they'll turn around to the wife and say, I'll never do that
again, and he does it the next week. Sometimes he'll beat his wife and
he puts his arms around her, and I've seen this firsthand, he says,
Honey, I will never do that again. And the next week she's beaten
again, and she sometimes has no place to go and she feels like there's
no hope.
It's extremely important that we give these women and these kids
hope,

[[Page H8471]]

and that's why I say to you, Mr. Inslee, thank you very much for
introducing this amendment. I hope it passes unanimously.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
and first of all, I want to acknowledge the compelling story of the
gentleman from Indiana. That's truly moving. There's no two ways about
it, and that's why we have this program, and that's why the
subcommittee and the full committee strongly supported funding for VAWA
and all of these grant programs, acknowledging at the same time that
there are additional grant programs authorized under VAWA that have not
received funding. We look forward to working on those, and this one in
particular, as we move forward through conference.
But let me suggest to the body that we would love to increase funding
for programs like this, the Violence Against Women Act Programs.
There's more compelling argument for it, particularly as described.
Let me note, however, for the record that we have increased VAWA
funding to $430 million. We rejected the President's proposal to shrink
the grant program, actually to eliminate these individual grant
programs, and to have a bloc grant program. We have continued to fund
the various categories, and we certainly look forward to considering
other authorized grant programs that are not currently funded.
We funded, at $430 million, VAWA programs, a $60 million increase
over the President's request, and $47 million over the 2007 funding
level. That is a sizeable increase to this very worthy program, not
that there couldn't be more. So I can't argue for one second to either
of my colleagues against adding funding to VAWA.
The real point is that we have significantly increased that funding
because we share the concerns of the gentlemen who have spoken here,
and I hope that we can all understand and agree with that.
We are again targeting offsets in a general administration account. A
$14 million cut to the Department of Justice general administration
account will require layoffs. And let me just put this in perspective.
We've already had a $30 million cut to this account. We're down from
$104 million in Department of Justice general administration to $74
million, and we're looking at another $14 million cut.
At some point, everybody has to appreciate that there has to be some
money in these administrative accounts to administer these programs
that we all care about, and we have to get real about this process.
This is obviously a very strong and passioned expression of support for
the programs we've authorized to prevent violence against women, and
we're all working in that venue. The committee did it by increasing the
funding by $60 million over the President's request, almost $50 million
over last year. You're doing it here today by adding another $14
million. And we can't argue with the merit of that sentiment, but we
can express concern and try to bring some reality to the offset
suggested here.
We are cutting Department of Justice general administration accounts
below the level in which they can effectively operate and administer
the very programs which we are increasing.
So, reluctantly, I oppose the amendment. At the same time, I do look
forward to working with the gentlemen, no matter what the outcome of
the amendment, as the process moves forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. 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 Washington will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Lipinski

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Lipinski:
Page 56, after line 7, insert the following new section:
Sec. 214. For ``Office of Justice Programs--state and local
law enforcement assistance'' for the Law Enforcement Tribute
Act program, as authorized by section 11001 of the 21st
Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization
Act (Public Law 107-273), and the amount otherwise provided
by this title for ``General Administration--salaries and
expenses'' is hereby reduced by, $1,000,000.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which
would provide $1 million in funding for the Law Enforcement Tribute Act
Program. This program provides one-time grants to help State and local
governments complete permanent tributes that honor law enforcement and
public safety officers who have been killed or seriously injured in the
line of duty.
There are currently 17,917 names engraved on the walls of the
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, DC, including
928 from my home State of Illinois. But many communities also want to
honor their law enforcement heroes with local memorials or permanent
tributes. The Law Enforcement Tribute Act Program provides support to
States and localities to help them do this. Without this support, many
communities would not be financially able to provide these worthy
tributes.
The Law Enforcement Tribute Act Program was authorized in fiscal year
2002 at $3 million per year, but no funding has been appropriated since
2003.
Last year, this Chamber approved a similar amendment by voice vote
when I offered it with Representatives Adam Schiff and Tom Davis.
Unfortunately, that amendment, like the appropriations bill it was
included in, never became law. Today, we have an opportunity to once
again approve funding that will help communities honor all of those
local heroes who have given so much to protect us.
This amendment has the strong support of law enforcement groups all
over the country, including the National Association of Police
Organizations.
Mr. Chairman, law enforcement and public safety officers dedicate
their career and their lives to protecting us. Tributes provide us with
a constant reminder of the sacrifices that they have made. The least we
can do is help local communities honor these brave men and women.
I urge my colleagues today to support this amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me commend the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for bringing this matter before the body again
this year.
The point is being made that this particular act is not being funded
and it should be. It's extremely meritorious. The sacrifice, and the
dedication, the commitment of our law enforcement people throughout the
country need to be recognized, and this is the reason we passed the
legislation.
As we move this bill forward to conference, I hope that we can work
with the gentleman and assure that there is funding on this provision,
and we will commit to the gentleman to work with him in that regard.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

{time} 1915

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, with that assurance, with the agreement
that you will work, and I know that you see the great value in the
program, to work in the conference on providing funding for this, I
will withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE III--SCIENCE

Office of Science and Technology Policy

For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the
National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and
Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601-6671), hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and
representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in
the District of Columbia, $5,515,000.

[[Page H8472]]

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

science

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of science research and development
activities, including research, development, operations,
support, and services; maintenance; construction of
facilities including repair, rehabilitation, revitalization,
and modification of facilities, construction of new
facilities and additions to existing facilities, facility
planning and design, and restoration, and acquisition or
condemnation of real property, as authorized by law;
environmental compliance and restoration; space flight,
spacecraft control, and communications activities; program
management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms
or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and
5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel expenses;
purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed
$14,000 for official reception and representation expenses;
and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of
mission and administrative aircraft, $5,696,100,000, of which
not less than $278,000,000 shall be for the Hubble Space
Telescope, not less than $545,000,000 shall be for the James
Webb Space Telescope, not less than $90,000,000 shall be for
the Global Precipitation Measurement mission, not less than
$625,700,000 shall be for the Mars Exploration Program, and
not less than $71,600,000 shall be for the Space
Interferometry Mission, to remain available until September
30, 2009.

aeronautics

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of aeronautics research and development
activities, including research, development, operations,
support, and services; maintenance; construction of
facilities including repair, rehabilitation, revitalization,
and modification of facilities, construction of new
facilities and additions to existing facilities, facility
planning and design, and restoration, and acquisition or
condemnation of real property, as authorized by law;
environmental compliance and restoration; space flight,
spacecraft control, and communications activities; program
management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms
or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and
5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel expenses;
purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed
$14,000 for official reception and representation expenses;
and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of
mission and administrative aircraft, $700,000,000 to remain
available until September 30, 2009.

exploration

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of exploration research and development
activities, including research, development, operations,
support, and services; maintenance; construction of
facilities including repair, rehabilitation, revitalization,
and modification of facilities, construction of new
facilities and additions to existing facilities, facility
planning and design, and restoration, and acquisition or
condemnation of real property, as authorized by law;
environmental compliance and restoration; space flight,
spacecraft control, and communications activities; program
management, personnel and related costs, including uniforms
or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and
5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel expenses;
purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed
$14,000 for official reception and representation expenses;
and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of
mission and administrative aircraft, $3,923,800,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That
none of the funds under this heading shall be used for any
research, development, or demonstration activities related
exclusively to the human exploration of Mars.

education

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in
carrying out aerospace and aeronautical education, including
personnel and related costs, uniforms or allowances therefor,
as authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United
States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger
motor vehicles; not to exceed $4,000 for official reception
and representation expenses; and purchase, lease, charter,
maintenance, and operation of mission and administrative
aircraft, $220,300,000 to remain available until September
30, 2009.

Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I want ask Chairman Mollohan to enter into
a colloquy with me for just a minute.
I want to thank the chairman for his efforts on behalf of NASA. As
the chairman knows, the Johnson Space Center is the crown jewel of our
Nation's space program and resides in my congressional district. The
hard work of many bright minds down there has yielded tremendous
accomplishments and results over the years.
Of course, it's important to be fiscally responsible. I am glad that
the chairman knows it's just as important to continue funding our
Nation's top science projects, including NASA.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his tireless
efforts on behalf of NASA. He has been working, I know, diligently in
that vineyard all year long. I know, personally, because he has been
contacting me and the committee in order to advance the best interests
of NASA, to personally facilitate important meetings between the NASA
Administrator, and I know the chairman of our full committee Mr. Obey,
and several of our colleagues throughout the year.
These meetings and my talks with the gentleman from Texas have made
it clear how important NASA funding is to the gentleman, significantly
contributing to NASA's ability to meet all of its mission commitments.
The gentleman is to be commended for his commitment and his hard work
on behalf of NASA and on behalf of NASA's employees. I will continue to
work on the House floor and in conference to maintain funding levels as
reported out of the subcommittee.
I sincerely appreciate the gentleman's interest and hard work.
Mr. LAMPSON. Well, I appreciate the chairman's kind words on our
combined efforts. I am thankful for his hard work and attention to this
important matter.
NASA is doing so many important things right now, including our work
on the international space station, continued shuttle flights, and our
transition to the next-generation crew exploration vehicle, advanced
scientific experiments and many other projects, both large and small,
that we can't afford to fall behind on these projects, and the various
programs, program transitions that NASA is trying to make.
I will continue to work with you and all of our colleagues on the
Appropriations Committee to help maintain these funding levels as well.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. As the gentleman knows, our bill funds NASA in excess
of the President's request. We intend to work very hard between now and
conference and through the signing ceremony to ensure that funding is
maintained. The gentleman is a champion for NASA here in the House. I
know he is working hard for that part of NASA that's back in his
district, and we look forward to his support as we move forward.
Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you for entering into the colloquy. I look forward
to working with you.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas:
Page 59, line 21, insert ``, of which not less the
$70,700,000 shall be for the Minority University Research and
Education Programs,'' after the dollar amount.

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support
of my amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008.
My amendment is focused on the education activities at NASA, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Specifically, the
amendment designates $70.7 million of NASA's $220.3 million for
education appropriations for the minority workforce preparation.
This program has been in action before. It was a good program, but
because of the cuts that NASA did suffer, it was defunded actually, as
they rearranged the funding. I thank the committee for the increase
that they did make and commend their recognition of the importance of
education funding for NASA.
All of us know that this is the focus of education, now, trying to
make sure we have workforce available so that we can maintain the
competitive edge.
NASA had proposed to spend about $40 million, or 27 percent, of its
education budget on minority university research and education
programs, commonly called the Hispanic-Serving Institutions, as well as
the Historically Black Institutions.
So the program includes Partnership Awards for Integration of
Research, the Space Science Collaboration, the Math Science Teacher and
Curriculum Enhancement Program, the Undergraduate Scholars program,
Network

[[Page H8473]]

Resource and Training Sites, Model Institutes for Excellence and the
Earth Science Collaborations program.
I think that since only 2 percent of our Nation's engineers are
African American and Hispanic, we really do need to encourage them to
be in this part of the workforce. It's critically important to support
these Federal programs.
I urge adoption, although I would like to have a colloquy with the
chairman.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentlelady. I think this amendment is one
more expression of a number one concern about the attention that
education is getting in our various science accounts. We have attempted
very diligently, pointedly, to address that by increasing funding in
education accounts across the bill. This account, the NASA account,
first of all, we broke it out as a separate account and then increased
it by $66.6 million for a total of $220 million.
The fact that the gentlelady is reaching out to NASA, NASA should be
listening. Universities, education, K-12, they want NASA. They realize
how important, and the gentlelady realizes how important, NASA is to
inspiring youth and also getting resources on programs and funding
them. That's the gentlelady's purpose behind this.
I hope that the gentlelady will allow us to work with her to achieve
her purposes as this bill moves forward within the funding allocations
that we have received. I want her to know that I have heard her
interest, and we intend to be responsive to her as we move forward. I
commend her for her leadership in this area.
We will be as responsive as possible, and I appreciate the
opportunity to do so.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to withdraw this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

cross-agency support programs

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of science, aeronautics and exploration
research and development activities, including research,
development, operations, support, and services; maintenance;
construction of facilities including repair, rehabilitation,
revitalization, and modification of facilities, construction
of new facilities and additions to existing facilities,
facility planning and design, and restoration, and
acquisition or condemnation of real property, as authorized
by law; environmental compliance and restoration; space
flight, spacecraft control, and communications activities;
program management; personnel and related costs, including
uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections
5901 and 5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel
expenses; purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not
to exceed $10,000 for official reception and representation
expenses; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and
operation of mission and administrative aircraft,
$356,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would
like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. SUTTON. I really appreciate having this opportunity to talk with
you, and I commend your work on putting this very strong legislation
together that includes important increases for science and technology
programs, as well as law enforcement, among many other things.
But I want to discuss with you just for a moment my concerns for
funding and oversight in this bill for the United States Trade
Representative. Now, many of my colleagues have been pretty vocal,
since the beginning of this Congress, in expressing our concerns with
our current trade policy and its harmful effects on our families and
communities. A large part of this is what I see as a lack of
responsibility by the USTR in promoting exports to other nations and
protecting American workers and businesses against unfair trade
practices against other nations.
I was going to offer a number of amendments here today dealing with
increasing USTR funding, specifically for oversight and enforcement of
our trade laws, but I appreciate the increase in funding in the bill
for the ITC, but I believe so much more needs to be done. Instead of
fixing the many problems we have with our current policies, whether
it's our current record trade deficit or the loss of millions of
manufacturing jobs, the USTR has, instead, focused efforts on enacting
more flawed trade agreements.
It seems as if, instead of working to make our trade agreements
better, the administration and the USTR have focused on joining with
private interests and using USTR funding to lobby Congress. I believe
we must rein this in, what I see as an improper and excessive lobbying
by USTR of Congress.
While I was hoping to offer an amendment on that here today as well,
I hope that this Congress will take a closer look at their activities
in the future. I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to
stand up and tell the USTR that they must start working for American
businesses and workers, rather than continue current policies that cost
jobs here at home and have decimated our manufacturing base.
While I would have hoped that we could have done more on this bill to
move USTR in that direction to be more responsive to the responsibility
to the American people and to the workers in my district, rather than
foreign governments and large corporations, I am happy to be here and
am supportive of the bill.
I appreciate the opportunity to share this with you and look forward
to working with you in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlelady for
bringing this issue to our attention. I want her to know that the House
knows she knows something about basic industry in America. She knows
something about the challenges of transitioning economies, and she
knows something about the importance of USTR trying to protect the very
best interests of American citizens and American workers working in all
sectors of the economy. From my perspective, I am particularly
concerned about those workers in basic industry, in extraction-related
industries in America.
A lot of us have concerns about the USTR and the Trade
Representative's actual commitment to representing the very best
interests of those sectors of our economy. As we transition into an
increasingly international economic community, we have to be cognizant
of the impacts of a trade policy that is precipitous to the point of
creating real chaos and tremendous hardship, particularly in those
sectors of the economy that I represent and that I know the gentlelady
is particularly sensitive to.
So we need to provide oversight of the USTR as we encourage them to
enforce our trade laws and to be aggressive advocates, advocates for
our best interests as they approach our trading partners and trade
negotiations. They should be looking at issues to balance and level the
playing field, such as insisting that trade agreements include
environmental laws that we have correctly imposed upon our industry and
our manufacturing processes.
Incorporating those regulations into the manufacturing process is
expensive. Our competitors around the world, many of them, particularly
in the developing countries, don't have those costs. Where we have
incorporated health and safety regulations in the workplace,
statutorily imposed, that has cost money.
The USTR needs to be sensitive to that. The administration needs to
be sensitive to that. It needs to incorporate those kinds of public
interest concerns as they negotiate trade agreements.
Why? Why? Because we have done it, and we are their competitors. We
are a country with a higher standard of living, and if we can't level
the playing field with regard to regulatory activity, then we will
never be able to begin to be competitive with our competitors from
developing nations.
Let me again compliment the gentlelady for being focused on this very
early in her career, being a champion for the working people, and for
the best interests of our trade policy generally in all sectors of the
economy, and for bringing this to our attention in this bill.

[[Page H8474]]

I can assure her that we will be sensitive in large part because of
the concerns that she expresses here today. Thank you very much, Ms.
Sutton, for bringing that to our attention.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1930

Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, a few hundred miles above us the
astronauts of Expedition 15 work around the clock on board the
international space station. Their efforts have just been boosted by
delivery of a huge new power element from the space shuttle Atlantis
crew. The Atlantis astronauts, working with station crew mates, brought
the orbiting base ever closer to completion and a whole new era of
living and working in space.
The international space station is a remarkable achievement of global
cooperation now entering its most critical period. Over the next 3
years, more than a dozen flights of the space shuttles Atlantis,
Discovery, and Endeavor will complete assembly that began in 1998. The
completed station will be home to a crew of six astronauts and
generation-spanning research that will reach into the lives of every
American family. Yes, completion and operation of the international
space station is that important to America's future.
I am fortunate to represent one of the most enduring and important
NASA facilities, the Johnson Space Center in Houston, and have had the
honor over my five terms in Congress to work with dedicated and amazing
people at the Johnson Space Center. Their passion and commitment to
space exploration led me to introduce the Space Exploration Act of
2002. I introduced the Space Exploration Act as a challenge to this
country and the leaders in Congress and the White House to offer a
vision and concrete goals for the human space flight program after the
international space station. Many here on this floor joined me in that
call to action, to invest in a space exploration vital for the future
of this country.
In 2004, President Bush announced a similar plan, the Vision for
Space Exploration. The President's vision outlined a sustained and
affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and
beyond. I fully supported the President in pushing for an expanded
mission for NASA. But in the years that have followed, this Nation has
seen rhetoric not supported by action. The administration's vision for
space and subsequent authorized funding limits have consistently been
ignored, and the President's yearly budget does not fund a robust
vision for NASA's future. As a result, we now see a widening gap in the
period of time between the retirement of the space shuttle in 2010 and
the next generation Crew Exploration Vehicle and Crew Launch Vehicle.
This gap will impede access to the station for our astronauts in the
years immediately following the shuttle's retirement. During that
period, before the new Orion and Ares space vehicles are operational,
NASA and America will be totally reliant upon Russia for access to the
space station by our astronauts and to carry cargo into space. We will
be forced to spend more money than could ever be spent to accelerate
arrival of our new space vehicles. This year alone, the administration
worsened that gap by making its budget request some $1.4 billion below
the congressionally authorized level.
Adding to the strain, millions of dollars have been shifted from the
station and shuttle accounts to pay for repairs made necessary by
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita which damaged NASA facilities in New
Orleans, the Mississippi gulf coast, and Florida.
NASA now faces the stark reality that the timeline for next-
generation human space exploration is becoming increasingly hard to
meet. We as a Congress must do more to ensure viability of NASA space
exploration programs. And I stand here not to criticize the past
efforts of the President or previous Congresses, but to call on leaders
of both parties to help us meet and even exceed the funding levels
required to continue all the important projects in NASA's orbit. As
this bill goes to conference, I believe we can find additional
resources for NASA to reduce the widening gap between the shuttle and
the Orion and Ares programs.
Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to trim our sails into space. I
join with the heroes of the space program, past and present, our
Nation's industry leaders, and other forward-looking supporters to urge
our colleagues to fund NASA fully into the coming years at the amount
authorized by Congress. In today's global competition, there is no
substitute for keeping America first in outer space.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

space operations

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the
conduct and support of space operations research and
development activities, including research, development,
operations, support, and services; maintenance; construction
of facilities including repair, rehabilitation,
revitalization, and modification of facilities, construction
of new facilities and additions to existing facilities,
facility planning and design, and restoration, and
acquisition or condemnation of real property, as authorized
by law; environmental compliance and restoration; space
flight, spacecraft control, and communications activities
including operations, production, and services; program
management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms
or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and
5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel expenses;
purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed
$14,000 for official reception and representation expenses;
and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of
mission and administrative aircraft, $6,691,700,000 to remain
available until September 30, 2009.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978,
$34,600,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Biggert

Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. This amendment appropriately comes toward the end of
the bill, and we have not read to that section yet.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I understood that. I am going to withdraw the amendment
and ask unanimous consent to present it at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. (a) Of the amounts made available for ``STATE AND
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE'' for the Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, $15,000,000 shall
be available for the Internet Crimes Against Children Task
Force program, as authorized by title IV of the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5771 et seq.).
(b) Of the amounts made available for ``JUSTICE
ASSISTANCE'', $15,000,000 shall be available for the Internet
Crimes Against Children Task Force program, as authorized by
title IV of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5771 et seq.).

Mrs. BIGGERT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia reserves a point of
order.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank Chairman Mollohan for all of his work on this
bill, and I appreciate your commitment to all the missing children's
programs. It is very important. And I know that you are equally
disturbed by the prevalence of Internet crimes against our children.
And the numbers certainly don't lie.
According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's
CyberTip Line, the number of reports relating to the online enticement
of children for sexual acts increased by 139 percent between 2005 and
2006. Over the same period, there was a 194 percent increase in the
number of reports related to unsolicited obscene material sent to a
child on the Internet.
Certainly more can and must be done. And this problem is not
regional; it is not isolated to big cities or rural

[[Page H8475]]

communities. This is a real national problem that will not go away
unless we can expand our capabilities of our law enforcement, which is
exactly what my amendment will do by increasing the funding for the
Internet Crime Against Children Task Force.
The Internet Crime Against Children Task Force, or ICAC, plays a very
critical role in protecting our children on the Internet. The ICAC Task
Force's mission is clear: to help State and local government
enforcement agencies develop an effective response to cyber-enticement
and child pornography cases. This help involves forensic and
investigative support training and technical assistance, victims
services, and community education.
The amendment would carve out $15 million out of the Justice
Assistance account's Missing Children Program for the Internet Crime
Against Children Task Force. It would also carve out $15 million out of
the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program for the ICAC
Task Force. Both accounts were used in fiscal year 2007 to fund the
Internet Crime Against Children Task Force at $26 million.
And I certainly understand the problems that having to do with this
amendment, so I am certainly willing to withdraw my amendment if the
chairman and ranking member are willing to work toward an increase in
funding for the Internet Crime Against Children Task Force in
conference.
I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate the gentlelady yielding.
The gentlelady is really at the forefront of this issue. She is co-
chair of the 131 Member strong Congressional Missing and Exploited
Children Caucus. She is to be commended for that. She has worked with
me, she has worked with Mr. Frelinghuysen, she has worked with the
committee. To some extent she can declare success because she is
tenacious in getting additional funding for Missing Children's
programs. She has been successful in increasing funding 100 percent,
you could argue, since the President asked for no funding here.
But we would like to point out that in response to her and the
caucus's expressions of concern to the committee, we have funded the
Missing Children's program account to the tune of $61.4 million, which
is $14 million above the 2007 enacted funding level. That is in large
part because of her efforts, and we do appreciate it. She should
declare success, and she should be proud of that. She is, as I say,
tenacious. And speaking for myself, and Mr. Frelinghuysen who I know
shares this interest, we look forward to working with her as we move
forward. She is representing this caucus here today, and we look
forward to trying to even increase this amount of money as we go to
conference.
I want to thank her for her efforts and for helping the committee as
we have marked up our bill and funded this account.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time, I would thank the gentleman for his
kind words. And I bring this up to just enforce the importance of
missing children, the caucus and the task force, tonight, because every
problem is increasing so much, as I said earlier. The problems that we
used to have, we are seeing many more problems with the use of the
Internet, with just what is happening to children in this day and age.
And the more that we can do to prevent online enticement, to prevent
children being sexually assaulted, all of the tragedies that are
happening right now. So I appreciate that.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentlelady makes her point. And out of the Office
of Justice programs, we funded the Missing Children account higher than
any other programs. So she can take credit for a great success, and we
appreciate her help.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

{time} 1945

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Administrative Provisions

(including transfer of funds)

Notwithstanding the limitation on the duration of
availability of funds appropriated for ``Science'',
``Aeronautics'', ``Exploration'', ``Cross-Agency Support
Programs'', or ``Space Operations'' under this title, when
any activity has been initiated by the incurrence of
obligations for construction of facilities or environmental
compliance and restoration activities as authorized by law,
such amount available for such activity shall remain
available until expended. This provision does not apply to
the amounts appropriated for institutional minor
revitalization and minor construction of facilities, and
institutional facility planning and design.
Funds for announced prizes otherwise authorized shall
remain available, without fiscal year limitation, until the
prize is claimed or the offer is withdrawn. Funding shall not
be made available for Centennial Challenges unless
authorized.
Funding made available under the headings ``Science'',
``Aeronautics'', ``Exploration'', ``Education'', ``Cross-
Agency Support Programs'', and ``Space Operations'' for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be
governed by the terms and conditions specified in the report
accompanying this Act.
The unexpired balances of prior appropriations to the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration for activities
for which funds are provided under this Act may be
transferred to the new accounts established for the
appropriation that provides such activity under this Act.
Balances so transferred may be merged with funds in the newly
established accounts and thereafter may be accounted for as
one fund under the same terms and conditions.
Not to exceed five percent of any appropriation made
available for the current fiscal year for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration in this Act may be
transferred between such appropriations, but no such
appropriation, except as otherwise specifically provided,
shall be increased by more than ten percent by any such
transfers. Any transfer pursuant to this provision shall be
treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this
Act and shall not be available for obligation except in
compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds shall
be used to implement any Reduction in Force or other
involuntary separations (except for cause) by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration prior to September 30,
2008.
The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration shall prepare a strategy for minimizing job
losses when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
transitions from the Space Shuttle to a successor human-rated
space transport vehicle. This strategy shall include: (1)
specific initiatives that the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration has undertaken, or plans to undertake, to
maximize the utilization of existing civil service and
contractor workforces at each of the affected Centers; (2)
efforts to equitably distribute tasks and workload between
the Centers to mitigate the brunt of job losses being borne
by only certain Centers; (3) new workload, tasks,
initiatives, and missions being secured for the affected
Centers; and (4) overall projections of future civil service
and contractor workforce levels at the affected Centers. The
Administrator shall transmit this strategy to Congress not
later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
The Administrator shall update and transmit to Congress this
strategy not less than every six months thereafter until the
successor human-rated space transport vehicle is fully
operational.

National Science Foundation

research and related activities

For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science
Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), and Public Law
86-209, relating to the National Medal of Science (42 U.S.C.
1880-1881); services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109;
maintenance and operation of aircraft and purchase of flight
services for research support; acquisition of aircraft; and
authorized travel; $5,139,690,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2009, of which not to exceed $510,000,000 shall
remain available until expended for polar research and
operations support, and for reimbursement to other Federal
agencies for operational and science support and logistical
and other related activities for the United States Antarctic
program: Provided, That receipts for scientific support
services and materials furnished by the National Research
Centers and other National Science Foundation supported
research facilities may be credited to this appropriation.

major research equipment and facilities construction

For necessary expenses for the acquisition, construction,
commissioning, and upgrading of major research equipment,
facilities, and other such capital assets pursuant to the
National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861-
1875), including authorized travel, $244,740,000, to remain
available until expended.

education and human resources

For necessary expenses in carrying out science and
engineering education and human resources programs and
activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of
1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), including services as authorized
by 5 U.S.C. 3109, authorized travel, and rental of conference
rooms in the District of Columbia, $822,600,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2009.

[[Page H8476]]

agency operations and award management

For agency operations and award management necessary in
carrying out the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42
U.S.C. 1861-1875); services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire
of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $9,000 for
official reception and representation expenses; uniforms or
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia; and
reimbursement of the General Services Administration for
security guard services; $285,590,000: Provided, That
contracts may be entered into under this heading in fiscal
year 2008 for maintenance and operation of facilities, and
for other services, to be provided during the next fiscal
year.

office of the national science board

For necessary expenses (including payment of salaries,
authorized travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, the
rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia, and
the employment of experts and consultants under section 3109
of title 5, United States Code) involved in carrying out
section 4 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42
U.S.C. 1863) and Public Law 86-209 (42 U.S.C. 1880-1881),
$4,030,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009:
Provided, That not more than $9,000 shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses.

office of inspector general

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978,
$12,350,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.

TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES

Commission on Civil Rights

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights,
including hire of passenger motor vehicles, $9,000,000:
Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in this
paragraph shall be used to employ in excess of four full-time
individuals under Schedule C of the Excepted Service
exclusive of one special assistant for each Commissioner:
Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this
paragraph shall be used to reimburse Commissioners for more
than 75 billable days, with the exception of the chairperson,
who is permitted 125 billable days.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission as authorized by title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, including
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger
motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b);
nonmonetary awards to private citizens; and not to exceed
$28,000,000 for payments to State and local enforcement
agencies for authorized services to the Commission,
$332,748,000: Provided, That the Commission is authorized to
make available for official reception and representation
expenses not to exceed $2,500 from available funds: Provided
further, That no funds made available under this heading may
be used to outsource operations of the National Contact
Center.

International Trade Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the International Trade
Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, and
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed
$2,500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$68,400,000, to remain available until expended.

Legal Services Corporation

payment to the legal services corporation

For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out
the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974,
$377,000,000, of which $355,134,000 is for basic field
programs and required independent audits; $3,041,000 is for
the Office of Inspector General, of which such amounts as may
be necessary may be used to conduct additional audits of
recipients; $13,825,000 is for management and administration;
$4,000,000 is for client self-help and information
technology; and $1,000,000 is for loan repayment assistance.

Administrative Provision--Legal Services Corporation

None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal
Services Corporation shall be expended for any purpose
prohibited or limited by, or contrary to any of the
provisions of, sections 501 through 506 of Public Law 105-
119, and all funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal
Services Corporation shall be subject to the same terms and
conditions set forth in such sections, except that all
references in sections 502 and 503 to 1997 and 1998 shall be
deemed to refer instead to 2007 and 2008, respectively.

Marine Mammal Commission

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as
authorized by title II of Public Law 92-522, $3,000,000.

National Veterans Business Development Corporation

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the National Veterans Business
Development Corporation established under section 33 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657c), $2,500,000, to remain
available until expended.

Office of the United States Trade Representative

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States
Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor
vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $48,407,000, of which $1,000,000
shall remain available until expended: Provided, That not to
exceed $124,000 shall be available for official reception and
representation expenses: Provided further, That negotiations
of the United States at the World Trade Organization shall be
conducted consistent with the trade negotiating objectives of
the United States contained in section 2102 of the Bipartisan
Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3802).

State Justice Institute

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as
authorized by the State Justice Institute Authorization Act
of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10701 et seq.), $4,640,000: Provided, That
not to exceed $2,500 shall be available for official
reception and representation expenses.

TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not
authorized by the Congress.
Sec. 502. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 503. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those
contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public
record and available for public inspection, except where
otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing
Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
Sec. 504. If any provision of this Act or the application
of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be
held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of
each provision to persons or circumstances other than those
as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.
Sec. 505. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or
provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies
funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in fiscal year 2008, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the
collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this
Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through
a reprogramming of funds that: (1) creates new programs; (2)
eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases
funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates
an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs or
activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions
or activities presently performed by Federal employees;
unless the Committee on Appropriations is notified 15 days in
advance of such reprogramming of funds.
(b) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided
under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by
this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure
in fiscal year 2008, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of
fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure for activities,
programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in
excess of $500,000 or ten percent, whichever is less, that:
(1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2)
reduces by ten percent funding for any existing program,
project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by ten percent
as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general
savings, including savings from a reduction in personnel,
which would result in a change in existing programs,
activities, or projects as approved by Congress; unless the
Committee on Appropriations is notified 15 days in advance of
such reprogramming of funds.
Sec. 506. Hereafter, none of the funds made available in
this Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce any
guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
covering harassment based on religion, when it is made known
to the Federal entity or official to which such funds are
made available that such guidelines do not differ in any
respect from the proposed guidelines published by the
Commission on October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266).
Sec. 507. If it has been finally determined by a court or
Federal agency that any person intentionally affixed a label
bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription
with the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to
the United States that is not made in the United States, the
person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or
subcontract made with funds made available in this Act,
pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility
procedures described in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title
48, Code of Federal Regulations.

[[Page H8477]]

Sec. 508. The Departments of Commerce and Justice, the
National Science Foundation, and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, shall provide to the Committee on
Appropriations a quarterly accounting of the cumulative
balances of any unobligated funds that were received by such
agency during any previous fiscal year.
Sec. 509. Any costs incurred by a department or agency
funded under this Act resulting from personnel actions taken
in response to funding reductions included in this Act shall
be absorbed within the total budgetary resources available to
such department or agency: Provided, That the authority to
transfer funds between appropriations accounts as may be
necessary to carry out this section is provided in addition
to authorities included elsewhere in this Act: Provided
further, That use of funds to carry out this section shall be
treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this
Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure
except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that
section.
Sec. 510. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be
available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco
products, or to seek the reduction or removal by any foreign
country of restrictions on the marketing of tobacco or
tobacco products, except for restrictions which are not
applied equally to all tobacco or tobacco products of the
same type.
Sec. 511. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this
Act or any other provision of law may be used for--
(1) the implementation of any tax or fee in connection with
the implementation of section 922(t) of title 18, United
States Code; and
(2) any system to implement section 922(t) of title 18,
United States Code, that does not require and result in the
destruction of any identifying information submitted by or on
behalf of any person who has been determined not to be
prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm no more
than 24 hours after the system advises a Federal firearms
licensee that possession or receipt of a firearm by the
prospective transferee would not violate subsection (g) or
(n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or State
law.
Sec. 512. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel of the
Department of Justice to obligate more than $625,000,000
during fiscal year 2008 from the fund established by section
1402 of chapter XIV of title II of Public Law 98-473 (42
U.S.C. 10601).

Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Poe:
Page 75, line 24, strike ``$625,000,000'' and insert
``$635,000,000''.
Page 76, line 2, insert ``, and the amount otherwise
provided under this Act for Department of Commerce,
Departmental Management, Salaries and Expenses is reduced by
$10,000,000'' after ``(42 U.S.C. 10601)''.

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk briefly on the Poe-Costa-Moore
amendment. As stated in the amendment, this is a bipartisan amendment.
And I want to thank the gentleman from California and the gentleman
from Kansas for their support for crime victims under this amendment
and the VOCA fund.
The VOCA fund was established under the Reagan administration. It's a
novel concept where criminals who are convicted of crime pay fees into
a fund that goes to victims of crime. It's kind of like criminals pay
the rent on the courthouse, as they should. And so this fund has been
established to supply victims and victims services throughout the
country necessary funds for those victims and those projects.
At this present time, the fund is up to $1.3 billion. But this year
the fund is capped at $625 million for victims services and victims
throughout the United States.
This amendment is asking that 10 million more dollars be applied to
this fund because of two reasons: Unfortunately, there are more crime
victims in the United States than there ever have been. And also, by
necessity, there are more programs that are victims services than ever
have been in the United States.
Over 4,400 different programs and agencies receive funding under the
VOCA fund. Over 3 million victims receive funds from this fund every
year. And this covers the gamut, from sexual assault victims to child
victims, to robbery victims and victims and families of homicide.
These funds are needed for these families. But they're also needed
for domestic violence shelters. They're needed for child assessment
centers. Those are centers throughout the United States that take
sexually exploited children and help them through the process; not only
the medical process, not only the psychological process, but the
criminal justice system as well.
There are 26 organizations that support an additional $10 million for
this crime victims fund, because it is necessary to help victims
throughout the United States. So under this amendment, we're asking for
10 million additional dollars taken from human resources that would be
applied to crime victims organizations throughout the United States and
money for crime victims. This money, as I stated, is necessary.
Unfortunately, it is necessary to help victims.
As chairman of the Crime Victims Caucus, and my cochair Mr. Costa,
and other Members like Mr. Moore from Kansas, we all support this
additional funding for crime victims. Take it and place it where it is
necessary.
It is a novel concept to allow people who violate the law to
contribute to a constant fund, and we want that to continue, but this
year there needs to be 10 million additional dollars contributed to
that fund so that numerous organizations that provide specifically
victims services that funding has been cut in the past will be allowed
to continue those victims services in the United States.

List of Organizations Who Support the Poe-Costa-Moore Amendment

American Probation and Parole Association; American Society
of Victimology; Break the Cycle; Jewish Women International;
Justice Solutions; Legal Momentum; Mothers Against Drunk
Driving; National Alliance to End Sexual Violence; National
Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards; National
Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators; National
Center for Victims of Crime; National Children's Alliance;
and National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
National Congress of American Indians; National Criminal
Justice Association; National Grange; National Judicial
College; National Network to End Domestic Violence; National
Organization for Victim Assistance; National Organization of
Parents of Murdered Children, Inc.; Pennsylvania Coalition
Against Rape; Rape Abuse & Incest National Network; Sacred
Circle, National Resource Center to End Violence Against
Native Women; Security On Campus, Inc.; Stop Family Violence;
and YWCA USA.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, again, not
because of the intended purpose of the gentleman trying to do good here
and getting additional resources into the crime victims fund. That's
worthy.
It's being authorized at $625 million, this amendment would raise it
to $635 million. And you might ask, if there are additional resources,
why don't we disperse all of them?
Well, that's because that fund has to be managed to ensure that
there's a source of funds that will remain available for the program
despite the inconsistent levels of the criminal fees that are deposited
there annually. So part of that is trying to manage the account to
assure stability year in and year out so that funds will be available
for victims to be paid out according to the authority.
I would like to point out that the gentleman's offset draws from an
account that has been drawn from in the past, and it is the offset is
in Commerce. We started out at $58.6 million at the beginning of the
day. We've had a $25 million cut, a $10 million cut. This cut would
take us down to $23 million, if my math is right. But if my math is not
precisely right, my point should be taken that we've gone from $58.6
million down to approximately $23 million in this S&E account. That's a
60 percent reduction. There is going to be nobody left to administer
these programs. And that's why we have to think very carefully.
And actually, folks coming here and offering amendments go through
the same difficult exercise that the subcommittee and the full
committee have gone through. How do you apportion funds when I would
argue, the allocation is not adequate to fund all the worthy projects
and to fund all of the people who need to administer the worthy
projects in this bill?
A 60 percent cut the gentleman's amendment would effect in this S&E
account, it simply cannot stand. So for that reason, I must oppose the
gentleman's amendment.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment
because I believe we

[[Page H8478]]

should respect state authority in regards to medical marijuana.
Like my constituents, I believe that doctors should be permitted to
prescribe marijuana for patients suffering from cancer, AIDS, glaucoma,
spastic disorders, and other devastating diseases.
The people that I represent from Marin and Sonoma counties have made
it clear that they want doctors to be permitted to prescribe marijuana
for their patients suffering from debilitating diseases, and I believe
that the Federal Government must not stand in the way.
I support this amendment because it would stop the Justice Department
from punishing those who are abiding by their state's law. Please join
me in supporting this important amendment so that those who suffer from
debilitating diseases can continue to get relief without the fear of
federal interference.
The Federal Government should get its priorities straight--and stop
going after fully licensed physicians and their patients instead of the
real criminals.
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.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 513. None of the funds made available to the
Department of Justice in this Act may be used to discriminate
against or denigrate the religious or moral beliefs of
students who participate in programs for which financial
assistance is provided from those funds, or of the parents or
legal guardians of such students.
Sec. 514. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act
or any other appropriations Act.
Sec. 515. Any funds provided in this Act used to implement
E-Government Initiatives shall be subject to the procedures
set forth in section 505 of this Act.
Sec. 516. (a) Tracing studies conducted by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are released
without adequate disclaimers regarding the limitations of the
data.
(b) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
shall include in all such data releases, language similar to
the following that would make clear that trace data cannot be
used to draw broad conclusions about firearms-related crime:
(1) Firearm traces are designed to assist law enforcement
authorities in conducting investigations by tracking the sale
and possession of specific firearms. Law enforcement agencies
may request firearms traces for any reason, and those reasons
are not necessarily reported to the Federal Government. Not
all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms
traced are used in crime.
(2) Firearms selected for tracing are not chosen for
purposes of determining which types, makes, or models of
firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected
do not constitute a random sample and should not be
considered representative of the larger universe of all
firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe.
Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and
sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily
represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general
are acquired for use in crime.
Sec. 517. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under this Act may be used to issue patents on
claims directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Sec. 518. None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be used in any way whatsoever to support or justify the
use of torture by any official or contract employee of the
United States Government.
Sec. 519. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or
treaty, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under this Act or any other Act may be expended or
obligated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the
United States to pay administrative expenses or to compensate
an officer or employee of the United States in connection
with requiring an export license for the export to Canada of
components, parts, accessories or attachments for firearms
listed in Category I, section 121.1 of title 22, Code of
Federal Regulations (International Trafficking in Arms
Regulations (ITAR), part 121, as it existed on April 1, 2005)
with a total value not exceeding $500 wholesale in any
transaction, provided that the conditions of subsection (b)
of this section are met by the exporting party for such
articles.
(b) The foregoing exemption from obtaining an export
license--
(1) does not exempt an exporter from filing any Shipper's
Export Declaration or notification letter required by law, or
from being otherwise eligible under the laws of the United
States to possess, ship, transport, or export the articles
enumerated in subsection (a); and
(2) does not permit the export without a license of--
(A) fully automatic firearms and components and parts for
such firearms, other than for end use by the Federal
Government, or a Provincial or Municipal Government of
Canada;
(B) barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames) or complete
breech mechanisms for any firearm listed in Category I, other
than for end use by the Federal Government, or a Provincial
or Municipal Government of Canada; or
(C) articles for export from Canada to another foreign
destination.
(c) In accordance with this section, the District Directors
of Customs and postmasters shall permit the permanent or
temporary export without a license of any unclassified
articles specified in subsection (a) to Canada for end use in
Canada or return to the United States, or temporary import of
Canadian-origin items from Canada for end use in the United
States or return to Canada for a Canadian citizen.
(d) The President may require export licenses under this
section on a temporary basis if the President determines,
upon publication first in the Federal Register, that the
Government of Canada has implemented or maintained inadequate
import controls for the articles specified in subsection (a),
such that a significant diversion of such articles has and
continues to take place for use in international terrorism or
in the escalation of a conflict in another nation. The
President shall terminate the requirements of a license when
reasons for the temporary requirements have ceased.
Sec. 520. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States
receiving appropriated funds under this Act or any other Act
shall obligate or expend in any way such funds to pay
administrative expenses or the compensation of any officer or
employee of the United States to deny any application
submitted pursuant to section 38(b)(1) of the Arms Control
Export Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(1)(B)) and qualified pursuant
to 27 C.F.R. 478.112 or 478.113, for a permit to import
United States origin ``curios or relics'' firearms, parts, or
ammunition.
Sec. 521. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to include in any new bilateral or multilateral trade
agreement the text of--
(1) paragraph 2 of article 16.7 of the United States-
Singapore Free Trade Agreement;
(2) paragraph 4 of article 17.9 of the United States-
Australia Free Trade Agreement; or
(3) paragraph 4 of article 15.9 of the United States-
Morocco Free Trade Agreement.
Sec. 522. Section 313(a) of the National Aeronautics and
Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2459f(a)) is amended by striking
paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph
(2).
Sec. 523. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to authorize or issue a national security letter in
contravention of any of the following laws authorizing the
Federal Bureau of Investigation to issue national security
letters: The Right to Financial Privacy Act; The Electronic
Communications Privacy Act; The Fair Credit Reporting Act;
The National Security Act of 1947; and the laws amended by
these Acts.
Sec. 524. 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.
Sec. 525. Section 101(k) of the Emergency Steel Loan
Guarantee Act of 1999 (15 U.S.C. 1841 note) is amended by
striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2009''.
Sec. 526. Section 605 of the Harmful Algal Bloom and
Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 1451
note) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking
``$25,500,000 for fiscal year 2008'' and inserting
``$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010'';
(2) in each of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (6) by
striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2010''; and
(3) in paragraph (5) by striking ``fiscal year 2008'' and
inserting ``each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010''.
Sec. 527. Effective January 13, 2007, section 303A of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16
U.S.C. 1853a) is amended--
(1) by striking ``association'' in subsection
(c)(4)(A)(iii) and inserting ``association, among willing
parties'';
(2) by striking paragraph (2) of subsection (i);
(3) by striking ``(1) In general.--'' in subsection (i) and
resetting paragraph (1) as a full measure paragraph following
``(i) Transition Rules.--''; and
(4) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of
subsection (i)(1) (before its amendment by paragraph (3)) as
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively and resetting them
as indented paragraphs 2 ems from the left margin.
Sec. 528. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with an entity that does not
participate in the basic pilot program described in section
403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).

Amendment Offered by Mr. Reichert

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Reichert:

[[Page H8479]]

Page 83, after line 6, insert the following new section:
Sec. 529. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for
``Departmental Management--salaries and expenses'', and by
increasing the amount made available for ``Office on Violence
Against Women--violence against women prevention and
prosecution programs'' for the court training and
improvements program authorized by section 105 of the
Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162), by
$5,000,000.

{time} 2000

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, as a former sheriff of King County in
Seattle, Washington, and a member of the Congressional Victims' Rights
Caucus, I am proud to offer this amendment along with my colleague from
Connecticut, Congressman Murphy, to provide $5 million to fully fund
the Court Training and Improvements Program, offset from the Department
of Commerce departmental management salaries and expenses account.
The Court Training and Improvements Program enhances our courts'
ability to keep victims of domestic and sexual abuse safe and to hold
offenders accountable. It was authorized early last year as a part of
the Violence Against Women Act but has not yet been funded. Mr.
Chairman, this program must be funded.
I spent 33 years of my life working in law enforcement, and during
that time I walked into many unpredictable domestic violence
situations. Responding to a domestic violence call is one of the most
dangerous calls a police officer can go to. Domestic violence cases
have their own unique challenges, and we in law enforcement have had to
learn specific strategies for how to deal with those situations. People
are physically and mentally harmed and homes are torn apart. I have
seen how domestic and sexual abuse not only affects spouses but the
children, the families, and the lives of the entire community. Safe
homes and families are the root of a safe society.
Statistics show that every year almost 1 million incidents of
violence occur against current and former spouses, boyfriends, girl
friends, and each year nearly 10 million children are exposed to
domestic violence. We need to implement and fund every tool at our
disposal to combat this terrible problem.
One of the key ways to reduce the impact of domestic violence is to
ensure that our justice system has the tools to deal with these cases.
Too often lives hang in the balance as judges and court personnel make
decisions without an understanding of the dynamics of abuse and
violence in relationships. Judges themselves have repeatedly cited a
need and a desire for specialized knowledge and judicial education
regarding sex offenders and victims.
The desperate need for trained judges and court personnel was
recently brought to light in the tragic case of Yvette Cade. On the
morning of October 10, 2005, Yvette was doused with gasoline and set on
fire by her estranged husband while at work here in the suburbs of
Washington, D.C. At the time of the attack, she had a protection order
out against him, but a judge had dismissed her protection order 3 weeks
before, saying she didn't need it. This judge had likened victims of
domestic violence to buses that come along all the time. Cade's husband
was recently sent to prison for attempted murder.
Better-trained judges are essential if we are to keep victims and
children alive and hold abusers and rapists accountable for their
behavior. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to improve our
courts, protect the victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse,
prevent future crimes, and ensure that perpetrators are appropriately
punished.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment. First I would like to thank Chairman Mollohan.
This bill is a vast improvement on previous efforts to fund domestic
violence efforts. It goes a very long way. And we rise today with my
colleague Mr. Reichert to simply ask that we fund yet one more
important program that has been authorized.
As a child, Mr. Chairman, I remember sitting at home with a baby-
sitter while my mother went off to volunteer in a domestic violence
shelter, and that memory still stays with me today. Victims of domestic
violence require and are entitled to special assistance when dealing
with their trauma. However, judges and court personnel need specialized
training to deal with these victims in a way that both preserves
justice and addresses the severe trauma associated with these crimes.
Some States have already put programs in place to deal with the
special needs of these domestic violence victims. My home State of
Connecticut is amongst those that has been pioneering these types of
programs. In the biggest city in my district, Waterbury, we have a
program through which law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, family
services organizations, probation officers, and domestic violence
advocates all review cases together in an effort to reveal more
information about the perpetrator to ensure that victims are protected
from further abuse. What makes the Waterbury operation so outstanding
is the vertical case management model that should serve as an example
to the rest of the country, a model that could be funded under the
proposed appropriation in this amendment.
Congressman Reichert and I are offering this amendment today so that
States can have a partner in the Federal Government. Our amendment will
fund the Court Improvements Program to train judges and court personnel
to better identify and resolve the complex issues involved in domestic
violence cases.
Congress has a responsibility to recognize the unique and horrific
nature of domestic violence crimes, and we have done that in the
underlying appropriation bill today with a new investment in domestic
violence programs. Our amendment today simply seeks to fund yet one
more innovative program to make sure that courts, prosecutors, domestic
violence advocates, and the victims themselves all have the resources
necessary to navigate what can be sometimes a very complex system.
I urge adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of
order?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I withdraw my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his point of order and is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
If I might, for the Department of Commerce here, the S&E account is
now down to $18 million if the last two amendments are adopted and you
add it to the offsets that were affected by the amendments that have
already passed. The Department of Commerce S&E account, they are just
going to have to shut down their office again. I would just encourage
Members, when they offer these amendments, to get serious about the
offsets. And, my goodness, I don't know what would have happened to
President Bush's budget if we had not increased it, because his S&E
account would have been really decimated in increasing the Violence
Against Women account. We increased VAWA by $60 million over the
President's request, $47 million over 2007.
I understand that our colleagues who are offering these amendments
are absolutely in the forefront of protecting women. As we oppose these
amendments, at the same time we embrace your cause and that that is why
we have worked so hard in effecting these funding increases above the
President's request. If we had a larger allocation, we would put more
money on these accounts.
Having said all that, and because the offset is so draconian to the
Department of Commerce, I will continue to oppose amendments with these
negative offsets. If we aren't able to restore

[[Page H8480]]

the salaries and administrative accounts to the extent these amendments
are successful, the Department of Commerce would have to shut down.
That is how, as I have used the word before, cavalier we are being
about these offsets.
Mr. Chairman, while I certainly support the cause and the purposes of
the programs these amendments are increasing funding for, I have to
oppose them because of the offsets and because we don't have enough
resources to go around, a point which is demonstrated by the offsets
that these amendments are having to resort to.
I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. REICHERT. 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 Washington will be
postponed.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

TITLE VI--RESCISSIONS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances available to the Department of
Commerce from prior year appropriations, $41,848,000 are
rescinded: Provided, That within 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this section the Secretary of Commerce shall
submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives a report specifying the amount of each
rescission made pursuant to this section.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances available to the Department of
Justice from prior year appropriations, $86,000,000 are
rescinded: Provided, That within 30 days after the date of
the enactment of this section the Attorney General shall
submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a report specifying the amount
of each rescission made pursuant to this section.

General Administration

working capital fund

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$41,000,000 are rescinded.

detention trustee

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances available from prior year
appropriations under this heading, $135,000,000 are
rescinded.

Legal Activities

assets forfeiture fund

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$240,000,000 are rescinded.

Office of Justice Programs

(rescission)

Of the unobligated recoveries from prior year
appropriations available under this heading, $87,500,000 are
rescinded.

community oriented policing services

(rescissions)

Of the unobligated recoveries from prior year
appropriations available under this heading for purposes
other than program management and administration, $87,500,000
are rescinded.
Of the unobligated funds previously appropriated from the
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund under this heading,
$10,278,000 are rescinded.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances available to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration from prior year
appropriations, $69,832,000 are rescinded: Provided, That
within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
section the Administrator shall submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report
specifying the amount of each rescission made pursuant to
this section.

National Science Foundation

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances available to the National
Science Foundation from prior year appropriations,
$24,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, That within 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this section the Director
shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives a report specifying the amount of each
rescission made pursuant to this section.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Lampson

Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Lampson:
Page 85, after line 24, insert the following:

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for business-class or first-class airline travel by
employees of the Department of Commerce in contravention of
sections 301-10.122 through 301.10-124 of title 41, Code of
Federal Regulations.

Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, as we consider today's appropriations
bill, we are all mindful of how harmful wasteful government spending is
to hardworking American families. In fact, just this morning I was
joined by the majority leader and some of my Blue Dog Coalition
colleagues to highlight many of the smart, fiscally responsible
initiatives our new majority is pursuing in Congress this year.
American citizens expect the Congress to be good stewards of taxpayer
dollars, and when we allow deceptive fiscal practices to continue in
our government, we set a bad example for our Nation and create a
reckless blueprint for future spending.
That is why I have introduced this amendment to today's bill, which
will clarify guidelines for premium travel by Department of Commerce
employees. The Department's Inspector General March 2007 report showed
that these guidelines are not being followed or controlled properly. In
fact, the report has a specific section entitled ``The Department Needs
to Tighten Controls, Update Guidance for Premium-Class Travel,'' and
includes very glaring findings, notably numerous instances in which the
Department failed to authorize or approve properly premium-class
travel. The report concludes that the two primary reasons for these
oversights are outdated policy and poorly implemented internal
controls.
Thankfully, Mr. Chairman, there is a simple solution here that can
save the taxpayers their hard-earned dollars and continue good
government practices, and it is embodied in my amendment. This
amendment offers a direct method of guidance by referencing the Code of
Federal Regulations 301-10.122 to 10.124 to withhold funds for such
premium travel for Department of Commerce employees. A similar
amendment applying to Department of State employees was passed by voice
vote last year when the House considered the Commerce-Justice-State
appropriations bill.
As we continue to tackle large instances of taxpayer dollar waste and
abuse, let's not overlook the small steps that we can take that will
help lead the way for good government practices.
I thank my colleagues for their attention to this quick and simple
way to practice better fiscal responsibility. I ask for support for my
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 2015

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment.
I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the
amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Boswell

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Boswell:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for the
``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--General Administration--salaries and
expenses'', by increasing the amount made available for
``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Office of Justice Programs--
community oriented policing services'', and by increasing the
amount made available for paragraph (5) of the last proviso
under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Office of Justice
Programs--community oriented policing services'' by
``$1,000,000'', ``$1,000,000'', and ``$1,000,000'',
respectively.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey reserves a point of
order.

[[Page H8481]]

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I've just conferred with the Chair of the
subcommittee, and he has asked me to offer it and withdraw it, and we
will work on it before we go to conference. So out of my respect for
him and the ranking member, of course I will do that.
I would just like to say this: In the last 2 years, we have done a
little bit more than this for this good cause, and it's something
that's helping law enforcement out across the country. And it's not big
bucks, it's pretty small. But then again, you've got to work with where
you're at. But it does increase law enforcement agencies' access to
records on persons who pose a risk to local communities. I can assure
you that the law enforcement agencies need this access, as we think
about the things that happen to our children and older folks and so on,
to be able to access that good information.
So with my appreciation, Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent
to withdraw, with looking forward to working on this at a later point.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOSWELL. I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. The committee has heard the gentleman. In years past
the gentleman has been very concerned. He has asked for increases to
the Criminal Records Upgrade Program grants, and the committee has been
very receptive to that. Indeed, the committee this year has increased
funding for this program by $2.1 million over 2007, which in part was
an effort to be responsive to the gentleman's consistently expressed
concerns about this, and genuine concerns, about this account.
If the gentleman has looked at this carefully, we respect his
expertise in this area, and we would be interested in visiting with him
as we move this to conference and understanding more clearly the
justification for an additional increase.
And because of who the gentleman is, I have no doubt that his reasons
are valid. And so we look forward to working with him to find a better
offset and to be responsive to his needs, if at all possible, as we
move to and through conference.
Mr. BOSWELL. Well, I know your sincerity, and I know the ranking
member's sincerity in this area. You have worked very hard on it. And I
accept that, with appreciation.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I just want to emphasize that in response to your
efforts, we've increased it this year above last year, so we've already
been successful.
Mr. BOSWELL. We will have some interesting discussion, and I look
forward to it. Thank you for letting me have this moment.
I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Gingrey

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia reserves a point of
order.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Gingrey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used by the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives to pay the compensation of employees
of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to
test and examine firearms without written and published
testing standards.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives, BATFE, has been in operation without substantial
changes since the days of prohibition, bootlegging and gang violence in
the 1920s and 1930s.
Last year the House Judiciary Committee considered legislation that
would have introduced real reform to BATFE, updating the agency for the
21st century, although time ran out before Congress could get anything
accomplished.
One issue of reform I remain particularly concerned about is how
BATFE actually tests firearms submitted by law-abiding firearm
designers and manufacturers seeking approval to put their product on
the market.
Mr. Chairman, without written and uniform standards, gun
manufacturers are left guessing about which agent will inspect the
firearm this week, whether or not they will be able to ship a product
out to potential customers, and whether or not BATFE agents might even
prosecute someone because of a shipping mistake or a firearm
malfunction. So I have introduced legislation called the Fairness in
Firearms Testing Act to address this problem, and it requires BATFE,
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to actually
videotape firearms tests for the purpose of general oversight, and
encourage the agency to adopt these testing standards. However, the
amendment I'm offering today would cut right to the point by
withholding funds to BATFE if they do not write and publish these
testing standards.
More specifically, this amendment creates a level playing field for
all United States firearm manufacturers who depend on getting a firearm
patented and on the market as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, without written procedures, BATFE has literally a free
rein to mistreat manufacturers, change their mind after the fact, and
leave both manufacturers and customers at a legal and financial
disadvantage. In fact, BATFE regulations are so inconsistent that some
manufacturers have been threatened with prosecution after receiving
written approval for their products from other BATFE personnel.
Since 2002, 85 percent of American firearm manufacturers have been
forced to close their doors. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. Since
2002, 85 percent of American firearm manufacturers have been forced to
close their doors. There are only 373 licensed firearm inventors and
manufacturers left in America. Moreover, with the increase in number of
imported firearms purchased by civilians and law enforcement alike, our
Nation is at a strategic defensive disadvantage.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that the chairman has reserved a point of
order, and he will explain that, I'm sure, momentarily, but it's my
understanding that if I do agree to withdraw this amendment, that the
chairman and the committee will work with me to help bring reforms to
the BATFE, including these written standards, to help United States
firearm manufacturers. I would be happy to yield to the chairman and to
engage in a colloquy with him regarding that. Otherwise, in the absence
of an agreement, then certainly I want to go forward with my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. We would, at that point, talk about the point of order
a little more.
We want to be responsive to the gentleman. I have not gotten deeply
into his concerns, so I'm not sure exactly where he's coming from on
this. But I can commit to him that we're willing to talk about it,
we're willing to understand more clearly what his concerns are and in
good faith work with him. And if there is an accommodation, we
certainly want to make it in good faith. But I certainly cannot
telegraph or represent to the gentleman an outcome; I can only promise
him the process to work with him in good faith on this issue.
Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand exactly
what the chairman is saying. I'm not necessarily expecting any hard and
fast promises on his behalf.
And I didn't mean, Mr. Chairman, for the amendment to catch the
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee by surprise in
any way, not to be blind-sided or coming up at the last minute. We've
had the amendment, we filed the amendment. In fact, I had, Mr.
Chairman, introduced legislation pertaining specifically to this effect
last year in the 109th Congress, so this amendment basically is a
follow-up to that legislation.
I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia, the distinguished
chairman. I appreciate your spirit of cooperation. And I know there are
some concerns about the amendment, I appreciate that. But I welcome
your support on this matter, and I look forward

[[Page H8482]]

to working with you. Let's discuss it and make sure you understand
exactly where I'm coming from in regard to the amendment. I think it
makes a lot of sense, and I hope I can convince you of the same.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sali

Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. Of the funds appropriated in this Act for ``state
and local law enforcement assistance'', $2,000,000 shall be
available to provide grants to develop, expand, and
strengthen victim service programs for victims of
trafficking, as authorized by section 107(b) of the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C.
7105(b)).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia reserves a point of
order.
Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, our great country was founded on the
recognition of the most basic rights of mankind, that all persons are
created equal and endowed by their Creator, with the rights of life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet for decades this conviction
wasn't perfectly realized because of the blight of slavery, which we
fought a civil war to end.
Tragically, this is not just a long-past episode in human history.
Human trafficking, frequently referred to as modern-day slavery, is an
ugly reality not only in the developing world, but also in the United
States. Our country is the destination of thousands of people
trafficked for purposes of sexual and labor exploitation.
Between October 2000 and March 2007, the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services had certified nearly 1,200 victims of human
trafficking. As Americans, we must defend the dignity of human life.
With my amendment, I propose to designate $2 million of the monies
appropriated in this bill for the formation of a task force to combat
this barbaric trade coming across our borders in the States of
Washington, Idaho and Montana. This task force would join 42 other such
task forces nationwide in serving as a cooperative effort between State
and local governments, NGOs and compassionate citizens all working
together.
The northern border of our country is a point of entry for this
horrific practice. In 2004, it was estimated there were between 1,500
and 22,000 people trafficked through Canada to the United States,
numbers that some observers believe significantly understate the
problem.
Currently, however, there are no human trafficking task forces along
most of the northern borders of Washington, Idaho and Montana, yet
these same States cover more than half of the northern land border of
the United States, hundreds of miles of which are extremely rural and
rugged, being patrolled only by officers on horseback or even on foot,
if patrolled at all. Given the rural nature of these northern borders,
opportunities for human trafficking continue, with few resources
available to the many rural communities along the same border.
By my amendment, I seek to make $2 million in the DOJ budget
available in grant funds to establish the Tristate Task force to
provide training and resources to rural communities in Washington,
Idaho and Montana to combat human trafficking. This important task
force will work to coordinate local efforts to combat modern-day
slavery.
This measure goes to the heart of equality, dignity and worth of
every person. I ask my colleagues to join me today in the defense of
these essential American values and support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
The gentleman raises an interesting concern. We have just been handed
this amendment. We would be pleased to work with the gentleman as we
move forward.

{time} 2030

In response to his withdrawing the amendment, we are going to have to
insist on our point of order if we don't proceed in that fashion. I
hope the gentleman will allow us to work with him.
Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would agree to
work with the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the
States of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine,
Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont,
and Washington, to prevent such States from implementing
their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution,
possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I am introducing an amendment that is
designed to protect States' rights and to provide people across our
country in these 12 States that have passed laws authorizing the use of
marijuana for medicinal purposes to have access to that medical use.
It is a very simple, very serious proposal. The Constitution of the
United States is very clear. It authorizes States' rights in every
other area that is not specifically designated to the Federal
Government. One of those main areas is health care. The States have the
authority to take care of their own people and to make sure that they
have access to the best possible health care.
The amendment is supported by a number of other important
organizations across the country, in addition to organizations in those
12 States of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington that
have passed laws authorizing the medicinal use of this product. Two of
those States have passed it through their legislatures. The other 10
have passed it by means of referendum. In other words, the people
themselves have passed this in referendum.
This is an amendment that really should be adopted. It doesn't do
anything to stimulate any violations of the law. It just says those
States ought to be able to determine how to take care of their own
people. There are a variety of ways in which that can be done to make
sure that they get proper attention.
I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding and also for his leadership and for continuing to beat the
drum on this very, very important issue.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about allowing State governments to
provide relief for a small, very important group of people who are
suffering from chronic pain or terminal illness. This amendment does
not encourage or make legal the recreational use of marijuana. Eleven
States, including my home State of California, have legalized medical
marijuana, with clear guidelines for doctors' approval before usage.
For example, a constituent from Oakland, Angel Raich, has been
diagnosed with more than 10 serious medical conditions, including an
inoperable brain tumor. Ms. Raich and others who use medical marijuana
are simply trying to relieve their crushing pain while following the
guidelines and laws that their doctors and the States have already
established. Taxpayer dollars shouldn't be spent on sending seriously
or terminally ill patients to jail. Their doctors, not Congress, should
decide which drugs will work best.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment
and ensure that patients' rights are upheld. This is the right thing to
do. This is the compassionate thing to do. This is about health care.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York again for
once again offering this amendment.

[[Page H8483]]

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to make it
clear that there are many dozens of organizations that are focused on
health care and constitutional rights across the country; not just in
those 12 States, but in a lot of other places, as well, who have
endorsed this idea and support this amendment.
They include the American Nurses Association, the American Public
Health Association, and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Medical
societies all across this country have endorsed this amendment because
they know it is in the best interests of people suffering from diseases
such as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and others that can be relieved of pain
and suffering and be of assistance in recovering from the debilitating
aspects of these diseases.
It simply makes good common sense for us to authorize this amendment.
I hope that the majority of the Members in this House of
Representatives will now take this opportunity to support good health
care for Americans and also support this basic provision of the
Constitution.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, not only does this amendment hurt law enforcement's
efforts to combat drug trafficking, but it sends the wrong message.
Marijuana is the most widely abused drug in the United States.
According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, which is under the
jurisdiction of our committee, more young people are now in treatment
for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or for all other illegal
drugs combined.
This amendment does not address the problem of marijuana abuse and
possibly makes it worse by sending the message to young people that
there can be health benefits from smoking marijuana.
Our committee received a letter last week from John Walters, director
of the Office of National Drug Control Policy opposing the gentleman's
amendment. He warns of the potential public health impacts of
encouraging the unfounded belief that smoking marijuana is a safe and
effective medicine, contrary to prevailing expert opinion.
Last year, our own FDA stated: ``Smoked cannabis has no acceptable
medical use in treatment in the United States,'' and that no animal or
human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general
medical use. Furthermore, the FDA has not approved smoked marijuana for
any condition or disease indication.
Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman from New York have 3 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York is
recognized for 3 additional minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the people
who are opposed to this amendment, including the gentleman who just
spoke, apparently do not understand what we are doing here.
This amendment does not affect States, other than those that have
passed laws with respect to medical marijuana, only those 12 States.
This amendment would not require or encourage other States to adopt
medical marijuana laws. This amendment would not stop law enforcement
officials from prosecuting the illegal use of marijuana. This amendment
does not encourage drug use in children. Teen use of marijuana has
declined in States that have passed medical marijuana laws, and in some
of those States it has declined dramatically.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow these States to give relief
to people suffering from horrific diseases without fearing Federal
intervention or prosecution. At stake in this debate is who should be
deciding what is best for patients: Should it be the patients
themselves, the doctors, or should it be arbitrarily somebody in the
Federal Government?
Support this amendment and support States' rights and compassion.
Doctors in these 12 States know what is best for their patients. The
Federal Government should not stand in their way.
I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I had a dear friend named Oral James
Mitchell, Jr. Oral James Mitchell, Jr., was a Navy SEAL. He fought in
Vietnam. Oral James Mitchell, Jr., got pancreatic cancer. He lived in
Bethesda, Maryland, a 210-pound strapping man that you would want on
your side in a fight, and I have had on my side in a fight, and this
country had on its side in a fight in the Vietnam War.
When he had pancreatic cancer, he smoked marijuana. And his 88-year-
old Irish Catholic mother said to me, ``Thank God for the marijuana. It
is the only thing that makes Oral smile or eat.''
I watched that man go down to 115 pounds and die. And Mrs. Mitchell
was correct. As he was dying of pancreatic cancer, if he was in a State
that made it legal, States' rights say they should have some authority,
and Brandeis said States are the laboratories of democracy. And as
laboratories of democracy, we ought to experiment and find out if it
works and if it is good for people who are dying, if it gives them some
relief. If it is glaucoma, if it is cancer, whatever the illness, they
should have that relief.
I would ask that we not have the Federal Government and DEA infringe
on the laws of the States that have had changes in their laws,
oftentimes through referenda of their people, and we allow those States
to be the laboratories of democracy and not interfere with people who
are dying, people who might have given their lives for this country,
but who are dying and get some respite and some relief.
So I ask you to pass this and allow States to have rights and people
to have some relief in their dying days.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
I just want to say a few words about marijuana. First of all, it does
cause cancer. I have seen it. I have seen people with lung cancer, no
risk other than they were chronic marijuana smokers.
Additionally, the last time we were debating this bill, I called one
of my former colleagues in my medical practice who is an oncologist, I
had three oncologists, and I asked him for the latest information on
cannabis, or THC. He again informed me this is available in pill form.
You can actually get it in pill form. Additionally, it is not a very
good antiemetic and not a good appetite stimulator. There are about 18
different products legally available that doctors can prescribe.
By and large, most of the people who want to use this want to get
high and there are consequences to letting this move forward.
Saying that this State and this State allows this, we need to
remember something: States govern where you practice medicine. If I
want to practice medicine here, I have got to get a license in the
District of Columbia. If I want to open a satellite office, I have got
to get a license in Maryland or Virginia. But the Federal Government
regulates prescribing, for obvious reasons. If the patient comes in to
see me here and lives in Virginia, they are going to go over to a
pharmacy there. So the Federal Government has always regulated this.
There are significant consequences to making this product widely
available, and that is what this amendment will do. This is a very,
very bad amendment. Marijuana has been implicated in railroad
accidents. It has been implicated in car accidents. It is documented to
have an adverse effect on memory.
Jeepers, we have people dying in this country from the effects of
cigarettes. We have people dying in this country from the effects of
alcohol. We have people in this body wanting to ban cigarettes and ban
smoking. And now we are going to take action to allow another dangerous
substance on the market? And there is an agenda of the people who are
behind these kinds of amendments.

[[Page H8484]]

{time} 2045

They want to legalize marijuana, and they want to make another
dangerous product available to our society. I think that this is a bad
direction for us to go in. This a bad amendment and a dangerous
amendment. I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
amendment.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, which would prohibit any funds made
available in this act to be used to prevent implementation of legally
passed State laws in those 12 States that have authorized the use of
marijuana for medical purposes.
The Founding Fathers wanted criminal law to be the domain of local
and State governments. Sick and infirm people who live in the 12 States
that have been granted by the voters in these States the legal right to
use marijuana to alleviate their suffering if a doctor agrees, we
should not make them targets of prosecution. If the voters in a State
have so voted, and a doctor agrees, it is a travesty for the Federal
Government to waste scarce Federal resources to harass sick people,
elderly cancer patients and frail, multiple sclerosis sufferers and
prevent them from getting the relief their personal doctors have
recommended.
We have heard here hysterical talk about how voting for this
amendment will somehow prevent the Federal Government from being able
to go after narcotics traffickers. That is nonsense. The DEA would
still have the power to arrest anyone selling marijuana for
recreational use, as well as anyone selling cocaine or any other drugs.
After all, although related to opium, yes, and even heroin, morphine is
already used legally in hospitals throughout the United States. That
does not mean that we are going to open up the whole country to heroin
because we allow hospitals to use morphine.
Whether morphine or marijuana, the fact is that Federal resources
could be better used and shouldn't be wasted on arresting sick people
or their doctors. Those Federal resources, if this amendment passes,
can be redirected away from these people, but to major drug traffickers
or crime syndicates. That makes a lot more sense than trying to stop
somebody or arrest somebody who has a doctor's prescription because
they are suffering from cancer treatment. It makes more sense to focus
on the drug dealers, for Pete's sake.
Here in the House there is a wide coalition of Republicans and
Democrats, conservatives and liberals, and this number has grown year
by year, who want to promote State autonomy on this issue. This is what
the Founding Fathers wanted. Criminal matters should be left up to the
States.
A vote ``yes'' on Hinchey-Rohrabacher is a vote to respect the intent
of our Founding Fathers and respect the rights of our people at the
State level to make the criminal law under which they and their
families will live. It reinforces rules surrounding the patient-doctor
relationship, and it is in contrast to emotional posturing and Federal
power grabs and bureaucratic arrogance, which is really at the heart of
the opposition.
This is a vote for good government. This is a good vote for honest
compassion. The legal, humanitarian and practical thing to do is to
vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Let me just note this. I have had personal experiences on this, and I
certainly respect Dr. Weldon and his opinion. And I have asked him for
his opinion many times for problems of my own. But I lost my mother,
and I recently lost my brother, to cancer. I will tell you in both
cases there was a loss of appetite and just a pessimism that came over
my mother and my brother both. If marijuana would have helped them, and
if a doctor would have prescribed it for them, it would have been a
horrible thing to think that Federal agents would come in and try to
interfere with that so they would not be able to get marijuana, if that
is what their doctor felt would have helped them.
That is what we are deciding today: Is that a right use of resources,
number one, to go in and interfere with this doctor-patient
relationship? They already use morphine in hospitals. That doesn't
interfere with people trying to get control of the sale of heroin on
our streets. No, this will not interfere with that. But what this will
do is prevent a terrible waste of Federal resources.
And let us note again, if people are sick, and a doctor says yes,
this would be a good treatment, I don't think our Founding Fathers, who
wanted the State governments to make these criminal laws, but I don't
even think that they would have wanted the State governments to
interfere in such a relationship.
Our Founding Fathers believed in individual freedom, and they
believed in limited government. Where else but in the doctor-patient
relationship should we have a limit on the government coming in and
making things criminal matters? I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be
used to enforce--
(1) the judgment of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas in the case of United States v.
Ignacio Ramos, Et Al. (No. EP:05-CR-856-KC) decided March 8,
2006; and
(2) the sentences imposed by the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas in the case of United
States v. Ignacio Ramos, Et Al. (No. EP:05-CR-856-KC) on
October 19, 2006.

Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in my previous life before coming to Congress, I was a
prosecutor in Texas for a long time. Then I was a criminal court judge.
Justice is one thing that we should always find in our country, but we
don't always find it in our courts, unfortunately.
This case that has now become very famous throughout the United
States happens to deal with two border agents doing their job. They
come in contact with a drug dealer on the violent Texas-Mexico border.
The drug dealer bring in a million dollars' worth of drugs in a van. He
abandons the drugs and the van, takes off, tries to run back to Mexico,
gets in a confrontation with our border agents. Shots are fired. He is
shot in the buttocks and disappears into Mexico.
Our Federal Government brings the drug dealer back to the United
States and grants him immunity from prosecution of a million dollars'
worth of drugs in order to prosecute the border agents who were doing
their job. He was given that immunity and testified against the two
border agents. They were convicted and sent to a Federal penitentiary
for 11 and 12 years. And for the most part of their sentence, which
started in January, they have been in solitary confinement, what we
reserve normally for the hardest and meanest and most violent criminals
in our society.
It turns out that this drug dealer was not just a mule bringing in
drugs to get a little money for his sick mother back in Mexico, but
while he was waiting to testify, given immunity, he goes back to Mexico
and brings in another load of drugs worth about $800,000.
Our Federal prosecutors knew about that second load of drugs, but
they insisted that the jury not know about that second load of drugs,
and the jury never heard about that second load of drugs.
It is relentless prosecution in this case that is chilling the effect
of our border agents on the border to do their job, which is to enforce
the rule of law, to arrest drug dealers. Our Federal Government had the
choice to prosecute two border agents that violated

[[Page H8485]]

policy, or a drug dealer bringing in a million dollars' worth of drugs.
Now, you would think that public policy would say we would go after
drug dealers. But no, our Federal prosecutors went after the border
agents. We still don't know why they were so relentless in that
prosecution, but they were. So tonight, while we are here, we have two
border agents serving time in the penitentiary.
This amendment simply tries to right a wrong. It requires that no
funds be used to incarcerate either one of these two border agents,
Ramos and Compean, any further, and that they can be released from
custody.
Almost everyone agrees that the punishment is way out of line. Even
the prosecutor said that once. Last week the Senate held hearings on
the prosecution of this case in a bipartisan manner and said that these
sentences were way out of line. And so this amendment will simply allow
no Federal funds to be used to incarcerate these two border agents.
Hopefully the House will continue to have hearings on why these two
agents and other border agents have been prosecuted by the Western
District of Texas while ignoring other violations of the law by drug
dealers.
I hope that my fellow colleagues on both sides of the aisle would
agree to support this amendment and to allow the release of these two
individuals, and not allow any Federal funds to be used to incarcerate
two men who were simply doing their job for the rest of us on the
violent Texas border.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, every American is born with an innate
sense of fairness and what is right and wrong. This case, more than any
other, has struck a chord among Americans as being fundamentally unjust
and flat wrong; that two law enforcement officers who swore an oath to
protect this Nation, who were out on that violent Texas-Mexico border
to protect this Nation against criminals and terrorists, every American
understands the case where the two Border Patrol agents doing their job
are thrown in prison for 11 and 12 years, and the drug smuggler goes
free with a visa to pass back and forth as often as he wants. And the
drug smuggler sues us, the taxpayers, for millions of dollars. Every
American gets that.
I have never seen a level of outrage among my constituents and really
across the country on any issue as there has been on this issue of
freeing Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean.
It is patently unfair these two men, whatever you may say about the
circumstances of the case, if they improperly picked up shell casings,
they did not report the shooting, it is an administrative violation. At
most you fire them from their job. But to be sentenced to 10 to 12
years in prison, these two law enforcement officers, to be sentenced to
prison for 10 to 12 years is an outrage. It is just, it is unfair. The
drug smuggler to this day is free.
As Judge Poe said, the drug smuggler ran another load of dope into
the United States, and the DEA knew about it during the trial of this
case. This guy ran more drugs into the United States, and the
prosecutor ordered the DEA not to arrest him and let him go free.
Every American understands this case. People may not have understood
the Nigerian oil barge transfer and the Enron case; everybody gets this
one. And the Congress, I am very proud to stand here tonight with many,
many other Members of Congress who have asked the President first to
pardon these two officers. And now that they are in prison and have
suffered so much and have lost everything, many of my colleagues, who
you will hear speak, have joined together in writing a letter and
asking the President, and we reiterate that call tonight, Mr. Chairman,
asking the President to commute the sentences of two Border Patrol
agents, Ramos and Compean, for the same reason that he commuted the
case of Scooter Libby.
In the case of Scooter Libby, the President said the sentence did not
fit the crime. Certainly that is true here. If they picked up shell
casings and didn't report the shooting, you don't go to prison for 10
and 11 years. In the case of Scooter Libby, the President said Scooter
Libby had already suffered enough. Clearly these two Border Patrol
agents have already suffered enough. They have lost everything. Their
lives have been destroyed. They have been thrown in prison. It is just
simply wrong for their incarceration to continue another day.
For whatever reason, the White House is turning a deaf ear on the
call of the American people, the overwhelming outrage of the American
people to have these two men released from prison. So what other choice
do we have, Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, but to cut off the
funding to the Bureau of Prisons to incarcerate them? We cannot as
Members of Congress send a stronger signal to the White House and to
the American people how committed we are to protecting this border and
standing behind our law enforcement agents, and letting the Border
Patrol agents know that we are proud of them and support the work that
they are doing for the sake of our children and for the sake of our
constituents. We understand clearly that we will never win the war on
terror until we have truly protected our borders.

{time} 2100

The border today is unprotected and wide open. If you cross in
Arizona, you won't even be arrested the first 15 times you cross over.
You're going to be put right back across the border.
If you cross in Brownsville, an agent told us on a trip just a couple
of weeks ago, Brownsville will only arrest an illegal alien if they
come up and knock on the window of the vehicle.
But yet, right next door in Del Rio, thank God Del Rio is arresting
everybody. In Del Rio, using existing law and existing resources,
Federal Judge Alia Ludlum, Border Patrol Sector Chief Randy Hill are
arresting every single illegal alien crossing the border in Del Rio.
They have zero tolerance for illegal aliens crossing in Del Rio. The
local community loves it because it keeps the streets safe, the schools
safe, the business community thriving. The illegal crossings have
plummeted, burglaries have plummeted, and the result in Del Rio is
peace and quiet. Yet, right next door in Brownsville there's chaos.
So, we all of us have a stake as Americans. In winning the war on
terror, you've got to secure the border. No better way to secure the
border than enforce existing law, and the best way to make sure that
our agents out there in the field know that they're going to have the
support of the American people is for the President to step up and
commute the sentences of these two border patrol agents.
Until that happens, it is up to us here in Congress to do all that we
can to send a message to every border patrol agent that we're doing
everything within our power, officers of the law, to support you, to
tell you we're proud of you. You are in front lines of the war on
terror on the border, just as our soldiers are in Iraq.
I urge the Members of the House to support Mr. Poe's amendment so we
can stop the funding of the incarceration of these two agents and send
as strong as possible a message to the White House and, frankly, also
to every law enforcement agent in the field that we're proud of you and
that we want you to protect our border.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, with Mr. Culberson speaking on this issue with
such knowledge, he's a member of our subcommittee and I respect his
knowledge of border issues so much that I approach this debate with
fear and trembling. I know that he is passionate about this issue as he
has talked with me about it before, in addition with the other border
issues that I'm totally serious he is nigh an expert on.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition to this
amendment for a number of reasons, but principally, let's get our jobs
straight here. We're article I. We're the legislature. We pass the
laws. We appropriate the dollars, and then the executive branch, of
course they administer, and it goes on and on.
But the executive branch is article III, and the executive branch
takes

[[Page H8486]]

these criminal cases and they process them. I heard some really
excellent defense summary arguments here before juries in support of
this amendment. I cannot imagine a body less capable, less appropriate
to adjudicate the issues surrounding the incarceration, conviction,
prosecuting of the cases against these two gentlemen than the United
States House of Representatives.
First of all, it is a very serious issue, and if we were to act as a
jury, we ought to be sitting here. And look around and we're not, not
very many of us.
But secondly, it's not at all the appropriate forum. So we really
shouldn't even be taking this up. This is a limitation amendment on an
expenditure of funds to incarcerate two individuals who have been
processed, due process arguably, and have had a very unfavorable result
so far as they are concerned. This issue ought to be resolved in the
courts surely, or if the President of the United States wanted to take
it up, he has the power that we don't have, to my knowledge. He has a
pardoning power. We don't have that here, but in effect, we are
attempting to act as if we did here with these two amendments.
So I don't even begin to speak to the merits of the cases, and some
folks have spoken to the merits of the cases here. I don't have the
facts to argue the case, but I do know this is a particularly
inappropriate forum and a particularly inappropriate and imperfect
process by which to address these gentlemen's grievances.
So I rise in opposition to the amendment. I trust the body will
recognize the merit of the arguments that I'm making, because I think
they're sound, and will likewise oppose these amendments.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, in fact, this is not a unique situation,
unique to the extent that the House has not acted before in a criminal
case of this nature, but in fact, the House has acted in the past to
intervene in cases where we have determined that the outcome was
something we did not agree with. We've done it. We've stripped courts
of certain abilities to actually hear cases.
In the past, we've actually passed legislation to change or overturn
cases. One was, of course, the case of the Ten Commandments. Another
one was, I believe, Congressman Bernie Sanders at the time passed a
bill to overturn a case with regard to pension funds. So it is not
unique that we would be doing this.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TANCREDO. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, my only point is that we have the power
to define jurisdictions for the courts. It's in the Constitution. We
don't have power to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of two
individuals.
Mr. TANCREDO. Reclaiming my time, it is again not the position that
we are taking here that we are, in fact, changing the decision of the
court in regard to their guilt or innocence. We are saying that the
punishment handed down is far in excess of what it is they may have
done wrong, and that is something I think that we have the absolute
ability and right to do here.
These two gentlemen have served now 190 days, 180 days, something,
already in prison, and for what? I mean, the most significant thing
that we can actually determine, even according to some of the
discussions that have been held and some of the statements that have
been made by the prosecuting attorney, they're sorry. They made
mistakes in terms of maybe using the type of prosecution that would
require this kind of penalty. They have even said this may have been
the wrong thing to do. Members of the jury have indicated that if they
had seen all of the information now provided to them they would not
have voted this way.
So it isn't an issue of the facts of the case so much as it is
whether or not we believe these people have actually spent enough time
in jail, have they been punished according to the crime. And I would
suggest to the gentleman that if you look at this case carefully,
certainly that is the case.
The person that brought this stuff through, the individual that
actually was the drug dealer, he is walking free. I have visited Mr.
Ramos in prison after he was severely beaten in his cell. They attacked
him in his cell, of course, because they found out he was a Federal
agent, and I went down there and visited him. You cannot imagine how,
in a way, heartbreaking it is to see this guy in the orange jumpsuit,
in shackles, and knowing that he is being deprived of the comfort of
his own family, as is Mr. Compean, and here's a drug dealer that's
going free in the meantime. It is absolutely incredible. This is a
travesty.
We have begged the President to please become involved with this,
please pardon, please commute. He has chosen not to. This is the only
option we have open to us, and that is why we are doing what we're
doing tonight.
And yes, to some extent, I understand that it is not a common
practice here, but I think the situation is not an ordinary situation
where we have two people who have sworn to defend and protect this
country. They are in jail. They have served enough time; that's what we
are saying. They have served enough time.
Please adopt the Poe-Tancredo-Hunter amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TANCREDO. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the sentiments of the gentleman
who's bringing forth this amendment. I don't for a second do anything
but think that that's laudable, and I make no judgment about the merits
of this case. As the gentleman describes the merits in the favor of
these gentlemen, they're powerful. I mean, it sounds like the equities
are running all in their favor. I make no comment on that at all
because I don't know the facts. And I have read about it, and it does
make one sympathetic based upon the facts as you cited.
But I don't make any judgments about that. I just oppose it because I
don't think this is the right forum. The President, of course, would be
an appropriate forum, but that's the only basis of my concern about the
amendment. So I commend the gentleman for bringing the issue to the
House.
Mr. TANCREDO. I thank the gentleman. If there were another way to do
this, I assure you we would look at it. We have tried everything
imaginable to get these two people to actually get justice, and the
justice would be to set them free. And that is what I suggest we do
with this amendment, and I certainly would urge this body to adopt the
Poe-Hunter-Tancredo amendment.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I didn't come here to speak on this issue.
I've certainly, I think like most Members of Congress, been following
the sensation that television and others have made of this issue. But
in the debate, I just wanted to share a couple of things that I've
observed as a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland
Security and as Member of Congress who spent several days traveling all
along the border with the Border Patrol.
It was very interesting because I ran into a lot of people that had
been detained. I speak Spanish and was able to interview many of the
people that were detained, and we don't really get into the day-to-day
administration of the detention, release and so on. What was very
interesting and kind of surprising to me, because this case has been
argued in the media and certainly here on the floor, I was a little bit
shocked by the last speaker who indicated that this is not a matter of
facts. It is a matter of facts, and I think that we don't always deal
with the facts.
I would point out that the drug dealer, the person that was shot in
this case, was released. Did you know that the U.S. Attorney's office
does not prosecute anybody who brings less than $5,000 worth of drugs
across the border, less than $5,000? A lot of those marijuana packs
that the smugglers carry are determined to be less than $5,000, and so
nobody who is essentially

[[Page H8487]]

a mula is arrested, arrested but not detained.
We also, when we detain people, we give them the option, Do you
understand you're now arrested? You have the right to a trial by jury
as anybody in this country would have a right to unless you waive it.
And 99.9 percent of everybody waives that and, therefore, gets released
to their country of origin.
So this catch-and-release is not unusual. In fact, it's the norm, and
the fact that this gentleman wasn't prosecuted for his drug record is
of other facts.
What really struck me, and I'm just sharing, this is anecdotal
information, but I think this amendment and the Congress bringing this
up, in my opinion, is an abuse of power. Why? Because if, indeed, and I
don't know the sentencing of these border patrolmen, but I know that
there is a process if these sentences are extreme, you can appeal
those. We have a sentencing commission, and the courts certainly review
that. And so I think there is a remedy within our justice system to
appeal where the sentences are too harsh.
But here's the thing that's most interesting to me. I didn't find one
single member of the Border Patrol that supported these two people that
had been arrested, who had been convicted by trial of law. So, on this
floor, you're making them out as national heroes. They were convicted
in a court of law in the United States for wrongdoing, and I think
that, as the chairman has indicated, that it is not wise for the
Congress to second-guess and make this a sensational case.
I've visited high school friends who were convicted of drug issues in
prison, and I sympathize with everything that people say about these
gentlemen, about their families and about the situation of being
incarcerated. But I'm also concerned as a Member of Congress that we
ought not to override the jurisprudence system that we've established
in this country, and that I do think that the remedies in law lie in a
court of law, and therefore, this amendment is not appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me explain why this case is different
from all the rest. This is an extraordinary case. It's a case which,
even if you accept the drug dealer's word and all of his testimony as
fact, finds results in not only the Members who have sponsored this
amendment, Mr. Poe, Mr. Tancredo, myself, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr.
Culberson and many others, that list should be extended to about 1
million ordinary Americans who now know the basic facts of this case,
having been laid out in hearings in the other body and soon to be laid
out in hearings here, because these gentlemen have been given murder
verdicts. They have been given time in excess of the average convicted
murderer in the United States.

{time} 2115

That's what makes this case so extraordinary, along with the facts
that attend the way evidence was kept from the jury.
Let me just explain this extraordinary case, this case in which the
so-called victim was moving close to $1 million of drugs across the
border, was shot, was wounded, was brought back into the United States,
given immunity to testify against these two Border Patrol agents.
Yet after he had been given immunity, and presumably had told the
U.S. attorney that in exchange for that immunity he would not continue
to move narcotics, he was connected with another massive case of moving
almost another $1 million of drugs across the border. That information
was never communicated to the court, even though the testimony of that
drug dealer is the testimony that sent both these agents to the
penitentiary for, essentially, murder sentences; that is, 11 and 12
years respectively.
Certainly the U.S. Government at that point had an obligation to go
to the court and tell the court that, indeed, the credibility of their
key witness had been doubly compromised by this second movement of
narcotics.
Lastly, let me just say this: Pardons are given, commutations are
given. This is, I think you could look at this as maybe another species
of commutation. That is, if the Congress speaks loud and clear, and the
President signs this bill, then that will be a commutation of the
sentence of Agents Compean and Ramos.
In light of the commutations that have been given recently by the
executive branch, I think we need to remember that people that live in
small houses sometimes have a right to commutations of sentences, just
like people who live in big houses.
In this case, these two Border Patrol men are now in isolation,
having spent a long time in jail, Mr. Ramos having been beaten up.
Their families, most of us have met their families. This is a matter of
little children wanting to see their daddies come home who, in my
estimation, have not broken any law anywhere as significant as that
which would justify these massive sentences that they have been given,
this 11 and 12 years in Federal penitentiary, respectively.
Let me add my voice to support of this amendment, which I, along with
a number of other colleagues have cosponsored with our great friend
from Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Poe the balance of my time.
Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
The CHAIRMAN. There is 1 minute remaining.
Mr. POE. I appreciate the support. I would like to comment on the
comments earlier by the gentleman from California.
It is true. I don't know if the American public knows this, but if
drug dealers bring in $5,000 of drugs or less, they are not prosecuted.
But this wasn't a $5,000 case. The drug dealer first brought in $1
million worth of drugs, and in the second case he snuck in $800,000
worth of drugs. The jury was never told about that.
The other thing I would like to point out is that Members of Congress
met with the Homeland Security inspector general about this case. They
gave us information that turned out not to be true. Mr. Skinner finally
testified under oath before Congress that the information they gave us
about this case was false. That is disconcerting in this type of matter
when we have Homeland Security telling Members of Congress things that
are not true about this particular matter.
I don't have time to go on that, but I would ask for support of this
case. This is the only remedy available. In my judicial experience, I
do believe in our court system, and our courts eventually will work
this case out. It will be reversed, but meanwhile they are in jail. The
only way they can get out of jail is if we pass this amendment. I
appreciate it.
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I was over in my office signing letters, and
I heard the discussion on the floor about Ramos and Compean, and I
heard what the great gentleman from West Virginia had to say. He talked
about procedures and how, really, this would be better off left to the
courts in some other avenue.
But this is not about procedure. It's not about some rules and
regulations that we must adhere to over what is just. What is just in
this case is to set Ramos and Compean free.
This is an issue of what's right for the United States of America.
The morale of our Border Patrol has had a truck driven through it by
those who have prosecuted and persecuted Ramos and Compean. They
deserve no more prosecution. They deserve no more persecution. They
need to be set free and enhance the morale of our Border Patrol and
enhance the security and integrity of the United States of America.
This is an issue about our borders. If you believe that our borders
should be secure, and if you believe that those who enforce our borders
should be stood up for, you need to vote ``yes'' for this amendment.
I ask you to vote for our country. Vote for our sovereignty, vote for
our borders and vote ``yes'' for the Poe-Hunter-Tancredo amendment.
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.

[[Page H8488]]

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the
expenditures of any funds for the purpose of enforcing the judgment or
imposing the sentences handed down in the case of United States v.
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.
As most of you know, President Bush so far has rejected appeals by
many of us for a pardon for these two Border Patrol agents who are now
sitting in Federal prison for shooting a professional drug smuggler who
worked for the cartels, who was fleeing back across the Rio Grande.
These two agents are now serving 11 and 12 years, respectively.
I have talked to many Border Patrol agents about these cases, about
the circumstances they face down there. I haven't found any that don't
support Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, and certainly their association
supports them fully.
In the meantime, of course, the great irony here is the smuggler they
apprehended for attempting to smuggle some 750 pounds of drugs into our
country is free.
The U.S. attorney here claimed that the agents fired on an unarmed
man, but how do we know that? Because the U.S. attorney asked the jury
to take the smuggler's word for that and to disbelieve the two Border
Patrol agents who testified they thought he had a gun.
I can tell you I held numerous hearings down there on the border in
Texas in the past, over 400 attacks on our Border Patrol agents. The
family members of the individual here who was smuggling say he would
not move drugs without a gun on him. That is what his own family says
about him.
Frankly, it does take a stretch of the imagination to believe that an
employee of a cartel down there would not have a gun somewhere near him
moving this quantity of drugs.
Now, the U.S. attorney said the agents failed to file a report for
their actions, and that proved they tried to cover up the shooting. I
am not sure that was true. Two of their supervisors were on the scene
within minutes, and the agents made a verbal report to them, according
to Ramos and Compean.
Failing to file a written report is an administration violation and
normally punishable by a 3-day suspension, but it is the supervisor who
is supposed to file that report, as I understand it, not the agents.
The U.S. attorney says that Ramos and Compean were convicted by a
jury in Texas after all the evidence was presented. But, the U.S.
Attorney, his team, prevented crucial evidence from being admitted in
the trial. For example, the jury did not learn that the smuggler
committed a second smuggling operation while he was under the grant of
immunity given by the U.S. attorney. That information was withheld from
the jury while it was argued that the agents, that the Border Patrol
agents, couldn't have known he was a drug smuggler, even though there
was this quantity of drugs in his van.
The U.S. attorney had prosecutorial discretion in choosing to do
this, and he chose to throw the book at Ramos and Compean while giving
the professional drug smuggler a visa that allowed him free passage
across our border to smuggle again. The attorneys for Ramos and Compean
have filed an appeal with the U.S. circuit court asking for a new
trial. They deserve a new trial. Yet the quickest and surest way to
manifest this injustice is for President Bush to grant a full pardon
or, at a minimum, a commutation of the prison sentence.
These men deserve better, and today we have an opportunity to right
that wrong. By voting for this amendment to free these men, Congress
will not only be correcting a terrible mistake, it will begin repairing
the morale and effectiveness of our Border Patrol that have been
damaged by, frankly, these reckless actions.
It's time to send a different message to both the courageous men and
women of the Border Patrol and to the mules and to the bosses in the
drug cartels. Let's send that message today by telling the cartels that
our Border Patrol means business, not business as usual.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the Ramos and Compean prosecution has
been the greatest miscarriage of justice in my 30 years in Washington,
DC, and, believe me, I have seen a lot.
Ramos and Compean were veteran Border Patrol agents. They had
unblemished records. They had both served in the military. Ramos and
Compean were veterans of the Border Patrol, 5 and 10 years,
respectively. Both had been in the military. In fact, Mr. Ramos, I
believe, had been a 10-year veteran. He was a naval officer in the Navy
Reserve for 10 years. Ramos had been nominated the year before as
Border Patrol Agent of the Year.
Yet these two agents, their lives have been destroyed, and they have
been vilified by Department of Justice officials and this
administration. One day 2 years ago, they interdicted a drug dealer.
After a scuffle ensued, the drug dealer ran toward the border, shots
were fired, the drug dealer was shot in the buttocks. At the end of
this incident that took place in just a few minutes, where a split-
second decision was made to shoot their weapons, they decided that he
had gotten away. They didn't know that the drug dealer had been hit.
There is where they made their mistake. They decided to not go
through the 8 hours of arduous drudgery of filling out all of the
reports that are necessary, the paperwork that is necessary when there
is a shooting incident. So they and their supervisors, I might add,
helped collect the little shell casings and determined, well, the guy
didn't get hit, we will just forget it.
Well, that was a violation of procedure, yes. For that they might
have deserved a suspension. Instead, this administration chose to throw
the book at these men and turn what should have been just a violation
of procedure, perhaps just a paperwork mistake, which sometimes happens
even here in this body, they turned that into a felony.
They have destroyed the lives of these two defenders of our country
who have spent 5 and 10 years of their lives willing to take bullets
for us on the border. But our administration, this administration,
decided to throw the book at them and give a free pass to the drug
dealer, to the man who is bringing in $1 million worth of narcotics
into our country.
That decision is so indefensible that I believe that the
administration has been trying to cover up for that mistaken decision
since that moment. What we have had, for those of us who have been
looking into this, is we have been completely stonewalled by this
administration, by the Department of Justice, by U.S. Attorney Johnny
Sutton in trying to get the information about the drug dealer and the
free passes, the free passes that he had to transit into our country
unescorted after this incident.
The fact of the matter is that the jury was told that the drug dealer
involved was a one-timer who was trying to raise money so he could buy
medicine for his mother, his sick mother. That was a lie that was
presented to the jury, a lie.
Let me repeat that. It was not true, and the prosecutors understood
they were given something not true. In fact, we were told by the U.S.
attorney, Johnny Sutton, well, the fact that the information that the
drug dealer had been picked up a second time before that trial was kept
from the jury, but that the judge was the one who decided that.

{time} 2130

That too is a lie. A lawyer may believe that, but the fact is we know
the prosecutors were the ones who demanded the judge. It was their
motion to keep that from the jury.
So why do we have an administration that feels so intent on
destroying the lives of these two Border Patrol agents that they
vilified them, that they keep information from the jury? This whole
thing stinks to high heaven and the smell seems to be emanating from
the White House.
Ladies and gentlemen, these are two people, two men, two brave heroes
who were defending our country every bit as much as those men and women
who are overseas right now defending our country. They were willing to
risk their lives for us. We should not sit aside and let them languish
in prison as their families go down into abject poverty without any
health care, without any source of income. Their retirement benefits
are destroyed. This is

[[Page H8489]]

the most mean-spirited, nasty attack on some of the defenders of our
country that I have ever seen in my lifetime. We cannot let it sit. If
we are patriotic Americans, it doesn't go to just posture ourselves
with the defenders of this country and then let these two men languish
in prison.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
(On request of Mr. Mollohan, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Rohrabacher was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to search
their hearts. We can do something about this.
You know, first of all, it has been a dismay to me to see how we have
treated each other in this body. I don't know why, but people are
looking to bring down each other because people disagree. We can
understand that with philosophical differences, but how can we ever
justify someone who has gone out of their way, our representatives in
the Department of Justice going out of their way to bring down two
defenders, turning a paperwork mistake, a procedural error, into a
felony which has destroyed these men's lives.
If we stand up for Ramos and Compean, we stand up for the people of
the United States. They know that; they are watching us. They know if
we really care about the little guy, and that is what this is all
about. We care about the little guy because that is what America is all
about.
I support the amendment and ask my colleagues to join me in doing so.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BILBRAY. To the gentleman from West Virginia, let me just say I
know your concern about the process here. But I think that if you
reviewed this situation and the process these two Border Patrol agents
went through, you would understand why some of us are standing up and
saying, first of all, the 10-year minimum for the commission of a crime
while carrying a firearm, it was used to apply to these agents, was
never meant to apply to law enforcement agents who are required by law
to carry firearms. And I think we can kind of understand.
Remember when we passed that and it went through, it was sort of
like, criminals, if you are going to engage in criminal activity, leave
your gun at home, as a way of lowering the level of violence and the
potential violence of criminals carrying firearms at the time of the
commission of the crime.
This law that we passed at the Federal level is being applied to
Federal officers who are required by statute to carry a firearm. And so
now what we have is that we have law enforcement agents who are sworn
to serve the American people, that are being prosecuted under a statute
that says we are going to nail you because you were carrying a firearm
during the commission of a crime when, as a requirement of their
employment, they had to carry the firearm.
Doesn't anybody else find this kind of absurd, if not ridiculous?
And all I have to say is I would sincerely hope that the chairman of
the committee will take a second thought about opposing this amendment,
because I think in all fairness the American people are saying we have
two agents who were serving their Nation as best as they could. They
might have made a mistake that should have been administered through an
administrative process; and those of us in local government that have
worked with law enforcement know this, excessive force happens in
certain situations.
But this is where a Federal law that we passed in Congress that says
we are going to nail the criminals who use firearms in the commission
of a crime and tell them don't ever carry a firearm when you are
thinking of breaking a crime, that that law is being applied to our
agents who are executing the requirements of Federal law. That was
never the intention of this law, but it is being applied to these two
agents.
So I just have to say sincerely, I would really ask the chairman to
reconsider his opposition to this amendment. I think fair-minded people
that know why this Federal law was passed know that it was not meant
for Border Patrol agents or any Federal agents that are required to
carry a firearm, to use this law against those agents. And if you can
do it to Border Patrol agents, you can do it to FBI agents, you can do
it to everybody.
Now, let me just say something about the unique situation that we are
seeing down at the border. At this location, Mr. Chairman, within the
month of this incident you had Border Patrol agents under fire by
automatic gunfire, AK-47s firing at our agents from across the border.
There was good reason to think that our agents might have been a little
more active with their guns than we might have preferred. But, in all
fairness, it really comes down to: Are we willing to stand up and say
there has been a mistake, that mistake needs to be addressed, needs to
be reassessed, and do we now relinquish our responsibility of the
budget to the executive branch where we say these agents have been
wronged?
And if those of you that want to talk about this, in all the years I
was in local government I saw excessive force cases brought very
seldom. In this one sector, this Federal attorney has brought excessive
force cases against three different law enforcement officers. Every one
of them that we know of, or I know of, just happened to have been cases
that involved illegal aliens, drug smugglers, foreign nationals
committing a crime. That is really unique. I have never heard of that
kind of situation occurring anywhere else.
In this case, it is time that we stand up and we say, you have the
jurisdiction to prosecute, you have the jurisdiction not to give
clemency on this issue, but we have the jurisdiction of saying you will
not use the taxpayers' funds to prosecute these men.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. I understand, Mr. Chairman, the President of the United
States today issued a press release saying that he was not going to ask
that these officers be allowed out on bail or bond even after it was
requested that they do be permitted to be released on bail and bond. I
find it regrettable that the President did not give some explanation
for why he didn't give these officers an opportunity to be given
release on bail or bond as other people who would be on trial or given
that kind of opportunity would otherwise be given.
At the very least, I think the President, given the nature of these
officers being in law enforcement, has an obligation to ensure their
security when they are in prison because they are, I understand, at
greater threat to their own lives being law enforcement officers if
they are incarcerated. And I would hope that the Department of Justice
in its incarceration procedures does take into account the very
increased threat level to these officers because of the nature of them
being law enforcement officers.
That being said, however, we do have to keep in mind that it is a
Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney that prosecuted these Border Patrol
officers and it was a jury of a U.S. citizens who rendered a verdict
based upon the U.S. law and based upon the evidence of U.S. law, not
the Members of Congress here standing based upon newspapers and based
upon Fox news stories and everything else, but based upon the evidence
in a case presented to a jury through an evidentiary hearing. And that
is what we need to abide by is a legal process. We can't abide by a
political process.
If we were to abide by political process every time a legal case came
along and were to suspend the process every time we thought one case
was more popular than the other, it would just upend the idea of
justice as we know it in this country, because I think all of us could
come here to the floor and tell of a unique story where someone was
wronged by the system of justice in this country.
And I think that it is kind of ironic that my friends are so outraged
by mandatory minimums with guns, because they are so outraged by
mandatory minimums with everything, and yet they are the first ones to
pass these mandatory minimums and then wonder, now finding their own
friends in the behind and saying, no, we can't have it touch our
friends, and then all of a sudden they don't want it that way.
Well, you know what? There are lots of people in this country who
have been

[[Page H8490]]

caught behind these mandatory minimums who have just been caught in the
wrong place at the wrong time that are now serving life sentences. Kids
that have been caught in ghettos just because they have been friends of
friends who have been part of gangs. Now that they have been associated
with gangs, they have gotten the gang-related crime tagged onto them,
which has added another 10 years to their sentence, and that has been a
mandatory minimum just because of some law that we have passed saying
that you get another 10 years because you are related to a gang member.
Now it is very interesting that all of a sudden people are so outraged
by these minimums that have been tacked on to these officers carrying
firearms in the commission of a crime.
So I just think that we should all pause for a moment when we think
about being tough on crime. Here is a perfect example of where it comes
back to bite us in the you-know-where when we think that we are trying
to be tough on crime and then find out that sometimes when we are
passing these mandatory minimums it doesn't always work out the way we
expected it to be.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BILBRAY. I think you agree, though, that when we talked about the
10-year minimum, the jury was told that they had to administer the 10-
year execution based on the commission of the crime. And I think you
were here when the 10-year minimum was passed. I think you would agree
the idea was to try to encourage anybody that, if you are going to do
something that was illegal, you don't carry a gun, because it would
lower that level of potential.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentlemen
that have bought this amendment to the floor. It is something that all
America has been fixated upon, because they understand the injustice
that underlies the prosecution of these two Border Patrol officers. And
I would like to characterize this perhaps a little bit differently.
Listening to the gentleman, my friend who just got done speaking,
talking about the mandatory minimums being something that comes back to
bite us in the you-know-where, no, this isn't the mandatory minimum
issue that is before us tonight. This is the equivalent of a private
bill.
We have brought private bills through this Congress a number of times
when we see issues that there is such an egregious case for specific
individuals that we will generally bring that language through the
Judiciary Committee, through the Immigration Subcommittee and on
through Judiciary and onto the floor. It has happened a number of times
in my time here in Congress. In fact, I have one here today that one of
your colleagues from your side of the aisle offered to me, and I will
consider it. But this is actually in my jacket pocket. This is a
private bill asking for relief for people who have violated the law but
find themselves in unique circumstances and pleading upon this Congress
to make an exception because they are unique circumstances, and this is
a measure to our heart.
What does our heart have to say to us when you see two Border Patrol
officers who put their lives on the line on a daily basis and find
themselves caught in this legalistic vice that has unfolded because, I
think, of a discretionary decision by a U.S. Attorney in his
prosecution?
What I am concerned about is if this Congress doesn't stand up and
defend these two people, Ramos and Compean, Border Patrol officers will
be reluctant to pull their weapon in the line of duty and they will be
in the line of fire. And I am afraid we will lose one or more Border
Patrol officers in the line of duty because they will be hesitant to
ever pull their weapon. That is a piece of their thing.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas, and again thank him for his work
in bringing this amendment to the floor.

{time} 2145

Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding.
I know that we've discussed this issue a lot tonight, but it's
important because it has to do with the most important concept that any
of us have, liberty. And we have found in the investigation of this
case that the U.S. Attorney's Office has done everything it can to make
sure that these two people stay in jail.
The key to this is that the jury did decide the facts of this case,
but the jury didn't get all the facts given to them under the law.
There was another case where the drug dealer brought in another
$800,000 worth of drugs while he's running free at American taxpayer
expense, and brings in these drugs while he's waiting to testify.
Anybody who served on any jury in the country would want to know about
that second case. This jury was prohibited from knowing about that
because of the insistence and the relentless prosecutor who demanded
that the jury not hear about all of the facts.
The question is why? Why wouldn't the prosecutor want the jury to
know all the truth about this case?
We don't know. We do know that the Mexican Government, in its
righteous indignation, sent a speedy letter over to the U.S. Attorney's
Office demanding prosecution of these border agents. The Mexican
Government dealing in our court system, their opinion is irrelevant, I
submit, Mr. Chairman.
And this case is a case where our Border Patrol agents are in Fabans,
Texas. I don't believe there's been a person here that's been to
Fabans, Texas, unless they've gone there on purpose to see the border.
It's a violent, dangerous, desolate area. And based upon the rules they
have to follow, they cannot fire their weapon unless they are fired
upon. In other words, they've got to take a bullet before they can
defend the border. And they operate under that environment because of
the national security of our border.
In this case, overreaching by the prosecutor; too heavy a sentence.
He even said so later after the prosecution. And what this does is
release these two individuals while the appeal goes on. It releases
them from custody of our Federal Government. And it's the
responsibility of Congress in further investigations to find out why
our Western District of Texas is so relentless in prosecuting border
protectors. And this is one way we can do something. We have that
authority. We can cut the funds, and we ought to cut the funds that
incarcerate these two individuals. We ought to pass this amendment in a
bipartisan manner.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I'd say also there is a bill
following this. If this doesn't do the job, I have a bill ready to
introduce that grants them a new trial, a de novo review, and it
removes the jurisdiction to the Northern District of Texas.
We're going to find a solution this. We're going to stand up and
defend Ramos and Compean. This sends the message. It might get the job
done. I urge adoption.
I yield back.
Mr. GILCHREST. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is have a
colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) to inquire about some
of the comments that have been made here tonight so I can better
understand Congress's role in this particular judicial decision, court
decision, conviction in Texas, just to give me a little comfort in
trying to understand our role in this case and whether or not it is
appropriate.
Can the gentleman from Texas tell me, after the incident occurred
with the border agents and the drug dealer, who brought that
information to the U.S. attorney in the very beginning? Does anybody
know that?
Mr. POE. There's a disagreement over who brought that to them. We
first heard that the Mexican Consulate brought it to someone working in
the Federal Government. And then we also heard that another border
agent brought it, so I don't know the answer to that question.
Mr. GILCHREST. So that's not clear.
Did the border agents supervisors, or do you have any idea who spoke,
if there was, in fact, a grand jury, to determine whether or not there
was enough evidence?

[[Page H8491]]

Mr. POE. There was a grand jury investigation. I do not know who
testified. The border supervisors were on the scene and were aware of
the entire circumstances.
No one knew that the drug dealer who disappeared back into Mexico had
even been shot, and so they thought that the person was shot at and he
disappeared. And the next thing they know, they are being questioned
about 30 to 60 days later about the incident that occurred.
Mr. GILCHREST. Under those circumstances, with the supervisors aware
of the actions of the border agents, the defendant subsequently was
found out to be wounded, under those circumstances, in a Federal court,
did the prosecutor take into consideration those mitigating
circumstances that border agents are often, and in your case, in the
area where you represent, a very dangerous situation? This was a known
drug smuggler. He had smuggled in $1 million worth of drugs. He had,
apparently, a violent past.
What sentencing guidelines did the prosecutor use to give these
border agents 11 years and then 12 years?
Mr. POE. The border agents were offered, if they pled guilty to the
offense, 2 years incarceration. If they did not plead guilty and went
to trial, the prosecutor added the section under our law, 924(c)
section that required or would allow a mandatory additional 10 years
incarceration because a weapon was used. That is subject to appeal as
to whether that applies to peace officers or not. That was added.
Therefore they received 11 and 12 years in the penitentiary after the
trial and after sentencing because they would not plead guilty for a
crime they didn't do.
Mr. GILCHREST. Has there been an appeal filed on behalf of the
defendants?
Mr. POE. Yes. There has been an appeal. Both of these cases are on
appeal, and they are in custody while these cases are on appeal.
Mr. GILCHREST. And it is also under appeal to determine whether or
not the sentencing guidelines that we passed in the House applied in
this case?
Mr. POE. The indictment on its face is being challenged because in
the indictment it alleges the deadly weapon or the brandishing of a
firearm, which requires an additional 10 years. That is also contested
on appeal, whether it applies to peace officers or not.
Mr. GILCHREST. Was it the intent of this Congress that that
particular statute be applied to a peace officer or a border agent in
defense of the country, the border or his own life?
Mr. POE. In my opinion, absolutely not. It applies to other cases
where a firearm is used, such as in a robbery. It doesn't apply to
border agents who are required to use and possess a firearm while they
are on duty. And so it is not, in my opinion, the intent of Congress.
And, of course, that will be litigated on appeal as well.
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for answering the questions.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Drake

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I introduced an amendment today that merely
reinforces current Federal law and provides a penalty for jurisdictions
that choose not to follow this law.
My amendment would prohibit funds from being made available to States
and localities that do not abide by section 642(a) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996. Simply
put, Congress will not distribute funds to any jurisdiction that is a
sanctuary city.
Mr. Chairman, I yield time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I
want to commend her on a very thoughtful amendment. As I understand it,
the majority is going to be willing to accept it.
I had two amendments that dealt with this very same issue that
specifically dealt with the SCAAP program and the COPS program, denying
funds to any of the sanctuary city or sanctuary community
jurisdictions.
As I understand it, her language covers both of those things, and I
am going to be looking forward to working with the gentlelady in the
years ahead to make sure that these sanctuary cities do not have access
to these funds.
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment.
We're going to accept this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Capito

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used in contravention of section 402(e)(1) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1324a note).

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to help
prevent aliens who lack authorization to work legally from taking
Federal jobs.
In the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of
1996, Congress responded to the problem of document verification when
hiring folks by establishing three pilot programs for employment
eligibility verification. Private employers in selected States could
volunteer to participate in these programs.
Under a program called the Basic Pilot Program, Social Security
numbers and Alien Identification Numbers of new hires are checked
against Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland
Security records. This weeds out fraudulent numbers and assures that
new hires are legally eligible to work.
A 2001 report on the Basic Pilot Program found 96 percent of
employers found it to be an effective tool.
In 2003, Congress extended the Basic Pilot Program for another 5
years and made it available to employers nationwide.
The 1996 law stipulates that each department of the Federal
Government must participate in the Basic Pilot Program. Incredibly, the
Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, are currently not
participating.
My amendment basically says, because I hear from constituents all the
time who are angry about those working who do not have legal
verification. What message does it send when Federal agencies do not
abide by the Federal laws?
There's no excuse for having any illegal aliens taking Federal jobs.
We have a Basic Pilot Program to stop this from happening. We have a
law on the books that requires Federal agencies, including Commerce,
Justice and State, to use it for employment verification.
My amendment provides that no funds in this appropriation bill shall
be spent in contravention of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we are willing to accept the gentlelady's
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
The amendment was agreed to.

Announcement by the Chairman

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:

[[Page H8492]]

An amendment by Mrs. Capito of West Virginia.
An amendment by Mr. Etheridge of North Carolina.
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Sessions of Texas.
An amendment by Mr. Inslee of Washington.
An amendment by Mr. Poe of Texas.
An amendment by Mr. Reichert of Washington.
An amendment by Mr. Hinchey of New York.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Capito

The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West Virginia
(Mrs. Capito) 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 243,
noes 186, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 727]

AYES--243

Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Issa
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Rush
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Waters
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOES--186

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Akin
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--8

Clarke
Cubin
Cummings
Davis, Jo Ann
LaHood
Marshall
Michaud
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on the
vote.

{time} 2228

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. NEAL and Mr. McNULTY changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. HOBSON, LAMPSON, HALL of Texas, CAMP of Michigan, LOEBSACK,
HIGGINS, ARCURI, TOM DAVIS of Virginia, KIND, DOGGETT, HERGER, POMEROY,
DELAHUNT, SESTAK, COSTELLO, GUTIERREZ, DAVIS of Alabama, HARE, WYNN,
JOHNSON of Georgia, ELLISON, MELANCON, AL GREEN of Texas, SHULER,
NADLER, HODES, SCOTT of Georgia and RUSH, and Ms. GRANGER, Mrs. MALONEY
of New York, Ms. WATERS and Ms. GIFFORDS changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Etheridge

The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Etheridge) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 421,
noes 2, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 728]

AYES--421

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley

[[Page H8493]]

Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOES--2

Flake
Moran (VA)

NOT VOTING--14

Clarke
Cubin
Cummings
Davis, Jo Ann
Johnson, Sam
Keller
LaHood
Marshall
McCrery
Michaud
Rangel
Ross
Serrano
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains
in this vote.

{time} 2232

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

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Sessions

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 729]

AYES--162

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Pickering
Pitts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)

NOES--267

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hensarling
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff

[[Page H8494]]

Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--8

Clarke
Cubin
Cummings
Davis, Jo Ann
LaHood
Marshall
Michaud
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 45 seconds remain
in this vote.

{time} 2237

Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 730]

AYES--412

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOES--18

Abercrombie
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Clay
Frelinghuysen
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Herger
Hirono
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Johnson, Sam
Kingston
Lewis (CA)
Mollohan
Rahall
Ryan (OH)
Shadegg

NOT VOTING--7

Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
LaHood
Marshall
Michaud
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains
in this vote.

{time} 2240

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe

The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished 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

[Roll No. 731]

AYES--395

[[Page H8495]]

Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOES--34

Becerra
Butterfield
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Dingell
Frelinghuysen
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Mollohan
Olver
Rahall
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watt
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--8

Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
LaHood
Marshall
Michaud
Walsh (NY)
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains
in this vote.

{time} 2244

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts and Mr. DELAHUNT changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Reichert

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 732]

AYES--405

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz

[[Page H8496]]

Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOES--25

Becerra
Cleaver
Clyburn
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gilchrest
Hastings (FL)
Honda
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Mollohan
Rahall
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Solis
Stark
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--7

Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
LaHood
Marshall
Michaud
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains
in the vote.

{time} 2248

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 733]

AYES--165

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Broun (GA)
Campbell (CA)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Doggett
Doyle
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Garrett (NJ)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Melancon
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Porter
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rehberg
Renzi
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Solis
Sutton
Tancredo
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walz (MN)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOES--262

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Ortiz
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--10

Bachus
Boucher
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
LaHood
Marshall
Michaud
Stark
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains
on the vote.

{time} 2252

Mr. GUTIERREZ changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Altmire) having assumed the chair, Mr. Snyder, 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. 3093)
making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and
Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2008, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________