Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 121 (Thursday, July 26, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 121 (Thursday, July 26, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8640-H8650]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H8640]]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2008

The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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} 1248

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 bill had been read through page 85, line 24.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to
the bill may be offered except those specified in the previous order of
the House of today, which is at the desk.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
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 the
Department of Justice, not more than $50,000,000 shall be
available for the Attorney General, after consultation with
Indian tribes pursuant to Executive Order 13175, to appoint
attorneys to assist United States Attorneys when the public
interest so requires, as authorized by sections 542 and 543
of title 28, United States Code, to litigate cases involving
the enforcement of Federal law on Tribal lands, including
domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and
stalking, and to allow reimbursement out of existing Federal
funds, if available, to compensate appointees whenever such
appointments facilitate the efficient, thorough enforcement
of Federal law on Tribal lands.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to ensure that
the U.S. Attorney General appoints attorneys to assist in enforcing
Federal law when it comes to public interest as outlined in 28 U.S.C.
542 and 28 U.S.C. 543. It is in the public's interest to prosecute
crimes committed against Native women, including domestic violence,
sexual assault, stalking and dating violence. As they take on this
task, I also urge them to consult with tribes as practiced and required
under Executive Order 13175.
As we know, there are 4 million American Indian and Alaska Native
people throughout the United States, and jurisdictional questions today
are preventing the enforcement of Federal laws. Indian women suffer
2\1/2\ times more domestic violence and 3\1/2\ times more sexual
assaults than the rest of the American population. An Amnesty
International report showed that 86 percent of these crimes are
committed by non-Indian men, and the law prevents Tribal courts from
prosecuting them.
As a former prosecutor, I was shocked that the majority of criminals
go unpunished. Justice Department data compiled by Syracuse University
showed that in two decades, only 30 percent of tribal land crimes
referred to U.S. Attorneys were ever prosecuted. I would like to see
U.S. Attorneys consult with the tribes and work to enforce Federal law,
especially when it comes to crimes of domestic violence, stalking and
sexual assault. And ensuring that U.S. Attorneys appoint special
attorneys to assist in prosecuting these Federal laws is imperative.
I will include for the Record information from a Wall Street Journal
article entitled, ``Tattered Justice on U.S. Indian Reservations,
Criminals Slip Through Gaps.'' It is time we close those gaps, and I
urge U.S. Attorneys to act with dispatch in this regard.

[From the Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2007]

On U.S. Indian Reservations, Criminals Slip Through Gaps

(By Gary Fields)

Cherokee, N.C.--Jon Nathaniel Crowe, an American Indian,
had a long-documented history of fighting with police
officers and assaulting women. But the tribal court for the
Eastern Band of the Cherokee, under whose jurisdiction he
lives, couldn't sentence him to more than one year for any
charge. Not when he left telephone messages threatening to
kill an ex-girlfriend, not when he poured kerosene into his
wife's mouth, not when he hit her with an ax handle.
``We put him away twice for a year, that's all we could
do,'' says James Kilbourne, prosecutor for the tribe. ``Then
he got out and committed the same crime again.''
Indian tribes are officially sovereign nations within the
U.S., responsible for running services such as schools and
courts. But a tangle of federal laws and judicial precedents
has undermined much of their legal authority. As a result,
seeking justice on Indian reservations is an uneven affair.
Tribes operate their own court systems, with their own
judges and prosecutors. Sharply limited in their sentencing
powers, they are permitted to mete out maximum jail time of
only 12 months for any crime, no matter how severe. The law
also forbids tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians, even
those living on tribal land.
Federal prosecutors can intervene in serious cases, but
often don't, citing the long distances involved, lack of
resources and the cost of hauling witnesses and defendants to
federal court. In the past two decades, only 30% of tribal-
land crimes referred to U.S. attorneys were prosecuted,
according to Justice Department data compiled by Syracuse
University. That compares with 56% for all other cases. The
result: Many criminals go unpunished, or minimally so. And
their victims remain largely invisible to the court system.
The justice gap is particularly acute in domestic-violence
cases. American Indians annually experience seven sexual
assaults per 1,000 residents, compared with three per
1,000 among African-Americans and two per 1,000 among
whites, says the Justice Department. The acts are often
committed by non-Indians living on tribal land whom tribal
officials cannot touch. Local prosecutors say members of
Indian communities have such low expectations about
securing a prosecution that they often don't bother filing
a report.
``Where else do you ask: How bad is the crime, what color
are the victims and what color are the defendants?'' asks Mr.
Kilbourne, who has prosecuted cases on Cherokee lands since
2001. ``We would not allow this anywhere else except Indian
country.''
The lack of prosecutorial discretion is one of many ways in
which Indian justice has been split off from mainstream
American due process. For example, some defendants appearing
before Indian courts lack legal counsel, because federal law
doesn't require tribes to provide them with a public
defender. Although some tribes have them, others can't afford
to offer their members legal assistance. It's not unusual for
defendants to represent themselves.
The Indian Civil Rights Act, passed by Congress in 1968,
limited to six months the sentences tribes could hand down on
any charge. At the time, tribal courts were seeing only minor
infractions. Congress increased the maximum prison sentence
to one-year in 1986, wrongly assuming that the Indian courts
would continue to handle only misdemeanor-level crimes.
Tribal offenses, meanwhile, escalated in both number and
severity, with rape, murder and kidnapping among the cases.
The Supreme Court weighed in on another level, with its
1978 Oliphant decision ruling that tribes couldn't try non-
Indian defendants in tribal courts--even if they had
committed a crime against a tribe member on the tribe's land.
In its ruling, the court held that it was assumed from the
earliest treaties that the tribes did not have jurisdiction
over non-Indians.
``If you go to Canada and rob someone, you will be tried by
Canadian authorities. That's sovereignty,'' says University
of Michigan law professor and tribal criminal-justice expert
Gavin Clarkson. ``My position is that tribes should have
criminal jurisdiction over anybody who commits a crime in
their territory. The Supreme Court screwed it all up and
Congress has never fixed it.''
Jeff Davis, an assistant U.S. Attorney in Michigan who
handles tribal-land cases, acknowledges that his hands are
often tied. Mr. Davis is also a member of North Dakota's
Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa. ``I've been in the U.S.
Attorney's office for 12 years, and both presidents I have
served under have made violent crime in Indian country a
priority. But because of the jurisdictional issue and
questions over who has authority and who gets to prosecute,
it is a difficult situation.''
Often cases don't rise to the level of felony federal
crimes unless the victim has suffered a severe injury.
Federal prosecutors have limited resources and focus almost
exclusively on the most serious cases.

[[Page H8641]]

Compounding that is the fact that domestic-abuse cases are
difficult to prove, especially if the lone witness recants.
``It requires stitches, almost a dead body,'' says Mr.
Davis. ``It is a high standard to meet.''
For some non-Indians, tribal lands are virtual havens.
Chane Coomes, a 43-year-old white man, grew up on the Pine
Ridge Reservation in South Dakota--home to the Oglala Lakota,
near the site of the infamous 1890 massacre at Wounded Knee.
Marked by a small obelisk, the mass grave is a symbol of
unpunished violence, literally buried in the soil of the
tribe. The 2000 census documented Shannon County, which
encompasses the remote and desolate reservation, as the
second-poorest county in the U.S., with an annual per-
capita income of $6,286 at the time. Only Buffalo County,
S.D., was poorer.
According to local authorities, Mr. Coomes used his home on
the reservation as a sanctuary, knowing he would be free from
the attentions of tribal prosecutors.
Tribal Police Chief James Twiss says Mr. Coomes was
suspected of dealing in small amounts of methamphetamine for
years. Tribal police also thought he might be trafficking in
stolen goods.
In 1998, Mr. Coomes assaulted a tribal elder, Woodrow
Respects Nothing, a 74-year-old decorated World War II and
Korean War veteran. Because it couldn't prosecute, the tribe
ordered Mr. Coomes off its land. But attempts to remove him
were unenforceable.
``All I could do was to escort him off the reservation,''
says tribal police officer Eugenio White Hawk, who did that
several times, the last when he spotted the banned man
hauling horses in a trailer. ``He kept coming back. After a
while I just left him alone and let it go. It was just a
waste of time.''
Mr. Coomes remained in his Shannon County home until 2006
when he was accused of beating his estranged wife in nearby
Nebraska and threatening to kill her, according to Dawes
County District Attorney Vance Haug. The crime was committed
off the reservation, and the subsequent investigation gave
state authorities official jurisdiction.
After raiding his home, they found stolen equipment as well
as 30 grams of methamphetamine and $13,000 hidden in the
bathroom, along with syringes.
Mr. Coomes is now in the Fall River County Jail charged
with possession of stolen property, grand theft and
unauthorized possession of a controlled substance. He also
faces separate charges, of assault and ``terroristic
threats'' related to his wife, in Dawes County, Neb. If
convicted on the latter charges, he faces up to six years in
prison, Mr. Haug said. Mr. Coomes's attorney declined to
comment.
The jurisdictional quagmire also has implications for
Indian members on the other side of the tribal border. Gene
New Holy, an ambulance driver on Pine Ridge, had been
arrested by the tribe more than a dozen times for various
drunk-driving offenses, for which he received only two
convictions totaling about a month in a tribal jail. In state
court, four convictions would have led to a maximum sentence
of five years.
Lance Russell, the state prosecutor for Shannon County and
neighboring Fall River County, had never heard of Mr. New
Holy until Feb. 11, 2001, when Mr. New Holy got drunk at a
Fall River County bar. According to court documents, he
nearly hit one car on a main highway, forced two others into
a ditch and sideswiped a third that had pulled off the road
as Mr. New Holy approached it in the wrong lane.
The last car he hit contained three tribe members--cousins
Bart Mardinian, Anthony Mousseau and Russell Merrival-- all
of whom died. The accident was less than a mile off the
reservation, enough to give Mr. Russell and the state
jurisdiction in the case. Mr. New Holy is serving 45 years in
state prison for three counts of vehicular homicide--much
longer than the 12 months per count he would have served
under tribal law. His attorney didn't return a call
seeking comment.
``The holes in the system are more practical than legal,
and the victims of crime pay the price,'' says Larry Long
III, the South Dakota attorney general. ``The crooks and the
knotheads win.''
The Eastern Band of Cherokee, located in the Smoky
Mountains of North Carolina, is one of the most efficiently
run tribes in the country. Its ancestors hid in these
mountains while Cherokee east of the Mississippi River were
forcibly moved to present-day Oklahoma, a migration known as
the ``Trail of Tears.'' Today the tribe is spread across five
counties and is economically well off: It takes in more than
$200 million annually from the Harrah's Cherokee Casino &
Hotel, which it owns, and has a robust tourist industry.
About half of the tribe's gambling spoils go to pay for
infrastructure and government services.
Its court, which is housed in a prefabricated building,
looks like any other in the U.S., except the judges wear
bright, red robes. The offices, while cramped, are modern and
computerized, and are a little over one hour's drive from the
federal prosecutor's office in Asheville. Tribal authorities
meet regularly with federal prosecutors for training. The
tribe's top jurist is a former federal prosecutor who has
regular contact with his successors.
Yet even here, the justice system works erratically. In
2005, tribal police received a tip that James Hornbuckle, 46,
an Oklahoma Cherokee who had moved to the reservation, was
dealing marijuana. Officers built a case for weeks. They
raided the business and then Mr. Hornbuckle's home, where
they found 10 kilograms of marijuana, packaged in small
bricks. By tribe standards, it was a big haul, and
authorities approached the U.S. Attorney's office.
Gretchen Shappert, U.S. Attorney for the Western District
of North Carolina, says federal sentencing guidelines for
marijuana are so lenient, that ``we'd need 50 kilograms in a
typical federal case'' to pursue it. The feds rejected the
case.
If the state court had jurisdiction to prosecute the crime,
Mr. Hornbuckle might have received a three-year term.
Instead, he pleaded guilty to the marijuana charge and was
sentenced to one year in tribal court. Recently the tribal
council voted to permanently ban him from the reservation,
with backing from the feds. Messages left for Mr.
Hornbuckle's attorney weren't returned.
Mr. Crowe's name is all too familiar on the reservation.
Tribal Police Chief Benjamin Reed has known him since he was
a juvenile. ``What I remember is his domestic-violence
incidents. He just wouldn't stop,'' Mr. Reed says.
Crystal Hicks, who dated Mr. Crowe before his marriage,
says the tribal member was verbally abusive. She says she
left him after she had a miscarriage, when he berated her for
not giving him a ride to a motorcycle gathering. ``He said I
was using the miscarriage as an excuse,'' says Ms. Hicks, 27
years old.
After that, in several telephone messages saved by Ms.
Hicks and her family, Mr. Crowe threatened to kill them and
bury Ms. Hicks in her backyard. He was jailed by the tribe
and ordered to stay away from the Hicks family.
``One year,'' says Ms. Hicks. ``He even told me he was fine
in jail. He got fed three times a day, had a place to sleep
and he wasn't going to be there long.''
After he married, the violence escalated, says Police Chief
Reed. During one incident he drove to the home Mr. Crowe
shared with his wife, Vicki. ``He had threatened her, and dug
a grave, and said no one would ever find her. We believed
him,'' Mr. Reed said. ``Just look at some of the stuff he'd
done. That girl was constantly coming down here, her face
swollen up.'' At one point, he choked his wife, poured
kerosene into her mouth and threatened to light it, police
reports say. Mr. Crowe's attorney didn't return calls seeking
comment.
None of these acts led to more than one year in jail, a
sentence he has been given twice since 2001. His criminal
file at the tribal court building fills a dozen manila
folders. There are reports of trespassing and assault
convictions, telephone harassment, threats and weapons
assaults--one for an incident when he hit his wife with an ax
handle, breaking her wrist. His latest arrest, in September,
came about a week after he finished his most recent sentence,
when he came home and beat his now-estranged wife--again.
After seven years, his crimes finally triggered federal
involvement, although almost by accident. Federal prosecutors
from around the country met at Cherokee earlier this year to
discuss crime on tribal land. One federal official mentioned
to Mr. Kilbourne, the tribal prosecutor, a new statute that
allows federal intervention where defendants have at least
two domestic-violence convictions, regardless of the crime's
seriousness.
Mr. Kilbourne, who was preparing for a new trial against
Mr. Crowe the following week, quickly turned the case over.
Mr. Crowe pleaded guilty to assault last Friday and is
awaiting sentencing.

Corrections and Amplifications

The attorney for James Hornbuckle, a Cherokee who was cited
in this article, couldn't be reached for comment. This
article incorrectly says his attorney didn't return calls
seeking comment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Mack

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Mack:
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 by this Act may
be used to carry out the composition and delivery of exigent
circumstance letters, that indicate that a grand jury
subpoena is forthcoming where none has been convened or where
there is no reasonable likelihood that one will be convened,
to United States citizens, businesses, banks, firms or any
other entity that retains personal identity information about
citizens.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.

[[Page H8642]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, a wise man said, ``Freedom is the core of all
human progress.'' It is my belief that he is right.
Since coming to Congress, I have often been an advocate of oversight.
My colleague from Arizona routinely comes to this floor urging us to
make oversight a larger part of the congressional process, and I agree
with him. It is an area where we all need to pay more attention.
Unfortunately, when we turn our attention away, it is often at the
expense of our own liberty and freedom. This amendment seeks to
spotlight a particular area of concern, the so-called exigent
circumstances letters sent out from the FBI to obtain highly sensitive
information.
While I support using the proper tools to keep our Nation safe,
particularly in the war on terror, these letters seem to fall well
short of constitutional checks and balances. My colleagues and I fear
that innocent citizens are being netted in the process.
But, Mr. Chairman, how are we to know that? The very limited
justification that comes from the Department of Justice stands on shaky
ground. The rest of the time they hide behind national security as a
reason for not telling us more. While I am pleased the FBI is taking
internal steps to clarify the scope and use of these letters, I believe
we should raise the process up by codifying it to ensure there are no
questions that civil liberties are not being violated and the
information that is coming from these searches is not being used for
wrongful purposes.
Thankfully, article I of the Constitution says we are a coequal
branch of government charged with cooperation and oversight of these
types of activities. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to our freedom, we all
need to be diligent. We all need to exercise care and we all need to be
cautious of government. Though it often seeks to protect us, it always
ends up capturing more of our precious liberties.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
In 2005, while on the House Judiciary Committee, I, along with some
others, offered a series of reforms to the process of issuing national
security letters. These reforms came about during the reauthorization
of the PATRIOT Act. These reforms didn't go as far as I would have
liked, but we took the administration at their word when they said that
civil liberties would not be violated.
During the reauthorization process, I and others were told by
administration officials that the reforms we sought were not needed,
that the Department of Justice and FBI would never do the hypothetical
worst-case scenario that some of my colleagues and I worried about.
After a long investigation by the Inspector General of the Department
of Justice, I can regrettably say many of the worst-case scenarios
actually came about and that our hypotheticals were not so farfetched.
The FBI has abused its power both in terms of National Security
Letters and exigent letters. In the case of exigent letters, it appears
the FBI repeatedly asserted exigent circumstances where none existed in
order to obtain telephone records. The Inspector General's probe also
concluded that there sometimes was no open nor pending national
security investigation tied to the request. This directly contradicts
the requirements of U.S. law. Letters went out stating that a grand
jury subpoena was forthcoming when none was forthcoming.
The Inspector General's report was just a small sampling of the use
of these letters, and we have not been given a larger picture yet. I
want to commend the gentleman from Florida for bringing this forward.
He has worked hard on this issue, and we are not speaking anymore in
hypotheticals. We have seen abuses. They have been documented. This is
very important, and I commend him for bringing this forward, and I join
him in his effort.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I think this is
absolutely a justified effort to bring to light something that I think
all of the American people deserve, and that is to understand truly
what is going on at the Department of Justice insofar as the use of
these letters.
Unfortunately, this is legislating on an appropriations bill. I do
hope that in the course of this session we will bring up legislation
that will get at the PATRIOT Act so that we can bring to light how far
the Justice Department has gone in overriding the initial intent of the
PATRIOT Act and overriding the sense of Congress in terms of the abuse
of issuance of both National Security Letters and exigency letters. For
that reason, I think the intent of this is very well placed.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff) for whom this is a very important issue.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank
Mr. Mack for his strong work on this issue and his protection of civil
liberties in this regard and many others.
Most disturbingly, from my view, from the Inspector General's report
was the fact that the FBI issued at least 739 exigent letters to obtain
telephone toll records in violation of internal Justice Department
guidelines.
These exigent letters are used in emergency situations when an attack
can be imminent and information is required immediately. They said
things like this: ``Due to exigent circumstances, it is requested the
records for the attached list of phone numbers be provided. Subpoenas
requesting this information have been submitted to the U.S. Attorney's
Office, who will process and serve them as expeditiously as possible.''

{time} 1300

The problem with these letters, in at least 739 cases there was no
grand jury meeting. There were no subpoenas requested, and none would
ever be delivered. And so here you have the prospect of the FBI going
out to a phone company or other provider and saying, this is an
emergency, we need this information, subpoenas to be forthcoming, and
none were.
Now, as a telephone company, you get the FBI knocking on your door
asking for records, saying, this is an emergency, someone's life may be
at risk, we may be at risk of an attack, you're going to want to
comply. And then after the fact, after the FBI discovered that it had
issued all these letters erroneously, unlawfully, it then issues an
NSL, National Security Letter, asking for the information that was
provided for in these exigent letters, basically to cover up, to try to
give a patina of legality over an illegal practice.
This is deeply disturbing, and my friend's amendment, that I was
pleased to join him in cosponsoring, would prohibit the expenditure of
funds on these exigent letters when the claim is made that a grand jury
subpoena is forthcoming when there's no grand jury even impaneled on
the issue.
We need to put a stop to this practice. I very much appreciate my
colleague raising this issue. I'm proud to support it.
Mr. KENNEDY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think that this
issue is an issue of due process. This country was founded on the basis
of due process and on law, and that is why this strikes at the very
heart of our system of government and why this is such an important
issue to be raised.
And for that reason, I think that while this is a point of order, I
do believe this is going to be an issue for this Congress to address in
the course of this session. I commend the gentleman from Florida for
raising it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time,
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues as well.
I think this demonstrates that there is bipartisan support on this
issue, and at the heart of this is to preserve and protect the citizens
of this country's freedoms and liberties.
So I want to thank again my colleagues and the staff on both sides
for working this.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.

[[Page H8643]]

There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. The amounts otherwise provided in this Act are
revised by reducing the amount made available for the
``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Office of Justice Programs--state
and local law enforcement assistance'' and by increasing the
amount made available for the ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Office
of Justice Programs--state and local law enforcement
assistance4'' by $10,000,000 and $10,000,000, respectively.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
chair.
Let me first of all, as I bring my amendment to the attention of my
colleagues, thank the chairman of the subcommittee Mr. Mollohan, and
the ranking member of the subcommittee Mr. Frelinghuysen, for your
leadership on a number of these issues of which I will discuss today.
Let me, first of all, acknowledge the Department of Justice funding,
particularly the State and local law enforcement and crime prevention
grants and the COPS program, of which many of us have supported for an
extensive period of time.
I rose to the floor of the House yesterday and indicated that I
believe that the father of community-oriented policing was both the
mayor and chief of police in my city of Houston, Lee P. Brown, who
served as the chief of police in New York and Atlanta.
I rise today to emphasize for my colleagues the importance of
providing resources to public safety officers so that they can provide
the service to the community in this increasing period of rising crime
statistics, and let me share with you the vastness of the public safety
officers' responsibility.
What I want to suggest in this amendment is that public safety
officers are needed in schools. They're needed on the highways. They're
needed in our neighborhoods. They're needed on our buses and our
trains. Many times incidences will occur on our trains and buses with
citizens who are using those facilities, and the quick response of
public safety officers can lead to the saving of lives. That is why it
is important for them to have appropriate commitment and the
appropriate equipment.
Let me cite in my own community, which we're seeing statistically
across the Nation, having just heard the FBI report that says crime
statistics are increasing all over America, not only in the urban
centers like Houston, which is the fourth largest city in the Nation,
but it is also increasing in our rural hamlets and villages and
farmlands. We have a crisis in crime. Part of it has been because we
have not provided, I think, the extra resources that we see in this
bill.
But let me just cite for you why people traveling on transportation
need the quick access of a public safety officer. One article says, a
second metro bus driver attacked. Two men attacked a metro bus driver
Tuesday after they argued with her about a fare. That means all of
those riding the bus were in jeopardy. A quick response by a public
safety officer was clearly a need.
And so my amendment is simple. It provides for the reemphasis of the
need of this equipment, whether they are walkie-talkies and others, to
ensure that we have safety, and as well to ensure that these dollars
are used effectively for safety in our community.
I'd ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to explain my amendment to
H.R. 3093. My amendment is simple. It seeks to assist public safety
officials in the United States in communicating with one another across
jurisdictions and disciplines, to enhance the public's safety and
prevent unnecessary loss of lives and property.
My amendment recognizes immense importance of hand-held communication
devices to the transit workers and other public officials who play a
key role in responding to disasters and terrorist attacks. It seeks to
ensure that they may be provided with fully interoperable equipment,
maximizing their effectiveness and working to ensure their safety as
they work to protect our communities.
Throughout the United States, public safety agencies--law
enforcement, fire fighters, emergency technicians, public health
officials, and others--often cannot communicate effectively with one
another, even within the same jurisdiction, or with other public safety
agencies at the Federal, State, or local level, when responding to
emergencies.
As a senior Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I have
worked tirelessly to ensure that our communities' first responders are
equipped with the best possible equipment, including communication
devices that allow them to effectively communicate with each other and
with their Federal counterparts across jurisdictions and disciplines.
Interoperable communications would allow our Nation's first responders
to communicate in real time, in the event of an emergency.
Mr. Chairman, the lack of sufficient hand-held communications devises
may have contributed to the deaths of 343 firefighters in New York City
on September 11, 2001, when police could not communicate effectively
with firefighters prior to the collapse of the Twin Towers. Similarly,
the lack of adequate equipment exacerbated the difficulties in
evacuating people during hurricane Katrina, where many could have
been saved if effective communications equipments were available not
only to safety workers but to transit authorities and others in a
collective effort to save the lives of those who were stranded and
injured that tragic day.

Recent national catastrophes, including the terrorist attacks of
September 11th and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, clearly illustrate the
need to ensure that safety responders have interoperable communications
systems. Emergency response systems must be able to function under
extreme and unpredictable conditions. We can learn from our past that
when those responding to emergencies cannot communicate effectively,
the danger to public safety officials and the public increases.
The Department of Homeland Security has recognized the importance of
providing effective and real-time communication capabilities. Secretary
Chertoff stated in November 2006 his intention to make sure that major
cities ``have interoperable communications in effect by the end of this
coming year.'' Interoperable communications provide tangible benefits
to places like my home City of Houston, with its 5.3 million residents
and concentration of critical infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply aims to ensure that high risk
areas, like Houston, have sufficient communications devices to enable
our Nation's first responders and transit workers to communicate in
real time, in the event of an emergency.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

[From the Houston Chronicle]

Second Metro Bus Driver Attacked

(By Lindsay Wise)

Two men attacked a Metro bus driver Tuesday after they
argued with her about the fare, making it the second attack
this week of a female driver.
The men, who appeared to be inebriated, got into a dispute
with the driver over fares and threatened her, said Metro
spokeswoman Raequel Roberts. The men initially retreated into
the bus, but about 10 minutes later, they returned to the
front and punched her, Roberts said.
The driver was taken to Memorial Southwest hospital, where
she was treated for a cut on her nose, Roberts said.
Some passengers on the bus took pictures of the two men
with their cell phones, and Metro police are now looking for
the suspects, Roberts said.
The assault took place on the same bus route and in the
same area as the reported robbery and sexual assault of a
Metro bus driver early Sunday.
In that case, a man boarded a Metro bus on Hillcroft at
Bellaire and remained on board for several miles, waiting for
the last passenger to exit before dragging the driver to the
back of the bus and assaulting her at gunpoint, Metro
officials said.
According to statistics provided by Metro, 28 violent
crimes--ranging from robberies to aggravated assaults--
occurred so far this year on their buses. Last year, 50
violent crimes were reported on Metro buses, up from 38 in
2005.
Roberts said Metro has increased security patrols in the
area as they search for the attackers.
``We've been out there with officers in force,'' she said.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from West
Virginia.

[[Page H8644]]

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we commend the gentlewoman for bringing
this to the attention of us, and we have no objection to the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I'd like to thank the
distinguished gentleman and the ranking member.
And let me just say to all those individuals impacted by crime,
particularly these bus drivers that I'm speaking of today, help is on
the way.
I ask for support of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. The amount otherwise provided in this Act for
``Department of Justice'' is hereby decreased by $10,000,000
and increased by $10,000,000.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me also thank the
chairman and ranking member for their infusion of dollars in the
Federal prison system, $179 million above 2007.
There needs to be an infusion of funding because we have an
overcrowded system in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. We, as the
authorizing committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, have heard
repeatedly of the concerns of both the management of the Federal Bureau
of Prisons, but also the inmates. I have visited institutions in my own
area. I've seen the overcrowding. I've seen the conditions and paid
attention to some of the elements that we could improve.
Many may hear this debate and suggest that incarcerated persons
should be treated in a certain way. This is a very simple amendment. It
asks for a study to look at the possibilities of early release for
nonviolent prisoners who are over the age of 45.
How does that help our community? One, it sends individuals back home
to their families to provide resources. We know that we are watching a
second chance bill make its way through this Congress. We hope that it
will move quickly. Many of these offenders are middle age. Many of them
are sick. This costs a great deal for the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
It is noted that 1.1 million nonviolent offenders are currently
locked up. Many of them are African Americans, and in the 1930s, 75
percent of the people entering State and Federal prison were of the
majority population. That is not the case now.
So it's a simple premise. It has been adopted in the authorization
bill. It asks the hard question, why are we incarcerating for decades
and decades nonviolent individuals who pay their debt to society, when
they could come out and provide the comfort and nurturing and financial
support to their own families and also address the question of Federal
prison overcrowding?
I'd ask my colleagues to support it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to explain my amendment.
My amendment provides for the early release for non-violent offenders
who have attained the age of at least 45 years of age, have never been
convicted of a violent crime, have never escaped or attempted to escape
from incarceration, and have not engaged in any violation, involving
violent conduct, of institutional disciplinary regulations.
My amendment seeks to ensure that in affording offenders a second
chance to turn around their lives and contribute to society, ex-
offenders are not too old to take advantage of a second chance to
redeem themselves. A secondary benefit of my amendment is that it would
relieve some of the strain on federal, state, and local government
budgets by reducing considerably government expenditures on warehousing
prisoners.
Mr. Chairman, some of those who are incarcerated face extremely long
sentences, and this language would help to address this problem.
Releasing rehabilitated, middle-aged, non-violent offenders from an
already overcrowded prison population can be a win-win situation for
society and the individual who, like the Jean Valjean made famous in
Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, is redeemed by the grace of a second
chance. The reentry of such individuals into the society will enable
them to repay the community through community service and obtain or
regain a sense of self-worth and accomplishment. It promises a
reduction in burdens to the taxpayer, and an affirmation of the
American value that no non-violent offender is beyond redemption.
Mr. Chairman, the number of federal inmates has grown from just over
24,000 in 1980 to 173,739 in 2004. The cost to incarcerate these
individuals has risen from $330 million to $4.6 billion since 2004.
At a time when tight budgets have forced many states to consider the
early release of hundreds of inmates to conserve tax revenue and when
our nation's Social Security system is in danger of being totally
privatized, early release is a common-sense option to raise capital.
The rate of incarceration and the length of sentence for first-time,
non-violent offenders have become extreme. Over the past two decades,
no area of state government expenditures has increased as rapidly as
prisons and jails. According to data collected by the Justice
Department, the number of prisoners in America has more than tripled
over the last two decades from 500,000 to 1.8 million, with states like
California and Texas experiencing eightfold prison population increases
during that time. Mr. Chairman, there are more people in the prisons of
America than there are residents in states of Alaska, North Dakota, and
Wyoming combined.
Over one million people have been warehoused for nonviolent, often
petty crimes. The European Union, with a population of 370 million, has
one-sixth the number of incarcerated persons as we do, and that
includes violent and nonviolent offenders. This is one third the number
of prisoners which America, a country with 70 million fewer people,
incarcerates for nonviolent offenses.
The 1.1 million nonviolent offenders we currently lock up represents
five times the number of people held in India's entire prison system,
even though its population is four times greater than the United
States.
As the number of individuals incarcerated for nonviolent offenses has
steadily risen, African-Americans and Latinos have comprised a growing
percentage of the overall number incarcerated. In the 1930s, 75% of the
people entering state and federal prison were white (roughly reflecting
the demographics of the nation). Today, minority communities represent
70% of all new admissions--and more than half of all Americans behind
bars.
This is why for the last several years I have introduced the Federal
Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender Relief Act. The bill I introduced
earlier this year, H.R. 261, forms the basis for the present amendment.
Over 2 million offenders are incarcerated in the nation's prisons and
jails. At midyear 2002, 665,475 inmates were held in the Nation's local
jails, up from 631,240 at midyear 2001. Projections indicate that the
inmate population will unfortunately continue to rise over the years to
come.
To illustrate the impact that this amendment will potentially have on
Texas, the Federal prison population for the years 2000, 2001, and 2002
reached 39,679, 36,138, and 36,635 persons respectively; the State
prison population for the same years reached 20,200, 20,898, and 23,561
persons. These numbers have grown since 2002, so the impact is indeed
significant and the State of Texas is an important stakeholder.
As I stated at the outset, my amendment will ensure that in affording
offenders a second chance to turn around their lives and contribute to
society, ex-offenders are not too old to take advantage of a second
chance to redeem themselves. My amendment will also relieve the some of
the strain on federal, state, and local government budgets by reducing
considerably government expenditures on warehousing prisoners.
For these reasons, I ask that all members to support my amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from West
Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment.
The gentlelady's insights into this issue are clear. The committee
actually welcomes the thought, the amendment, and we accept the
amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished chairman,
and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. This will go a long
way to this very strong and harsh question of Federal prison
overcrowding and how

[[Page H8645]]

we use our resources for nonviolent prisoners.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of 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 violation of Subtitle A of Title VIII
(International Space Station Independent Safety Taskforce) of
the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law No. 109-155).

{time} 1315

We shouldn't have the individual there who is afraid to speak up. We
should have whistleblower protection. And we should have a director who
cares about safety and does not reject Congress' interest in safety.
I hope that we will keep our eye on this international space station
commission on safety, even though its report is in, to ensure that the
individuals we sent on the space shuttle, the work that we are doing on
space has the element of safety to save lives and create the
opportunity for men and women to live and work in space.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment as we support NASA and
my appreciation for the funding that is in this bill for NASA and
aeronautics and research and ask my colleagues that NASA should equate
to safety, NASA should equate to science. That is an important aspect.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment. It
states that none of the funds made available in this Act may be used to
limit the safety provisions enumerated in the NASA Authorization Act of
2005 (Public Law No. 109-155), particularly those regarding the
International Space Station Independent Safety Commission.
Space exploration remains a part of our national destiny. After the
Columbia disaster, NASA stands at a pivotal moment in its history. It
is the responsibility of this Congress to ensure that the future of
NASA is one of continued progress. I have long been an advocate of
space exploration, and I have steadfastly emphasized that while safety
must be the number one priority of NASA, this should not deter us from
pushing the boundaries of technology and discovery.
In June of this year, we saw the Space Shuttle Atlantis and the
International Space Station both experience serious safety scares. The
shuttle's mission had to be extended following the discovery of a rip
in the shuttle's thermal blanket, while the space station experienced
the failure of a Russian-operated computer system controlling a crucial
portion of the station's navigational system. These recent incidents
clearly indicate the need for improved safety standards and oversight.
Space exploration must be coupled with satisfactory safety assurances.
Mr. Chairman, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Authorization Act of 2005, signed into law by President Bush, provided
for the establishment of an International Space Station Independent
Safety Commission, to discover and assess any vulnerabilities of the
International Space Station that could lead to its destruction,
compromise the health of its crew, or necessitate its premature
abandonment.
This congressionally mandated International Space Station Independent
Safety Task Force offered its recommendations in the form of a final
report, which was submitted to NASA and the United States Congress in
February of 2007. This report offered a number of valuable observations
on the strengths and weaknesses of the International Space Station's
safety systems, and it went on to make several important
recommendations. The report called for strong congressional support for
Space Shuttle and International Space Station, as well as a number of
specific technical recommendations, such as increased attention to
orbital debris and ensuring that all personnel and managers have the
necessary skills and experience.

If these recommendations are to be successful in identifying and
mitigating future risks to the International Space Station, Congress,
together with the Administration, must firmly reaffirm its commitment
to pursuing safety as a top priority. My amendment speaks to this clear
need to emphasize the importance of safety standards by ensuring that
none of the funds made available in this Act may be used to limit the
safety provisions enumerated in the recent NASA Authorization Act.
We must continue to work to ensure that adequate safety standards
apply to all NASA endeavors, and particularly to manned space
exploration. As I previously stated, I am a strong supporter of the
International Space Station, and I hope that we can move forward with
its mission. However, our mission for discovery can not be done in
haste; instead we must ensure that all steps have been taken to
minimize the risk to astronauts onboard.

[[Page H8646]]

I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important
amendment.

U.S. and Russia View Space Station Safety Differently

(By Mike Schnelder)

Cape Canaveral, FL.--It was just four high-energy
batteries, the kind that are found in a lot of military
equipment such as walkie-talkie sets and night vision
equipment. Similar batteries already were being used on the
International Space Station.
But when NASA officials discovered last year that Russian
space officials were allowing the four batteries on-board the
space station without the proper testing, they objected
strenuously. The batteries could be toxic and had a small
potential to explode. The Russians went ahead anyway.
Nothing ever happened. But the friction caused by the
batteries underscores the divide between the now hyper-
safety-conscious Americans and what the Russians describe as
their ``more flexible'' approach.
It's a different philosophy, explains Shirley McCarty,
former head of NASA's safely advisory board: In the U.S.
program you must prove it is safe. The Russian approach is
``prove it's not safe.''
After the Columbia space shuttle disaster, safety is
getting even more attention by the U.S. Space program,
Tensions over the two countries' approaches are being
played out in Houston and Moscow as both programs debate
whether to allow a spacewalk by the current space station
crew of just two men--astronaut Michael Foale and cosmonaut
Alexander Kaleri. A spacewalk would leave the space station
temporily empty. Previous spacewalks at the international
space station have depended on a third crew member inside.
The Russians, however, are comfortable with the risk and
carried out spacewalks on their Mir space station with just a
two-man crew. They are pushing for a spacewalk in late
February to do minor work involving payloads and preparatory
work for a new type or cargo ship.
The Russians consider themselves less rigid and more
inventive than the Americans, who tend to follow every letter
in the technical manuals, said Sergei Gorbunov, a spokesmen
for the Russian Space Agency.
``Here in Russia, we are more flexible in our approach to
technical problems,'' Garbunov said. ``The Americans are more
conservative in dealing with technical problems, but this
isn't a fault.''
It may not be a fault but the different approaches
contribute to communications problems that could lead to
dangerous situations, NASA's safety advisory board warned in
a report last year.
``They share safety concerns,'' Michael Suffredini, the
station's operations and integration manager for NASA, said
last week of the Russians. ``Sometimes we have a different
view.''
Jerry Linenger, a former astronaut who lived aboard
Russia's Mir in 1997, said there has to be a ``happy medium''
between the two approaches.
``The Russians are probably on one side of the balance, and
the Americans are probably too much on the other side,''
Linenger said.
During Linenger's stay on Mir, the Russian space station
suffered the most severe fire ever aboard an
orbiting spacecraft, a near collision with a cargo ship,
failures of onboard system including an oxygen generator,
loss of electrical power and an uncontrolled tumble
through space.
The current space station crew also is experienced with
close calls. Foale was on Mir when it collided with a cargo
ship. Kaleri was on Mir along with Linenger when the fire
broke out.
The differences between the Russian and U.S. approaches to
safety are as much from cultural as economic factors, said
Linenger.
Russian industry, for instance, doesn't have the commitment
to worker safety that the United States has adopted in recent
decades through agencies such as the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration. In addition, workers in the Russian
space program haven't shaken off the Soviet-era habit of
following orders without question, Linenger said.
``The Russians don't want to lose a cosmonaut any more than
we want to lose an a astronaut,'' he said, but suggested that
perhaps they were ``less used to protecting the worker . . .
They're probably more willing to overlook a lot of things
that we're not.''
The limited budget of the Russian space program also
contributes to how it approaches safety, Linenger said. The
cash-strapped space agency, after all, has allowed U.S.
millionaire Dennis Tito and South African Mark Shuttleworth
to pay for the privilege of being space tourists on the
station despite the initial objections of NASA officials.
Most recently, the Russian space program disclosed that
government funds allocated for building crew capsules and
supply ships for the space station are only about half of
what's needed.
``When you have a limited budget like they did when I was
there, you can't afford to go to option B,'' Linenger said.
``Maybe we misinterpret that they're cavalier about things
when they have no options.''
Linenger noted that NASA recently decided to send the
current crew to the space station despite concerns from a
NASA physician and scientist that exercise equipment and some
water and air monitoring devices weren't working properly.
``When you're between a rock and a hard place. I'm not sure
we would act any differently,'' he said.
Ed Lu, who returned from the space station last month after
a six-month stay, said any differences in approaches to
safety aren't noticeable.
It's really one big program right now,'' he said during an
interview from space before his return. ``You can't really
separate the organizations too much anymore.''
But members of NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel felt
otherwise. They resigned en masse in September after being
described as ineffective in a report by the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board. Before resigning, members cited two
other recent incidents in which miscommunication between the
Russians and Americans on the ground had caused problems with
how the space station was positioned.
``It just seems all the required operating procedures, the
ground rules aboard the station, really hadn't been
completely planned out between the various international
partners,'' said Robert Schaufele, a former member of the
safety panel and a professor of aircraft design at California
State University.
But the two programs have learned from past problems, and
new procedures have been put in place, said Bill
Gerstenmaier, the space station's program manager for NASA.
Since the batteries incident, complaints or concerns can be
taken up the command chain more quickly, said Arthur
Zygielbaum, a former safety advisory board member.
And in recent years, eight NASA specialists have worked in
Russia while 10 Russian specialists have worked with NASA in
Houston to smooth out potential communication issues, said
Joel Montalbano, lead flight director for the current space
station mission.
With this communications foundation, Montalbano said, ``we
can work better and stronger.''

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from West
Virginia.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate the gentlelady yielding.
NASA has been on the forefront of safety on the NASA side, these
provisions she has worked on in 2005 to incorporate into authorizing.
She is reaffirming these safety procedures in this amendment, and we
certainly have no objection on that.
We accept the amendment and compliment her on her efforts to improve
and insist upon safety in NASA operations.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman for his
courtesy, I thank the ranking member, and I thank the Congress for
accepting the importance of safety as we explore the beyond.
I simply say thank you to the staff of these committees, and I ask my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Upton

Mr. UPTON. 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. 41 offered by Mr. Upton:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to purchase light bulbs unless the light bulbs have
the ``ENERGY STAR'' or ``Federal Energy Management Program''
designation.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, we don't intend to take very much of our
time. We have debated this amendment on each of the appropriation bills
thus far. We have been very fortunate to have the support of Mr. Obey
and Mr. Lewis and all the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members.
I offer this with my friend and colleague, Ms. Harman, along with Mr.
English and Mr. Lipinski. It is a bipartisan amendment simply requiring
that the Federal Government, beginning on October 1, purchase only
ENERGY STAR light bulbs.
This will be a savings of hundreds of millions of dollars to the
taxpayers over the course of the year, and it is something that has
enjoyed, again, wide bipartisan support. I don't need to debate it
further.

[[Page H8647]]

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. UPTON. 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 Michigan
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

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

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

TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwises made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by 3.0 percent.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and a Member opposed each will control
15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, we have offered this amendment for
the eighth time.
Let me just help set a framework before I talk specifically about the
amendment. Today we have approximately a $200 billion annual budget
deficit. We have an $8 trillion national debt. We have a budget that we
have been debating over the last several weeks and will complete the
spending process of that next week, but we have a budget of $3 trillion
annual budget.
We have an entitlement spending crisis looming, when we think about
what's going to happen in the next 10 to 15 years relative to Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid. We have got a crisis that we have to
begin to deal with.
Today, today the Federal Government spends approximately $23,000 per
household. Now, with that as a frame work, I think it's fair to ask, is
government too big or too small? If you ask that question of the
average American family, my guess is when they think about those facts,
$200 billion deficit, $3 trillion annual budget, $8 trillion national
debt and an entitlement crisis that is looming, and a Federal
Government that spends $23,000 per American household, if you asked the
average American family if government is too big, my guess is they
would probably say yes.
All this amendment does is begin to take that first step, that modest
first step into getting our spending under control.
It says this: instead of in this appropriation bill, instead of
spending $53.5 billion, let's just spend $52 billion, which happens to
be the amount that we spent last year. So it's not a cut, as our
friends on the other side will most assuredly say when it's their turn
to speak. It's not a cut; it's simply level funding, holding the line
on spending. It's a 3 percent reduction from what's in the bill, simply
going to spend what we did last year.
That's not too much to ask when you think about the context we find
ourselves in today in the United States of America. Here is why it's
important, and I have said this every single time.
Again, every time I bring this amendment, I always articulate to the
Chair of the subcommittee and the ranking member and the Chair and
ranking member of the full committee that, you know, I don't do this to
be a pain.
I really believe we have to begin to focus on reducing spending. I
appreciate the work that the Appropriations Committee does. I
appreciate the work of the subcommittee. But if we don't begin to get a
handle on spending, we are going to have problems economically in the
future.
The way it works is spending inevitably leads to more taxes. The
American family is already overtaxed. That's why it's important. We
start to get a handle on spending, so we can reduce the tax burden that
the families across this country face.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 15
minutes.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, with violent crimes increasing for the
first time in 15 years, with more pressure on the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, less resources and less investments in keeping our
communities safe is not the answer. Cutting programs to the FBI, cops
on the streets, anti-meth programs is not the answer.
Our communities want safer streets. They want a vigorous response
against crime. That's what this bill does.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as the
gentleman would like to consume to the Chair of the Republican Study
Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio, again,
for his leadership in bringing this terribly needed amendment to the
floor, his diligence in authoring this amendment on a number of these
spending bills.
Again, although I wish we were debating other facets of the Federal
budget today, I think it is very, very important to illuminate once
again where we stand as a Nation on spending.
I was in a hearing earlier this morning in the Financial Services
Committee. In that committee, we are talking about the possibility of a
whole new Federal wind storm insurance program. I am not here to debate
the merits of that, but it brought to mind that this Nation is facing a
fiscal storm, and it's a storm that we see off our shore; but it is one
that unfortunately, this body continues to ignore.
It continues to ignore this problem by growing the Federal budget at
a huge multiple over inflation, growing the Federal budget way beyond
the growth of the family budget. Ultimately, it's the family that has
to pay for this, hardworking American families that are trying to pay
for their transportation programs, trying to pay for their health care
programs, trying to pay for their education programs.
I have no doubt that every single dollar in this bill can be used for
a good purpose. There is not a doubt there, but when do we look at what
happens in the aggregate? We have had spending debates going on for
weeks and weeks now. Unfortunately, they do become somewhat similar.
But there are very important points that still need to be illuminated
in this debate. Again, in every single spending bill brought to the
floor, somebody can say, well, this is a good idea. But who goes back
and looks at it in the aggregate? Whoever adds it all up and sees what
we are doing to the least of these in our society, those who do not
vote, and those who have yet to be born. I am speaking about future,
future generations.
So all this amendment is asking to do, notwithstanding the language
of the other side, this amendment seeks to cut nothing. This amendment
seeks to level fund this particular appropriations bill, using the same
funding last year that it will use this year.
Mr. Chairman, there are many people, many families all across America
who would love the opportunity to make it on the same income they had
last year, this year, this year to next year. So somehow we are trying
to be convinced that something terrible and draconian is going on.
Frankly, our friends from the other side of the aisle always accuse
us of cutting something. I wish, occasionally, that might be true.
But all spending is not created equal, and there needs to be
priorities. There is no doubt that many items within this bill are a
priority. But I don't believe it's a priority to impose an even greater
tax burden on the American people, as the Democrats seek to do in their
single largest tax increase in history. That shouldn't be a priority.
Nor should it be a priority to pass on debt to future generations,
which ultimately I believe this bill will do. It

[[Page H8648]]

shouldn't be a priority to raid the Social Security trust fund, which,
by definition, if we are running a Federal deficit, then any excessive
spending continues to raid the Social Security trust fund.
So all we are asking is, is it easier to be on the road to fiscal
responsibility and keep faith with future generations, or are you going
to be on the road to fiscal irresponsibility and not keep faith? If you
follow that road, here is what you are looking at. Listen to the words
of our Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, who said: ``Without
early and meaningful action'' to address government spending,
particularly entitlements ``the U.S. economy could be seriously
weakened with future generations bearing much of the cost.'' Those
aren't my words. Those are the words of the Federal Reserve Chairman.
Now listen to scholars at the Brookings Institute, widely known as a
liberal institution, no bastion of conservative thought: ``The authors
of this book believe that the Nation's fiscal situation is out of
control and can do serious damage to the economy in coming decades,
sapping our national strength, making it much more difficult to respond
to unforeseen contingencies and passing on an unfair burden to future
generations.''
Yet week after week after week we have spending bills coming to this
floor, growing government way beyond the rate of inflation, growing
government way beyond the growth of the family budget, and it's the
family budget that has to pay for Federal budget.
So here we have just one more chapter in this book of fiscal
irresponsibility.
Now, again, I know there are many good programs in this bill. But why
were so many of the other bills costing billions and billions and
billions and growing these budgets 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 percent more than last
year? Again, too often people are focusing on one individual aspect of
this budget, and they are not focusing on the budget as a whole.
Let's listen to the words of the Comptroller General, the chief
fiduciary officer in America, who said that the rising cost of
government, again, particularly the entitlement spending, is a ``fiscal
cancer,'' fiscal cancer that threatens ``catastrophic consequences for
our country and could bankrupt America.''
Again, these aren't my words. These aren't the words of one lone
Member. These aren't the words of the Member from the Fifth District of
Texas. These are words of the people who most know about the fiscal
condition of this Nation.

{time} 1330

The Comptroller General has gone on to say, and I paraphrase, that
we're on the verge of being the very first generation in America's
history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living.
Mr. Chairman, like many others on this floor, I'm in the next
generation business. I've got a 5-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old
son, and I am not indifferent as to leaving my children and the
children of America with a lower standard of living. I can't sit idly
by while this House week after week after week spends our children's
future, spends them into bankruptcy, threatens to double their taxes.
That's the magnitude we're looking at, doubling their taxes.
And so this is a very reasonable amendment. Frankly, I wish the
gentleman from Ohio had done even more on his amendments. But level
funding, that's all we're asking, Mr. Chairman. When you look at the
consequences, can we at least take a bill and get a little smarter, a
little wiser and spend the same amount of money next year that we did
this year? And, frankly, it's the future of our children and our
grandchildren that are on the line.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said that we can afford to
cut or shave budgets for anticrime programs like COPS. The gentleman
did not support attempts to cut or shave the $90 billion in tax
shelters that allow offshore companies to shelter their profits, open
up P.O. boxes in Bermuda so that they don't have to pay their fair
share of taxes. We invest a fraction of that $90 billion tax shelter,
$693 million, to add 2,800 cops to the streets of neighborhoods. We
want to make neighborhoods safer by adding more cops. The gentleman
wants to make corporate offshore profits safer. That's a difference in
priorities between our bill and theirs.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of things. I want to
pick up on what the gentleman from Texas was talking about, families,
and a lady from a family from our district, Theresa from West Liberty,
Ohio, a small town in Ohio, said, when talking about spending, talking
about taxes, talking about the growth of government, talking about the
fact we've got an $8 trillion national debt, a $3 trillion budget, the
government spends $23,000 per household, and all we're asking for in
this legislation, all we've been asking for in each of these
amendments, is to fund government at the same level we did last year,
which all kinds of families have to do just like this family in West
Liberty, Ohio.
``We're in the middle class, and we're the ones the tax hikes hit the
hardest. We're trying to put our kids through college. Can't government
live within their means?''
I mean, pretty straightforward. It's amazing how the American people
get it. If you ask the American people in this framework, all this
spending, all this debt, all this deficit, is it too much to ask to
say, you know what, Government, just spend what you did before. And the
playbook from the other side never changes. As the gentleman from Texas
articulated, we want to spend what we spent last year in this
appropriations bill. Not a cut. We want to spend what we did last year.
Yet the other side will say, if we do that, the sky's going to fall,
the world's going to end, everything will be terrible. Oh my goodness,
we won't have cops on the street.
That's just baloney. We want to spend exactly what we spent last
year, because if we don't, the ramifications, the consequences for
future generations, as the gentleman from Texas pointed out, are huge.
And it starts with the entitlement programs that everybody knows,
Republicans and Democrats know, everybody knows those are going to be
problems in the future.
That's all this amendment does. It's not Draconian cuts. It's not
devastating. It's not the end of the world. It's not the sky is
falling. It's saying, you know what, instead of spending $53.5 billion,
which is what this legislation wants to do, let's spend $52 billion,
exactly what we spent last year.
Mr. Chairman, that doesn't seem to be too much to ask when we're
thinking about the context we find ourselves in, and, frankly, when
we're thinking about the competition we face today in the international
marketplace.
As the gentleman from Texas pointed out, our Comptroller has pointed
out the problems we face. It's critical that we begin to get a handle
on that. That's why we bring the amendment forward, that's why it makes
common sense, and that's why I urge a ``yes'' vote.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, violent crimes increased 3.6 percent in the
past 2 years for the first time in 15 years. The gentleman's response
is to cut spending for police officers, child abuse programs, domestic
violence programs and antidrug programs by 3 percent.
With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan),
a member of the committee.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman.
I would just like to make a couple of points. The gentleman from
Texas mentioned entitlements. I think it's important for the Members to
recall that it was the Republican majority that passed a trillion
dollars in spending on the Medicare part D program and had zero, zero
ability for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate
down drug prices to keep them under control.
And my good friend from Ohio made the point about families, this
family in his district, a middle-class family. This new Congress raised
the minimum wage which will help that middle-class family. This
Congress in the Labor-H bill passed an increase of $600 or $700 million
in the Pell Grant. They're trying to send their kids to school. That

[[Page H8649]]

will help. And we cut student loan interest rates in half. So that same
family who has to borrow money will have to pay back $4,000 less over
the course of the loan.
We're helping that family, and I'm glad we can agree on that.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Can I inquire, Mr. Chairman, how much time our
side has remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 2\1/2\ minutes. The
gentleman from New York has 12 minutes.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this
amendment.
It's interesting to hear about all the savings that the majority
party, Mr. Chairman, claims that they have saved. I'm interested to get
to the debate on the farm bill so we can hear of all the savings that's
in it, and we will see how the next tax increase is going to be
explained as some type of offset, or, as they have done so well this
whole 110th Congress, is the smoke-and-mirror thing. They do a great
job with it. I believe when people do a good job, they should be
complimented. I've never seen an illusionist as good, especially
convincing people that they are actually getting something
accomplished.
If this Congress really wants to get something accomplished, we'll
pass the amendment from Mr. Jordan, because it's real savings to the
taxpayers of $1.6 billion. Now, in the scheme of things, and I never
thought I would be up here long enough to say that that's a small
amount of money compared to the amount of money that we spend in
Congress, but it is a reasonable savings. And not only that, but it's
an important first step, the first time in the 110th Congress, and
really, I think, probably one of the first times up here that we've
actually saved some money, and there's nothing wrong with that. And
even though it's a small start, it's a good start.
This bill is $3.2 billion above last year, or a little over 3 percent
more than it was last year. And while it's a modest increase, a 3
percent increase, I think that we would do much better going back to
last year's level and learning to live within that means, Mr. Chairman,
than trying to expand the programs.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close; is that correct?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does have the right to close.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I know we have just 30 seconds, and
the gentleman from New York will close.
Again, it's a straightforward amendment. It's not a cut. It's level
funding. All kinds of families have to do it every single year across
this country. Again, I don't think it's too much to ask for government
to do the same, particularly when you look at the facts and the
financial situation that we're facing.
With that, I yield back the remainder of our time.
Mr. ISRAEL. Well, here we go again. We've been here week after week
after week and entertained amendment after amendment after amendment. I
respect my colleagues for trying. Unfortunately, a majority of their
caucus disagrees with them, as does a majority of Congress. These
amendments keep coming up, and they keep getting defeated, and there's
good reason for that, particularly with this bill.
Let me share some statistics with you, Mr. Chairman. I alluded to
them before. Violent crime is increasing in the United States today for
the first time in 15 years. In 2005, violent crimes increased 2.3
percent. 2006, violent crimes increased another 1.3 percent. From 2002
to 2005, Mr. Chairman, there were an additional 100,000 new meth users
over the age of 12.
Now, there is a dangerous correlation, because at the same time these
violent crimes are increasing, Federal investments in safe communities
have been cut. From 2001 to 2006, funding for local law enforcement
grants was cut 42 percent. This isn't just a cut in the rate of
increase, this is a wholesale cut in Federal support for anticrime
programs, 42 percent, from $4.4 billion to $2.5 billion. And not only
is crime going up as a result of these Federal cuts, but local taxes,
which in many cases are the most regressive form of taxation, are going
up as well. Because the fact of the matter is that when you cut Federal
law enforcement resources, the criminals don't go away. They stay on
the streets. They keep robbing banks. They keep beating people up. They
keep stealing. They keep conspiring. And so while the Federal
Government has abandoned its commitment to keeping our streets safe,
it's the local governments who are now responsible for trying to keep
those streets safe. And so all this Federal cut is is a transfer of the
obligation to local taxpayers. So what sounds like a cut on the Federal
level ends up costing taxpayers even more and more to protect their
communities.
Mr. Chairman, let's analyze some of these cuts while crime increases.
Safe communities. This small group of Members, who disagree with every
Republican on the Appropriations Committee who supported this bill, had
no problem supporting a $90 billion tax shelter for the biggest
offshore companies on Earth to protect their profits. We in this bill
invest a fraction of that, $693 million, to add 2,800 police officers
to our streets to protect our neighborhoods.
The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. We can have differences
on how to protect our borders. We all want to keep our borders safe,
but if someone crosses our borders here illegally and then commits a
felony, or several misdemeanors, and is arrested and incarcerated, most
of us believe that the Federal Government ought to assume the financial
obligation for incarcerating those people.
This small group of Members had no problem spending $14 billion on
tax cuts for the biggest oil companies on Earth in the history of
profit-making. We invest a fraction of that, $405 million, to reimburse
local taxpayers for the costs of the incarceration of criminal aliens.
What makes more sense to America?
The war on drugs. We learned in Iraq that you can't win a war when
you underfund the troops. Well, guess what, Mr. Chairman. You can't win
a war on drugs when you underfund cops on the streets. This small group
had no problem spending billions and billions of dollars on Vice
President Cheney's no-bid contracts. We invest a fraction of that, $40
million, to fight illegal drugs with mobile enforcement teams; not
mobile enforcement teams in Iraq, Mr. Chairman, mobile enforcement
teams here at home.
Child exploitation. We fund 93 additional positions in U.S.
attorneys' offices to fight child exploitation and enforce obscenity
laws; 38 new positions in U.S. attorneys' offices to fight gang crimes.
Gang crimes are proliferating. Gangs are a national problem. They cross
not only State borders, they cross town lines and county lines and
village lines. It requires a national investment to stop these gangs
from preying on our children. We invest in stopping those gangs. This
small group says, let's cut gang enforcement by 3 percent.
Domestic violence. We invest $430 million for the Violence Against
Women Act for prosecutions. This small group says, we can protect the
profits of big drug companies, we can protect the profits of
corporations that register themselves at P.O. boxes in Bermuda, but we
have to save the investment in protecting women from domestic violence?
Finally, Mr. Chairman, and this is the real kicker, to coin a phrase
by my friend from Ohio several days ago, the war on terror. For the
past 7 years, the FBI counterterrorist caseload has increased more than
100 percent, from 1,150 to nearly 2,400. How do they make the argument,
Mr. Chairman, that as the counterterrorist caseload is going up 100
percent, we should shave resources by 3 percent to the FBI? I think
most Americans understand that they can't go out and investigate
terrorists, that that's the job of the FBI. We want the FBI to have
those resources.
If there is money for oil companies, if there is money for offshore
corporations, if there is money for Halliburton, how is it that we
can't afford additional resources for the FBI in the global war on
terror?

{time} 1345

Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude by suggesting that this really is about
priorities. And this is the debate we've had.

[[Page H8650]]

The sponsors of this bill have legitimate philosophies, and I
understand their philosophies. Their philosophies are wrong.
They say government wants more of your money and that you should
decide how to spend it. That's not true. They've spent the people's
money on tax cuts for oil companies. We want to invest in COPS for
neighborhoods. They've spent it on no-bid contracts for big companies.
We want to spend it on investigators for the FBI. They spent it on
protecting the profits of offshore companies. We want to invest it in
protecting the safety of our neighborhoods.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, Republicans and Democrats, were united on
this bill in the Appropriations Committee. Every Republican on the
Appropriations Committee joined Democrats in passing this bill because
it was common sense, the right investments, the right priorities. And
that's why when this amendment is offered again on the floor for a
vote, it will follow the same course and the same fate as every similar
amendment before it. It will be defeated, not just by Democrats, but by
Democrats and Republicans who understand that America would rather have
their neighborhoods patrolled by more cops than have the offshore
profits of companies at P.O. boxes in Bermuda protected by this small
group of Members.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. 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 Ohio will be
postponed.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Serrano) assumed the chair.

____________________