[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 121 (Thursday, July 26, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8650-H8675]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




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

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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. Price of Georgia:
  At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
following:

       Sec. __. Total appropriations made in this Act (other than 
     appropriations required to be made by a provision of law) are 
     hereby reduced by $750,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the chairman, and I'm pleased to come 
to the floor today and offer this amendment. And it's a little 
different vein and spirit than we've offered other appropriate fiscally 
responsible amendments for other appropriations bills, but it's 
similar. But I urge my colleagues to listen closely, because the nuance 
has changed greatly.
  Before I do begin, though, I want to make certain that any Member 
listening, or anybody who has heard the previous discussion and the 
assertion that the amendments that are offered by this group of 
fiscally responsible individuals can't even get a majority of our own 
conference, that's not true. But there's a lot of untruth spoken on 
this floor. For a significant majority of the Members of at least the 
Republican side of the aisle clearly support fiscally responsible 
amendments. I'm hoping and praying for the day that our friends on the 
other side join us in that.
  I do agree with my friends who spoke previously that this is about 
priorities. It is indeed about priorities. This amendment before us 
today would reduce the increase in the spending in this portion of the 
appropriations bills by $750 million a year, or $7.5 billion over 10 
years. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you remember that number, $7.5 
billion over 10 years, because it's there for a reason.
  But before I get into the specific reasons of that, I want to talk a 
little bit about the process and the disappointment that so many of us 
on this side of the aisle have in this process, and so the 
disappointment that many folks who have to be muted on the other side 
have in the process.
  There were grand promises of bipartisanship as we began this session 
of Congress earlier this year. And bipartisanship is the least that we 
have had on virtually every single issue. And I understand at the 
beginning the new majority felt that they had to move forward with many 
of their issues, and that's appropriate. That's appropriate. That's 
their due, given the results of last November.
  However, what we've seen recently has buried any guise of 
bipartisanship. And, in fact, the last 2 weeks have been astounding and 
actually point to more astounding activities over the next 10 days.
  The SCHIP bill, the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, which was 
adopted in a bipartisan way 10 years ago, is up for reauthorization; 
and now this new majority plans in a unilateral and anti-bipartisanship 
way to cut Medicare to aid State bureaucracies; cut Medicare and give 
that money to State bureaucracies in an anti-bipartisan way.
  The flood insurance bill we've got in the committee right now that 
passed last year never got through the Senate but passed the House last 
year. It passed, over 400 individuals to 4. And now we have in our 
committee today an anti-bipartisan bill that belies any attempt at 
bipartisanship by the other side.
  And then the farm bill that was alluded to by my good friend from 
Georgia just a little bit ago. This farm bill that's going to be on the 
floor apparently tomorrow or today, depending on when the majority 
decides to bring it, came out of committee virtually unanimously, 
virtually unanimously, both sides of the aisle, bipartisan. And yet 
over the past 24 hours what we have seen is an anti-bipartisan bill 
that puts in that bill a tax increase of $7.5 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, you remember the $7.5 billion that I mentioned before.
  So this amendment before us today is an amendment to reduce the 
increase from 3.1 percent over last year's bill to 1.6 percent. So it 
would take that reduction in the increase and would utilize $750 
million a year, or $7.5 billion to, attribute to the farm bill that 
would then make it so there wouldn't have to be any tax increases that 
my friends on the other side so love, but there wouldn't have to be any 
tax increases for that portion of the farm bill.
  This is a fiscally responsible way. This is the kind of flexibility 
that I believe our constituents desire when they ask Congress and they 
ask Washington to be responsive to their needs, to respect their 
pocketbook, to make certain that they are able to keep more of their 
hard-earned money and not be subject to the kind of remarkable tax 
increases that we've seen by the other side of the aisle.
  So I would encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment, utilize 
those extra monies that the majority is so adept at finding, make it so 
that the farm bill needs no tax increases whatsoever.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
15 minutes.

[[Page H8651]]

  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the chairman, and I'll be brief at the outset and 
intend to reserve our time for the conclusion of the debate.
  But we're here again to really talk about what the priorities of the 
Nation are and the competing philosophies of the bipartisan majority 
and the small minority that has taken to the floor here today.
  The value of the bipartisan majority is to invest in this country, to 
make sure that what we have been able to enjoy, the struggle and the 
sacrifice that our parents and their parents made, is a tradition that 
we continue in the sense that we want to leave an America that is 
stronger and that is safer than the one we inherited.
  And efforts like this, to cut our investment in law enforcement, to 
cut our investment in trying to keep our communities safe, our police 
officers safe, are very shortsighted.
  Now, we all believe that the budget has to be wrestled to the ground 
in the sense that over the last 6 years my friends in the Republican 
majority borrowed and spent into oblivion. We now have a massive 
national debt. As a result of that fiscal responsibility, we've got a 
problem on our hands that we need to wrestle to the ground, and we are. 
In the majority we have instituted pay-as-you-go rules, something that 
the prior majority, my friends in the GOP, were unwilling to do. That 
has been along the philosophy of when you're in a hole, stop digging. 
So we've stopped the digging.
  At the same time, we can't stop investing in our country, we can't 
stop investing in our future, we can't stop investing in the security 
of our neighborhoods; and that's what this bill is about.
  The cuts that my friends in the opposition are proposing here today 
have only one merit, and that is they're indiscriminate. They cut the 
top priorities along with the lower priorities, all at the same time.
  My friends in the, not the minority party, because frankly, we have a 
great many Republicans who have joined us. All the Republicans on the 
Appropriations Committee support the work product. But the minority 
that's speaking here on the floor today isn't willing to do the hard 
work and to say this is a high priority; we can't afford to cut it. 
This is a lower priority; maybe we can trim this here. No, they're not 
willing to do that. They're willing to say let's cut everything 
equally, the essentials with the non-essentials. And let's not raise 
the revenue we need to support our law enforcement by ending corporate 
welfare. They've been unwilling to do that.
  These are some of the philosophical differences we'll hear during the 
debate on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm going to reserve the balance of my time and look 
forward to an opportunity to address the House in a few minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm somewhat amused by my 
friend's comments. It brings to mind what I have come to describe this 
Congress as, and that is the Orwellian democracy that we see day in and 
day out. The accusation is that this side of the aisle spent too much 
money, so that side of the aisle is going to ``stop digging.'' Well, 
they're stopping digging to the tune of a 3.1 percent increase, 
billions of dollars of increase. So their response to don't spend that 
much is let's spend more. And that's where the Orwellian democracy 
comes in.
  And the accusation from the other side that comes, that says, well, 
you don't want to spend this, you're going to cut this program, you're 
going to cut COPS, you're going to cut programs that are vital to our 
Nation, it's kind of like having your child come to you and say, I'd 
like to have an increase in my allowance. And say they were getting $5 
a week. They wanted $10 a week, and you settled on $7.50 a week, and 
then your son or your daughter says, hey, you just cut my allowance by 
$2.50. That doesn't make any sense. But that's the argument. That's the 
argument on the other side.
  So we endeavor to have fiscal responsibility. We endeavor to be 
responsible with the hard-earned tax money of the American worker.
  I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from Virginia, 
the chief deputy whip, Mr. Cantor.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to just first respond. I rise in 
favor of this amendment and respond to some of the remarks that were 
made on the other side of the aisle.
  I think we can all agree that we must continue as a people to invest 
in our people, to invest in this country. All of us, all of us were 
elected by the constituents that we represent to leave an America 
stronger and more secure than the way we found it, stronger and more 
secure for our children and our grandchildren.
  The problem is here, every time we get a chance, every time we turn 
around, we seem to be raising taxes. There is no way that we can leave 
an America stronger or more secure if we somehow cut off the economic 
engine that allows us to continue to make the investments in our people 
of this Nation and in our security.
  There were remarks made about the national debt that we are now 
experiencing. Well, you know what? The national debt, frankly, is 1\1/
2\ percent of GDP. And from all corners, from the economists to the 
former Federal Reserve Chairman to the current Federal Reserve 
Chairman, that 1\1/2\ percent of GDP is a lot lower than it has been 
recently, and it is due to the very forward-thinking economic and tax 
policies that we have in place which reward risk-based investment 
which, frankly, don't shun the notion that we should empower the 
families and the businesses of this country so that they can take care 
of themselves.
  And you know what? The revenues in this Federal Government are up 
beyond that which we've seen before. That's the product of the economic 
policies. That's our key to success and security of this country.
  Now, as far as the pay-as-you-go rules that the majority has adopted, 
you know what that means? That means never cut spending, always raise 
taxes.

                              {time}  1400

  That is why we are here opposing this because, yes, this amendment 
allows us not to have to raise taxes to fund the expansion of the farm 
bill that the majority has proposed.
  Again, I would just ask my colleagues to support the gentleman's 
amendment because the bottom line here is what we are talking about is 
the difference between raising taxes and raising spending or somehow 
getting ahold of ourselves, applying some fiscal discipline so that we 
can show the American people that we hear them when they say there is 
too much waste and spending in Washington.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It has been said a couple times here today about money in people's 
pockets. And I would suggest that under the leadership of the Democrats 
and the Republicans, who have been great, on the Appropriations 
Committee, we are putting money back in the pockets of average American 
people.
  Only half of the people in my congressional district got a tax cut. 
Only half. And the ones that got it only got a couple hundred dollars. 
So when you look at the big tax cuts that supposedly went to people who 
live in Youngstown and Akron, Ohio, that was a couple hundred dollars, 
and you compare that with what we are doing with the Pell Grants, an 
increase of $500 or $600, that is going to people in my district. So we 
are already $400 ahead of the tax cut that the Republicans were so 
generous to give.
  When you look at cutting student loan interest rates in half, saving 
$4,000 over the course of a loan, that is money in the pockets of 
people who live in most of our congressional districts.
  And I am thankful for the concern for the American families, but I 
wish our friends on the other side, at least most of them, were around 
when we tried to give them a pay raise and increase the minimum wage. 
They are talking about taking money out of their pockets. We are trying 
to put money in their pockets. That is what we are trying to do here.
  And as the gentleman from New York made the point a few minutes ago, 
we are funding 2,800 cops. We can't pass police and fire levies in my 
district because the cities just don't have the money, and we don't 
have the local economy.
  The Federal Government does have a responsibility to make our streets

[[Page H8652]]

safer. That is what this bill does. That is what the chairman and the 
ranking member of the subcommittee have done. And that is why this 
amendment needs to go down. This is not the time to start cutting 
police officers going to our streets to make our communities safer so 
that we can grow our local economies.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to make just two quick points in response to my friend's 
argument that these are not real cuts, these are somehow imaginary 
cuts, and the illustration he gave of the allowance he gives his child. 
Two things, one factual and one philosophical.
  On the factual side, my friend's across-the-board cuts will mean very 
real, very direct, very incontrovertible cuts, less money now than the 
year before in many vital programs; not every program, but many vital 
programs including some I will point out in my friend's home State of 
Georgia, things that law enforcement in Georgia and around the country 
care a great deal about. Real cuts. We will talk about some of them.
  We can't hide behind an across-the-board amendment and say, we are 
not really cutting anything, because you are. Basically what you are 
telling your child in the allowance hypothetical is we are going to cut 
how much we are going to spend on your education, a real cut. We are 
going to cut how much we are going to spend on your health care, a real 
cut. Let's hope you don't get sick.
  One of my friends in the opposition, in support of this same 
amendment, last week said, American families are just going to have to 
make the decision, we can't afford to have each of our kids go to 
college. Maybe we will have to choose one child who won't go to 
college. Well, philosophically the bipartisan majority of this House 
doesn't accept that for America. We believe every child who is bright 
enough to go to college ought to go to college. The fact that his 
parents may be rich or poor shouldn't matter. And we are willing to 
make the investments in our colleges to make sure that no parent has to 
say this child can go to college and this one can't because we are not 
willing to make the investment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, once again I am amused by the 
comments of my good friends and colleagues on the other side.
  The fact of the matter is the departments that run these programs 
that we are addressing right here asked for $2.3 billion less than our 
good friends on the other side are proposing us to spend, which means 
that they believe they can accomplish the goals that have been given to 
them with $2.3 billion less.
  And they talk about all this wonderful caring they have for families. 
Well, the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation that they 
passed in their budget, about $2,700 per family, is a peculiar way of 
showing you are caring for the American family.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
minority whip, my good friend from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. I am pleased 
to be here as a part of this debate.
  I continue to hear as these debates go on that somehow these 
increases are not real increases, and I continue to be mystified by 
that. I think if my good friend from Georgia's amendment was approved, 
and I voted for his cutting amendment on each of these bills, if that 
amendment was approved, we would still have an increase in this bill of 
a little over 5 percent.
  Now, I don't know how that calculates out to not an increase, but I 
am continuing to try to figure out how that is not an increase. I do 
know that that increase of 5 percent anywhere that I talk to Americans 
is an increase. And I know, more importantly, in the course of today 
and tomorrow that what my friend from Georgia is suggesting is that if 
we let this one appropriations bill grow by 5 percent, as we move on 
later into the discussion of the farm bill, we would have saved enough 
money in this 1.4 percent cut not to have a tax increase that puts the 
farm bill in jeopardy.
  The farm bill is a bill that I voted for in the past and hope to vote 
for this year, but it is a bill that doesn't have to include a tax 
increase. But the $7.5 billion over 10 years that the farm bill needs 
could be gained right here if we would save $750 million of the 
increase in this bill.
  I just urge my colleagues to look at what we are doing here, realize 
that we are jeopardizing important things by moving forward in a way 
that spends more money than we have to spend this year.
  Most of these programs are good programs. I was a college president 
for 4 years. I believe in college education, in everybody having one. I 
don't believe that the reality is as stark as our friends on the other 
side would suggest. I believe a 5 percent increase used wisely would 
make all of these programs work effectively and for the American 
people, and we would be making the decisions we need to make for the 
other things we need to do.
  I support this amendment.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to my 
colleague from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It is very interesting and we need to continue to point this out: We 
had a measure within the first 100 hours we were here to cut $14 
billion from the oil company subsidies, and my friends on the other 
side couldn't find the courage to vote for that, but they want to do it 
on the back of these COPS programs in our local neighborhoods. Ninety 
billion dollars' worth of tax shelters, they didn't vote for that, but 
yet they want to cut COPS programs in our local communities. They had 
the opportunity to stop funding these huge tax cuts and subsidies to 
the oil companies, refused to do that for fear of alienation, and now 
they choose to do it on the backs of these programs.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  A couple quick points. Of course we hear the mantra from my friends 
on the other side of this bill's representing a tax increase when there 
is no tax increase in this bill. We have now heard the same statement 
applied to the farm bill. There is no tax increase in the farm bill.
  My friends seem to think that the corporate welfare that we provide, 
if you cut corporate welfare, that somehow we are increasing taxes on 
average Americans; if we do away with offshore tax savings, that we are 
somehow doing away with the income of ordinary Americans. But I think 
ordinary Americans would rather have the investment in our law 
enforcement. They would rather have safe streets than safe shelters 
overseas.
  And one point I wanted to make with respect to a comment that my 
friend from Georgia made. He said the departments here aren't even 
asking for the resources we are providing them. None of the agencies 
want the resources that they would be provided in this bill.
  Maybe my friend represents a very different district than my own, but 
I have never had police officers from my cities of Burbank, Glendale, 
or Pasadena come to me and say, Congressman, we have too much money for 
cops. We have too many cops on the street. We don't want any of your 
help. Thank you, but no thank you.
  Now, maybe things are quite a bit better in Georgia. Maybe there is 
no crime in Georgia, and maybe your police departments are saying, we 
don't need vests, we don't need cops, we are doing great, thank you, 
but no thank you.
  That is not what I am hearing. What I am hearing is they have got 
greater responsibilities in the war on terror. They have got higher 
gang violence. They need the resources. They need the people on patrol. 
That is what I am hearing.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, at this point I am pleased to 
yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
thank him for bringing this important amendment.
  Facts are stubborn things, Mr. Chairman. The CJS bill spends $53.6 
billion. This amendment would reduce that by 1.4 percent, but it would 
still allow for

[[Page H8653]]

an increase in the Commerce-Justice, and Science spending. With the 
passage of this amendment that is being characterized as a cut in the 
CJS budget, this bill still increases by nearly $1 billion compared to 
last year.
  And let me be clear on what we are trying to do, I think what the 
gentleman from Georgia is trying to do here, and that is we are trying 
to find a way to avoid having to raise taxes the way the Democrats are 
planning to do in the farm bill later today. I mean, the Democrat 
majority is planning to bring a $7.5 billion tax increase to the floor 
of the Congress in the context of the farm bill later today, and we are 
just trying to take this opportunity to make a cut in a single year 
that, if we did it over 10 years, we wouldn't have to raise taxes.
  Now, that is being characterized as the work of a small minority 
versus a bipartisan majority. At least they are not calling us a fringe 
this week.
  Well, I think if the small majority is the people that want to pay 
for increases in spending with budget discipline, and the bipartisan 
majority is the one that wants to pay for increases in spending by 
raising taxes, I am happy to be part of the small majority that I 
happen to think speaks for the overwhelming majority of the American 
people, who want this Congress to live within its means, who want this 
Congress in a bipartisan way to make the tough choices to put our 
fiscal house in order.
  I commend the gentleman from Georgia. I thank him for his vision. I 
urge passage of the Price amendment, because if it passes, it will lay 
a foundation where we will not have to raise taxes by $7.5 billion in 
the farm bill later today.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak on 
this matter, but the rhetoric has gotten my attention enough that I 
thought I should share with the American people as well as my 
colleagues my early experience in public affairs.
  I will never forget running for a school board, and people were 
talking about the Federal Government's beginning to get involved in 
education. I remember saying to those people, let us be very, very 
careful about going to Uncle Sam to finance our schools when 
traditionally that is the highest of State responsibilities, and they 
cooperate with local districts to provide for our schools and control 
them.
  Uncle Sam then gave only 10 cents on the dollar for education, and 
those who gave the 10 cents wanted to tell us more and more what to do 
in our local school districts.

                              {time}  1415

  All these years later, I must say it's like 50 years later, we 
continue to want to tell people what to do in their local schools, and 
we're now giving them 90 cents on the dollar. Those who are talking 
about free gifts for people who are providing for educational 
activities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, eventually the folks who 
are sending their children for school, one way they will pay for that 
education, one way or another. For you could, in those days, I'm not 
sure what the figure is now, but in those days you could take every 
family that made $100,000 or more, and anything above that $100,000, 
tax it 100 percent, and you could run the government for 30 days.
  The people are not stupid. They know, as you're playing games with 
them suggesting, oh, Uncle Sam has a free lunch here some way, the 
folks that you're talking to are having to pay the bills in the final 
analysis regardless, because all those rich people, you tax them 100 
percent, and they will not run your government more than 30 or 60 days. 
And who pays for the rest of it?
  Another point that is very important, in my view, the rhetoric that 
suggests that the Federal Government should do everything centers 
around the reality that the Federal Government has a responsibility to 
provide for the national defense, make an effort to provide security 
and freedom in the world, and then make sure our local government and 
our State governments are healthy. They are not healthy if you so 
discourage industry that they leave the country in order to be able to 
get their work done and produce the products that we need. Those rich 
oil companies that you're talking about, they're leaving the country. 
The light bulbs we were talking about earlier, they're all made in 
China. It's about time we recognize that Uncle Sam does not have every 
answer.
  I'm going to vote ``no'' on this bill, in spite of what the gentleman 
from California said earlier. I have the privilege of being the ranking 
member on the committee, but I'm going to be voting ``no'' because it 
is about $2 billion over the President's budget request, and the 
agencies around know they don't need as much money as you folks want to 
spend on them.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. You know, Mr. Chairman, we've had a game going on in this 
Capitol for the last 6 years. It's called ``Shift the Shaft,'' and 
nowhere is it more clear than in what has happened with law enforcement 
funding.
  As I said yesterday, we've had a Kabuki dance going on in this 
Congress for years. What happens is each year the President comes up 
with a budget. He's looking for things he can squeeze out of the budget 
to make room for tax cuts for millionaires. And so what does he do? He 
cuts the guts out of our assistance to local law enforcement, and then 
we wonder why the crime rate has gone up the last 2 years. He cuts the 
guts out of law enforcement, and then each year the previously 
Republican-controlled Congress comes in, they restore about one-third 
of those cuts, they say, oh, what good boys are we. Look at what we've 
done to help law enforcement. And at the end of that time, we're $1.5 
billion below where we were in 2001 in terms of our assistance to local 
law enforcement. Now, maybe that makes sense to some folks; it doesn't 
make sense to me, not with the explosion of meth problems all over the 
country, not with the explosion of drug problems.
  The prior Speaker of the House had a big thing about going after drug 
production in Colombia. We're spending hundreds and millions of dollars 
in Colombia, but we're not spending nearly enough money here at home to 
reduce the demand for those same drugs that are being produced in 
Colombia, and this amendment would cut that further.
  The same crowd talking is the crowd that didn't mind providing $600 
billion in borrowed money in order to finance that misbegotten war in 
Iraq. It's the same crowd that is willing to provide $57 billion in tax 
cuts to millionaires this year, paid for with borrowed money. But then 
they divert the public's attention from the cause of those on-the-cuff 
expenditures by saying, oh, we're going to focus a 1 or a 2 percent cut 
on law enforcement, a 1 or 2 percent cut on the National Science 
Foundation so we can get people to think that that's the problem that's 
causing the deficit and not our profligacy for the last 2 years.
  Now our friends on the Republican side of the aisle say, oh, we've 
got this terrible tax cut coming in the farm bill. Baloney. What we're 
trying to do in the farm bill is to increase support for domestic 
nutrition programs so that, in addition to having 44 million people in 
this country who are walking around without health insurance, we don't 
also have a lot more kids walking around who are hungry. And we're 
talking about paying for that not by raising taxes on middle-class 
Americans, but by closing the loopholes on offshore foreign 
corporations.
  Now, I'm not at all surprised that the Republican leadership cannot 
tell the difference between closing tax loopholes on special interests 
and raising taxes on the middle class. The difference is that on this 
side of the aisle we can, and that's why we're voting against your 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 15 seconds 
to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank my friend for yielding.

[[Page H8654]]

  I just want to clear up one thing. Let's clear the smoke out of the 
room here and put some facts in the discussion. The Clinton 
administration awarded the Halliburton contract. Mr. Cheney only 
extended it. The Bush administration only extended it after trouble in 
the Middle East broke out.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for his defense of the Vice 
President and Halliburton. I'm sure the Vice President has no 
connection, no history with Halliburton whatsoever.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains on each side?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I do want to point out that there 
isn't a corporation in this world that pays taxes that don't come from 
somewhere other than the back pockets of the American people. There 
isn't a single corporation in this Nation that doesn't pay taxes where 
that money doesn't come from individuals.
  Corporations don't pay taxes; it's passed through, it goes to the 
individual. So to say that any increase in taxes on corporations 
doesn't affect the American people is ridiculous. It's ridiculous. To 
talk about the oil companies that have their taxes increased, all that 
the majority has done is driven us to greater reliance on foreign oil.
  This amendment would decrease the increase of spending in this 
portion of the appropriations bill by 1.4 percent, $750 million a year, 
$7.5 billion over 10 years, in order to cover what the majority says is 
the desire and the need to have a tax increase for the farm bill.
  This is the kind of fiscally responsible spending and appropriations 
that the American people are demanding. They aren't interested in a 
government that is so large that it can take away everything that they 
need. They believe they can make better decisions with their money than 
the government makes with their money.
  And so we strongly urge our colleagues to adopt this amendment to 
avoid a tax increase on the farm bill.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for pointing out that corporations 
don't pay taxes. I don't think that's quite true, but that certainly is 
the aim of my friend from Georgia, and my friends in the majority have 
been working hard for that object for some time.
  I am happy to yield 30 seconds to my colleague from New York (Mr. 
Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentleman.
  I just want to shed some light on some of the rhetoric we've heard. 
Ripe from the committee report, FBI field investigative resources used 
for criminal investigative matters have decreased 29 percent from 
nearly 6,200 agents to 4,400 agents over the same period. The committee 
is concerned over the decline in FBI criminal investigative resources, 
particularly in light of the recent announcement by the FBI that 
violent crime in communities across the Nation, murders, robberies, 
forcible rapes and aggravated assaults, rose for the second straight 
year.
  Why would we want to cut the FBI $90 million when crime is 
increasing?
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for pointing out the cuts to the 
FBI and other law enforcement that would be occasioned by this 
amendment and others that my friends are offering.
  The cuts go deeper. They cross the board in terms of everything that 
the Justice Department does. My friend's amendment would cut funding 
for victims of child abuse. My friend's amendment would cut funding for 
the COPS program. It would cut funding for violence against women, 
victims of violence against women. But let's hone in on a very 
specific, because my friend says, well, these aren't really cuts. Let 
me talk about one program specifically that my friend's amendment makes 
a very real cut to, not artificial, not Orwellian, not imaginary, and 
that's bulletproof vests.
  Back in 2003, the Attorney General announced the Body Armor Safety 
Initiative in response to the failure of bullet-resistant vests. One in 
particular worn by a police officer in Pennsylvania was discovered that 
the xylan vests, when they were old and used, weren't stopping bullets 
the way they were supposed to, and so the Justice Department started a 
program to replace these vests.
  The COPS program funds an effort to provide vests for local police 
departments. That program has been very successful. In my friend's home 
State of Georgia, for example, he can pick any city, Alpharetta City, 
the program bought 40 new bulletproof vests for the police officers in 
Alpharetta City. Across Georgia, there were 1,100 of these xylan vests 
replaced that needed to be replaced.
  In the new COPS program that we're funding here, Alpharetta City got 
25 new bulletproof vests. Cherokee County got 293 bulletproof vests. 
Cobb County got 566 bulletproof vests. DeKalb County got another 240. 
Georgia, in total, just in this particular year, I think 2005, got 
4,789 new bulletproof vests.
  My friend's amendment makes a real cut to the number of bulletproof 
vests we can provide cops, not a decrease in the rate of increase, but 
makes a real cut. Under my friend's amendment, the cops in Georgia are 
going to get fewer bulletproof vests than they would get without it and 
than they got last year.
  Now, I can't go home to my district and tell the cops of Burbank, 
Pasadena and Glendale that I cut their funding for their bulletproof 
vests, but the indiscriminate nature of this amendment means that is 
exactly what it would do in my district, in my friend's district in 
Georgia.
  My friend from Colorado, who has an amendment, I'm sure, for another 
across-the-board cut, Fort Collins, Colorado, they got five vests. 
Greeley City got 53 bulletproof vests. Longmont City got 28 bulletproof 
vests. Colorado, in this particular year, got 3,900 new vests. These 
across-the-board cuts mean fewer bulletproof vests for cops in 
Colorado.
  My friend's amendment from Ohio, with even bigger across-the-board 
cuts, would be devastating in Ohio. Ohio, in this program, got 5,200 
new vests. So what is that going to mean? A 6 percent cut. That means, 
what, several hundred fewer bulletproof vests? Well, that may not mean 
much to us here, but if you're one of those cops that can't get their 
vest replaced and that vest isn't going to work so well against one of 
those assault rifles or one of those other heavy-caliber munitions 
they're facing out there on the street, it means a heck of a lot.
  And I don't know about my friend from Georgia, but I don't have the 
cops from my district coming to me and saying, we've got more money 
than we need. We don't need bulletproof vests. We don't need 
interoperable communications equipment. A lot of the cops out in the 
County of Los Angeles can't talk to each other because their 
communications equipment won't talk to each other. We fund that here. 
My friend's amendment cuts that here.
  How can my friends, not on the bipartisan majority, but in the 
minority that has expressed themselves here today, say they're for law 
and order, say they're standing behind the men and women in uniform, 
and then make real cuts to what we provide? Or, as my chairman points 
out, if you don't just look at last year, compared to last year where 
we didn't do very well by them either, but if you look at where we were 
in 2001, we're going backwards, not forwards. We're not even at where 
we were 5 years ago.
  This amendment is a mistake, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  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 just want to expand on the excellent 
debate and the points that have been made in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The fact is we are in a period of rising crime. In the last 2 years 
we have experienced a rise in crime. We are looking at an amendment 
that proposes an across-the-board cut.
  The first thing you all need to understand about this amendment is 
that it is indiscriminate. It doesn't look at what programs are being 
cut. It doesn't talk about cutting one program more because it's a 
lower priority or that program less because it's a higher priority, or 
excluding some programs from being cut because they are a tremendously 
high priority.
  My colleague just talked about State and local law enforcement. The 
previous amendment would have cut the

[[Page H8655]]

Justice Department by some $681 million. This amendment cuts the 
Justice Department by $335 million. Those are real dollars and real 
cuts to law enforcement. Those cuts translate directly to local law 
enforcement and the people that are actually fighting crime in the 
streets.

                              {time}  1430

  What the Federal Government has done to support those folks in the 
past is given them resources, as the gentleman just described. If you 
are the sheriff's department in rural America, or you are the chief of 
police in urban America, or if you are a local law enforcement 
coordinator, then you are hurt badly by this across-the-board cut 
amendment.
  The last amendment was a $45 million cut to State and local law 
enforcement. That means, as the gentleman just eloquently described, a 
large cut to our State and local law enforcement.
  I would like to describe another area of the bill that would be cut 
by this amendment. To emphasize how real these cuts are, let's look at 
NASA. We have acknowledged that NASA is not being funded at a level 
that allows it to meet its missions across the board. If you are at 
Glenn Research Center or the Ames Research Center, and you are out 
there listening to this amendment, you need to understand that across-
the-board cuts are going to mean significant things to your institutes. 
It means you are going to have fewer resources when right now you have 
a mission that you already lack resources to perform.
  Employees at Kennedy Space Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, 
Goddard Space Flight Center and Johnson Space Flight Center in Texas, 
or who live in the communities and depend on it will be impacted by 
this amendment.
  Science. This amendment would cut $79.7 million out of the science 
account. In this bill we tried to increase the science account so they 
will be able to do their missions.
  Aeronautics; $9 million. And out of exploration--Johnson Space Flight 
Center and Kennedy Space Flight Center ought to be really tuned in to 
this--$54.9 million.
  A total cut for NASA, Mr. Chairman, of $246.7 million. NASA is 
concerned about that. NASA says, and let me read, ``The consequence of 
these cuts is that NASA will not be able to make as effective or safe a 
transition to the new systems as originally planned. There will likely 
be significant workforce impacts as a result. Thus these budget 
reductions have ripple effects over many years due to the highly 
integrated nature of the shuttle and exploration systems. Many shuttle 
employees are at risk with these across-the-board cuts.''
  So, Mr. Chairman, this is just another reason of why we should be 
against these across-the-board cuts.
  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 yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise and with all due respect 
would ask my colleagues to simply read the amendment. The amendment 
states, total appropriations made in this act are hereby reduced by 
$750 million. That is not an across-the-board cut. That allows the 
agencies to determine where best they are able to absorb a decrease in 
the increase that they would be provided by this underlying bill. What 
we challenge with this 1.4 percent reduction in the increase is for 
each of those agencies to find 14 cents out of every $10.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that is what families do all across 
this Nation every day. So our priorities are the American family. Our 
priorities are the American family. We take our responsibility 
seriously to keep it fiscally prudent and fiscally responsible.
  Mr. Chairman, we believe this amendment moves us in that direction. 
We would urge our colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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 Georgia will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     employ workers described in section 274A(h)(3) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I bring before the House is an 
amendment that I brought on at least two other appropriation bills. The 
section of the Code that it addresses, 274A(h)(3), is the section that 
defines those who are not lawful to work in the United States. It 
includes two categories of people. It would be those who are unlawfully 
present and those who are lawfully present without work authorization.
  My amendment prohibits any of the funds that are appropriated under 
this act from being used to employ persons who are not lawful to work 
in the United States.
  It is a standard amendment that I brought in the past. Should the 
gentleman ask me to yield, I would be open to that, obviously.
  Meanwhile, the point that inspires me to come to the floor more than 
any other is a report that was released in June of 2006 by the Office 
of the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration that 
identified that approximately 11,000 employees were likely working for 
the government, 7 Federal agencies, 7 State agencies, and 3 local 
agencies, under nonwork Social Security numbers. All the Federal 
Government needed to do was run their databases against each other, the 
Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. 
They could have identified these employees.
  The category that I have described only includes those who are 
lawfully present but not authorized to work, but there is another 
category of those that are not lawfully present that this amendment 
would address, as well.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as we understand it, is 
merely a restatement of current law, which already prohibits the 
employment of unauthorized aliens. We don't read into it that it 
imposes any new burden on those who are using funds appropriated under 
the act. It is fully consistent with current legal obligations imposed 
on all employers, regardless of whether or not they use such funds.
  We would accept the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
chairman. I concur with the analysis that he has delivered to the floor 
of this House, Mr. Chairman. I would encourage adoption of my 
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 Iowa (Mr. King).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. 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 Mrs. Musgrave:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

[[Page H8656]]

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby 
     reduced in the amount of $267,755,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and a Member opposed each 
will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this discussion is becoming very familiar as we go 
through these appropriations bills. This bill is $2.2 billion over the 
President's request. That is a percentage of 4.2 percent. It is $1.6 
billion over last year's amount with an increase of 3.1 percent over 
last year. My amendment would take the increase from 3.1 percent to 2.6 
percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I have thought a lot about this. This has especially 
been on my mind today as we are getting ready to vote on the farm bill 
in the afternoon.
  When I think about raising taxes to pay for these programs, there is 
not anyone in here that is doubting the worthiness of the way we are 
spending dollars in this bill. I personally have a son-in-law that is a 
police officer, so when you talk to me about bulletproof vests, that is 
something that I think about when I think about the young man that is 
married to my daughter and the father of my three grandchildren. So I 
want to say these are worthy things that we are spending these dollars 
on.
  But we have to realize there is not an infinite supply of money that 
just falls out of the sky. We have taxpayers that fund all of these 
programs. And while the programs are worthy, and I support an increase, 
I merely want to take the increase from 3.1 to 2.6 percent.
  As we get ready to consider the farm bill today, during the markup of 
the farm bill I offered an amendment, and my amendment basically said 
we would have a sense of Congress that the programs in the farm bill 
would not be paid for by a tax increase. Unfortunately, the chairman 
ruled that my amendment was out of order and it was not germane.
  Yesterday, while we had a discussion with the Secretary of 
Agriculture over the farm bill, he said that perhaps Mrs. Musgrave's 
amendment was the most germane of all the amendments, because we are 
looking at an enormous tax increase to pay for the farm bill.
  In the Fourth District of Colorado, we have about 2 million cattle. 
We are eighth in the country in total value of egg production. We have 
an enormous dependence upon agriculture in our district. The whole 
northeastern and southeastern part of the State depends on agriculture 
as the basis of their economy.
  We were told all along during the farm bill discussion that we were 
not going to have a tax increase. In fact, if I may quote the chairman, 
when I offered my amendment, he said, ``Nobody is talking about a tax 
increase here.'' Now, today, we have the farm bill coming up on the 
floor, and we have a tax increase.
  I had to call the Farm Bureau today, my friends at the Farm Bureau. I 
talked to the Farmers Union. I talked to the wheat growers, the 
cattlemen, corn growers, telling the folks that now the rug has been 
pulled out from under us on this farm bill. We had an agreement. We no 
longer have an agreement. We are looking at a tax increase. Rural 
America, not just the Fourth District of Colorado, is looking in today 
to see what we do with the farm bill, and I am very disappointed that 
now we are looking at a tax increase.
  When we think about the taxpayer out there, just average Americans, 
they work clear up into April to pay their taxes. April 30 is ``tax 
freedom day.'' I would like to have each young person that is getting 
ready to enter the workforce think about that. You work all through 
January, you work through February, you work through March, you work 
through April before you get to quit paying for government. When you 
think about it, Americans work longer to pay for government than they 
do for food, clothing and housing combined.
  We need to show some discipline here, just a mere 0.5 percent. Again, 
increase the spending for these worthy needs, but take it from 3.1 to 
2.6 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado 
for yielding.
  As I listen to this debate, there are a number of things that race 
across my mind. One of them is the constant repetition of the 
statement, ``This is a real cut. This is a real cut.'' It is a real cut 
in a real big increase. So if you want to describe it as a real cut, 
you have to say a real cut in a real big increase or you're not telling 
the American people what is really going on here.
  There are a few areas of our budget that are discretionary spending, 
and there are a few areas of our budget that aren't discretionary 
spending. Those that are on auto pilot we can't do a lot about in the 
appropriations process. Yet those that are discretionary spending, we 
can do something about. Yet the majority seems to be determined to 
continue to accelerate the increases in spending in the discretionary 
sections of our budget. It is like you are driven to grow this 
government no matter the price to the taxpayers.
  So I have come in a realization here in the first 6 or 7 months of 
this 110th Congress: You guys really believe in what you do. I didn't 
think so before. I thought maybe there were some people who were a 
little cynical, but I believe now you really believe in what you're 
doing. I believe you really do want to grow this government. I believe 
you want to raise taxes. I believe you want to take the 
responsibilities off of all the people all the time and take it into a 
maternalistic, socialist government. I now believe that. You've 
convinced me. And you've been constant and you've been repetitive and 
you have been consistent and persistent in driving this growth of 
government across this floor of Congress.
  One day, the American people will rebel to this if they can get over 
their apathy. I'm for the Musgrave amendment.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to 
the Chair.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, now we have been accused of supporting a 
socialistic government because we want to put more cops on the street 
and because we want the FBI to have more resources to go after 
terrorists who are trying to destroy democracy. For that we are a 
socialist government, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think it is funny that we got the socialism 
talking points back out, Mr. Chairman. Dusted them from 1992 and 1993, 
and now they are back out. But this is exactly right, Mr. Israel. This 
is about putting agents, cops on the street. This is about national 
security. This is about protecting our country.
  Now, I think it is important that we get a little bit into the 
details on a couple of these programs that the gentlelady's amendment 
is going to cut and that the previous two amendments were going to cut, 
too, because I think it is easy for us to say you are going to cut cops 
and cut the FBI. It doesn't sound like a whole lot.
  But as the gentleman from New York stated earlier, there has been a 
decrease in FBI criminal agents by 29 percent from 6,200 to 4,400 
agents. So what the committee did, in all its wisdom in a bipartisan 
way, said we need to hire more people. For what exact programs? Well, 
why don't we take a look here.
  National security field investigations is one of the programs that 
would be cut under this amendment. Now, many of our friends on the 
other side of the aisle say, what, is the world going to end if we cut 
this by 0.5 percent? Is the

[[Page H8657]]

world going to end if we cut this by 1 percent? Is the world going to 
end if we cut this by 3 percent? Let's look at exactly what you're 
cutting. Just in this one little program, national security field 
investigations, the committee wants to hire 245 positions, 150 agents, 
95 support personnel to increase the level of field resources dedicated 
to national security investigations. This amendment will cut agents 
from being on the street protecting the United States of America.
  Let's look at another one, surveillance. This committee wants to hire 
another 50 people, 50 positions under the surveillance program to 
provide additional resources for the FBI to conduct surveillance in 
support of priority national security investigations. Do you think this 
isn't going to affect anything? There are going to be less agents 
investigating. There are going to be less agents listening to the 
terrorists who already may be in this country. This amendment will 
ensure that these agents don't get in the field, they don't get hired, 
and that they don't listen to what the terrorists are saying and 
hopefully protecting the United States of America from the next 
terrorist plot.
  This is a dangerous amendment that puts this country's security in 
jeopardy.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, before I reserve the balance of my time, I 
just remind the gentleman who accused us of being socialists that I 
think just about every Republican, including very conservative members 
of the Appropriations Committee, supported this bill. I don't believe 
they would appreciate being called socialists because they believe in 
cops on the street and more resources for the FBI. They are not 
socialists; neither are we. We are commonsense, mainstream Members of 
Congress who want to protect America's neighborhoods.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Musgrave 
amendment. I think it is the wise move to make. It shows good 
stewardship to come in and look at this budget and say, where do we 
slow the growth and how do we slow the growth?
  As we all know and as we have learned from so many of our States that 
have balanced budget amendments that have to curtail the growth of the 
budget, across-the-board reductions work. They work. And the reason 
they work is because you get to go in and manage. The Departments get 
to manage where they want to make those reductions. We all know you can 
make those half percent reductions. Mr. Chairman, they have been proven 
to work.
  The thing that is so very interesting to me is, even if this were to 
pass, making a half percent reduction and saving the taxpayers $268 
million, which is what Mrs. Musgrave is seeking to do, you would still 
have an increase. You would still have an increase in Science, 
Commerce, Justice spending. That would be there.
  But what we are seeking to do is rein in what the Federal Government 
spends. We can sit here and argue about the particulars of budgeting. 
We can talk about how baseline budgeting always sets us up for saying 
whatever is put on the table is a cut, and we can talk about how zero-
based budgeting might be a better approach to how the Federal 
Government goes about setting its annual budget.
  But one thing we know is this, that the liberal elites always want to 
come in and spend more. They never get enough of the taxpayers' dollar. 
We are seeing that this is proving to be the ``hold onto your wallet'' 
Congress. As I said last week when our friends across the aisle were 
calling us the ``fringe,'' FRINGE does mean ``fiscal responsibility 
includes no government excess.''
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, while they talk about cutting the increase, 
criminals keep increasing. There has been a 3.6 percent increase in 
violent crimes. We believe at least we should keep pace with those 
criminals so we can put them behind bars and bring them to justice.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, we had an opportunity within the 
first 100 hours to cut $14 billion from going to the oil companies. We 
supported it. Our friends on the other side of the aisle rejected that 
approach; they would rather take it out of security. So I think it is 
important we go back.
  My friend from Tennessee said where do we slow the growth. Well, we 
tried to slow it from going to the oil companies and we tried to slow 
it from going to corporations who harbor themselves in these far-off 
distant lands to avoid paying taxes. Our friends choose to take it out 
of security.
  Let's look at a couple more of these programs because sometimes the 
details hurt. Crimes Against Children, which is a program we have, the 
committee wanted to have an increase of 14 positions to provide a 
coordinated investigative, operational and intelligence effort to 
combat crimes against children and to address child abduction, 
predators who sexually assault children, and child prostitution. There 
will not be 14 positions to protect our children if this amendment 
passes.
  How about this one, weapons of mass destruction directorate. Sounds 
like a pretty good idea post-9/11, and in a bipartisan way it passed 
out of committee. Here is what it will do. The committee wants to hire 
146 positions, 29 agents, 69 support personnel, to develop the 
essential baseline capabilities to build a dedicated weapons of mass 
destruction program designed to prevent, prepare for, and respond to 
the threat of weapons of mass destruction. If this amendment passes, we 
are going to have less agents trying to find folks who are in our 
country trying to unleash weapons of mass destruction.
  How about the Data Intercept and Access program; 41 positions, 6 
agents, 35 support to provide the technical expertise, training and 
necessary equipment to execute lawfully authorized electronic 
surveillance of data network communications facilities trying to 
protect us. This bill has some essential components to it.
  This committee went to great lengths to make sure that they would 
make the proper investments. This is very well thought out. I think we 
would be hard-pressed to find any American who would read this and say 
no, you know what, we should not hire that many agents. We should give 
that money to the oil companies. I don't think there are many Americans 
who would say that.
  One more before I yield back. Render Safe Mission, the RSM program; 
nine positions, three agents, six support personnel to address the 
White House directive, the White House directive, giving the FBI the 
mission to respond to devices involving weapons of mass destruction 
within the United States and its territories. Within the United States. 
This is not about Iraq. This is not about Afghanistan. This is about 
funding nine positions in this one specific field, people who are 
experts to keep this country safe.
  I think the more we get into these programs, the more ridiculous some 
of these amendments seem. The American people would not support a 0.5 
percent decrease in these programs, not a 1 percent decrease in these 
programs, not a 3 percent decrease in these programs. These are 
essential.
  When you look at the money, Mr. Chairman, that has been wasted in 
Iraq on unbid, no-bid contracts, no oversight provided at all, when you 
look at the $14 billion we tried to get off the oil companies, that 
makes sense. Get that money. Don't get it on the backs of FBI agents 
who are going to be operating surveillance operations here in the 
United States.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady for 
yielding. I rise in support of her amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to tell a story for you and other people that 
might be listening about a gentleman who was a wide receiver for the 
Atlanta Falcons. His name was Alex Hawkins. One night he didn't come 
home. He had a history of maybe carousing around and staying out a 
little bit too late. He didn't come home one night, so he snuck in the 
door early the next morning, and his wife said, ``Hawk, where have you 
been?''
  He said, ``Well, I got in kind of late last night and didn't want to 
wake you

[[Page H8658]]

up, and I fell asleep outside in the hammock on the porch.''
  She said, ``Alex, that hammock has been gone for a year.''
  He looked kind of puzzled and he said, ``Well, Honey, that's my story 
and I'm sticking to it.''
  That is what the other side is doing. They have a story, and they are 
sticking to it.
  I want to give you, Mr. Chairman, a math problem. Other people who 
want to work this math problem can, too, but I want to give you a math 
problem. If you take $53.6 billion and you multiply it times 0.025 
percent, Mr. Chairman, will you get more than $53.6 billion? I think 
you will. I think it will be an increase over that number. So what this 
amendment does, it gives an increase over last year's spending.
  Now, did the FBI come in and say, We don't need any more money? I 
doubt it. So really and truly, if you want to take the kind of logic 
that the majority is taking because they can't do math very well, then 
the FBI could have come in and said, You know what? We want $10 billion 
more. Well, I can't give you that. So in reality, they are cutting the 
FBI from the request that they made even though they are getting more 
money.

                              {time}  1500

  Now, this is fuzzy math, I know, and, Mr. Chairman, for any young 
people that might be listening to this, I hope you don't get confused. 
I know all these speeches are somewhat, Mr. Chairman, like an algebra 
problem, but we are asking, this is an increase? It is an increase over 
last year for these FBI agents and these police officers. It is not a 
cut. I don't know how else to explain it.
  And, you know, I'm sure that Alex Hawkins knew that his wife knew 
that he was lying, but that was his story, and he's sticking to it. The 
same thing goes to the majority party.
  The sad part about this, Mr. Chairman, is when we're all going to 
realize the truth, and many of us realize it's the truth now, it is 
when the taxpayers of this country and those family budgets are getting 
judged.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue the math 
analogy and the math equation here.
  What do you get if you have a weapons of mass destruction directorate 
program that has 146 positions, and you cut that budget by .5 percent 
or 3 percent? Well, we won't get into the details, but you get less 
than 146 positions. That is a cut.
  What do you get if you cut the Render Safe Mission program that wants 
to hire nine people, and you cut that by 1 percent? You're going to get 
less than the nine people.
  Stop cutting national security.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I enjoyed the Hawkins 
story, but I think if we were going to apply that analogy here, it 
would be this.
  A police officer goes to you in your district office and says, 
Congressman, there was money in the budget for my bulletproof vest.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  Members are advised to address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I think the better analogy would be, the 
police officer goes to my friend and says, Congressman, there was money 
in the budget for my bulletproof vest. What happened to it? I don't 
have my vest.
  And the gentleman said, well, we didn't cut the money for your vest; 
you're wearing it. But the officer says, I've got no vest on. And the 
Congressman says, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.
  It may be a good story, but it doesn't protect him from bullets.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I'm a little confused 
by this debate. I'm not the most sophisticated person in the world, but 
if you have an increase, and then you decide to reduce the size of that 
increase, it's still an increase.
  You know, when you cut down to the chase, look, I think this is the 
question. Yes ask the American people, is the Federal Government so 
efficient, so perfect that it cannot absorb a slight reduction in the 
size of the increase, because it's so efficient that every single penny 
is used perfectly, and, therefore, a reduction in the size of an 
increase, oh, is devastating because we have such a perfect Federal 
Government that we can't even reduce the size of the increase?
  Now, again, I'm not real sophisticated, but back home, if you get an 
increase, or you say I want a 10 percent increase, and if you have a 
real job, a normal job like most Americans, and they go to their bosses 
and say, hey, I would like a 5 percent increase in my pay, and the boss 
says, I can't give you a 5 percent, I'm going to give you a 4\1/2\ 
percent, is that a cut in salary, or is that an increase in salary, but 
half a percent less than what you asked for?
  And again, if we thought that the Federal Government was so good, so 
efficient and so perfect that it can't absorb that, then don't support 
this amendment. But if you think that the Federal Government may be 
just a little bit imperfect, they might waste just a tiny bit of money, 
but maybe there's just a little bit of money that we could use 
elsewhere, then I would suggest, I'm not going to get into the rhetoric 
on the math, but again, if you think that the Federal Government could 
maybe absorb a little bit less of an increase, then this is a very 
modest decrease of the size of the increase.
  I thank the chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the last comments I think demonstrate that 
this debate is in danger of descending into something that resembles a 
high school debate, and we appear to be edging toward having a 
dictionary debate, arguing about whether something is a ``cut'' or an 
``increase''.
  With all due respect, in an adult world, that's not the issue. In an 
adult world, the question is what is the size of the problem you're 
trying to attack, and is our response to it sufficient?
  And with all due respect to those on the other side of the aisle who 
are objecting to this bipartisan product, with all due respect, we 
think we have a serious problem that requires a serious response.
  In the area of law enforcement, we have seen our support for law 
enforcement grants drop by $1.6 billion since fiscal 2001. That is 
almost a 36 percent drop. That isn't a dictionary problem. That's a 
problem on the street for every community in America.
  We also see at the same time we have a rise in the crime rate, which 
requires a response, regardless of our dictionary definition, and we 
also have an explosion of meth use. Have you ever seen how screwed up a 
kid can be after meth has gotten done with him? It's a god-awful sight, 
and I've seen plenty of it.
  So what we're trying to do is to have an adequate response, and the 
reason that we are having a significant increase in law enforcement 
funding this year is because we're trying to dig out from that hole 
that we've been put in since 2001 by these systematic reductions in law 
enforcement assistance, at the same time that the crime rate is rising.
  And then the second thing we are trying to do is to recognize that 
we're going to have a lot more people in this society in the next 10 
years. We're going to have a lot more low-paid workers all around the 
world from China to you name it competing with American workers for 
jobs, and we've got two ways to combat that. One is education, and the 
other is technology. And the only way we're going to stay on the 
cutting edge of technology is if we make much larger investments in the 
National Science Foundation.
  Politicians in both parties fall over themselves talking about what 
they're going to do for the National Institutes of Health, but I don't 
hear many discussions about what we're going to do

[[Page H8659]]

to provide support for the even more basic science research that is 
then used by everyone else in this society to determine what kind of a 
future we have.
  Without that investment in science, our economy lags. If our economy 
lags, our jobs lag. If our jobs lag, our wages lag, and that means that 
we wind up with a huge family income deficit. We wind up with a huge 
education opportunity deficit. We wind up with a huge scientific 
knowledge deficit, and that cripples our country's future.
  And that's why we're not going to engage in this silly little debate 
about whether something is an ``increase'' or a ``cut''. The question 
is, does it have a good impact or a bad impact on America? And this 
amendment is being sponsored by people who know the cost of everything 
and the value of nothing. That's the difference between us.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I ponder much of what the gentleman has 
just said. I certainly know about the scourge of methamphetamine in my 
district. As I said before, I have a son-in-law that I love dearly 
that's a policeman, so, Mr. Chairman, I hope the other side is not 
implying that we do not have concerns about these issues, because we 
do.
  Another thing that I know, having talked to many police officers, one 
thing that they would really like to see is families raising their 
children, moms and dads caring for their children, nurturing them and 
teaching them and trying to steer them away from the very destructive 
path of getting on things like methamphetamine and just seeing their 
lives spiral downward.
  So you know what I'm standing up for today, Mr. Chairman? I'm 
standing up for the American taxpayer. And, you know, maybe we do need 
a dictionary, and maybe we do need a thesaurus, and maybe we need to 
talk about semantics, but I want to say that we are looking at a 
situation here where the appetite is insatiable for increased spending. 
It's insatiable.
  There is a day of reckoning. You know those charts that my dear 
friends, the Blue Dogs, put outside their office now. It's not $8.8 
trillion. It's $8.9 trillion and growing. There is a day of reckoning. 
Those taxpayers that have to work until April 30 to get to tax freedom 
day, I mean, they're thinking about this spending in this Nation.
  No matter how worthy the cause, we need spending restraint. We need 
to get on a path of fiscal discipline, and the American people 
understand that. No matter how worthy the cause for the spending is, 
there is a limited amount of dollars that the taxpayers can afford to 
pay.
  So I'm hoping that we will move in the right direction, and I hope 
that we can have support for this modest 50 cents on $100 amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 5\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has exhausted her time?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. She has. Her time has expired.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I will just make a brief point and then 
yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  With the deepest respect to the gentlewoman, no one is implying that 
there is not concern by every Member of this body for those who have 
drug problems, for those whose lives are being ruined by meth. But you 
can't just wish these problems away. Somebody's got to take 
responsibility for working to end those problems.
  Just like you can't wish them away, you can't expect that they are 
going to be dealt with by cutting investments in antidrug programs or 
even cutting the rate of increase, if you want to use the other side's 
terms.
  We've put $40 million in this bill for mobile enforcement teams for 
antidrug programs; not mobile enforcement teams in Iraq, mobile 
enforcement teams right here at home to help the gentlewoman's 
constituents with those problems, to provide for a better future. We're 
investing in that future. We can't just wish these problems away. 
You've got to respond to them, and that's what we are trying to do.
  Now, if the other side made the argument that we could cut giveaways 
to big oil companies and cut offshore tax corporate giveaways and cut 
all this corporate welfare and then cut these important criminal 
justice programs, then their arguments would have more credibility. 
Their arguments lack credibility because they're saying we can afford 
all these corporate giveaways, but we can't afford enforcement teams on 
drug abuse, we can't afford more cops on the street while crime is 
increasing, we can't afford counterterrorism initiatives and extra 
agents at the FBI while al Qaeda is planning against us.
  This is just a difference in priorities, Mr. Chairman. We are strong 
on crime. We also understand that if you're going to be strong on 
crime, you can't just say it, you've got to do it, and frankly, it 
takes investments to do it.
  That's what this bill does, and that's why every Republican on the 
committee supported this bill when it was in the committee, and that's 
why this amendment will be defeated by Republicans and Democrats alike.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I just 
want to go through a little bit of the details here and some of the 
logic and some of the facts.
  There's been an increase in crime. There's been an increase in 
methamphetamine use. So the committee said, as Mr. Obey stated, in 
reaction to that, we're trying to, we'll do the southwest border and 
methamphetamine enforcement program, hire eight positions, four full-
time equivalents, in order to attack a poly-drug-trafficking 
organization located along the southwest border by increasing DEA's 
intelligence gathering, detection monitoring and surveillance 
capabilities. Most of the methamphetamines coming into our country are 
made in California or in Mexico, out West, very close to the 
gentlewoman's district.
  What this program does is it hires people to try to address this 
problem, and basically there's been a DEA hiring freeze.

                              {time}  1515

  We want to increase this. We want to spend money, invest in this 
program, one, because we will allow the DEA to hire more agents to 
address this issue that is growing, so you need to grow the agents that 
are going to address the issue.
  But, two, this is going to save us money in the long run. When Mr. 
Obey says the price of everything and the value of nothing, that's what 
we're talking about. Why wouldn't we want to make this small investment 
to try to prevent the long-term consequences of these young people with 
drug treatment, in prison, with insurance claims, this has a long-term 
ripple effect that will cost us 10 times the amount of money.
  Finally, the gentlelady said, I hope you don't mean to say that we 
don't want to address this issue, or this issue isn't important to us. 
I think it's important to note that the President's budget, when he 
submitted it to the Congress of the United States, terminated this 
program. He cut it completely. He zeroed it out.
  I hope our friends on Capitol Hill will take a walk down Pennsylvania 
Avenue and let the President understand the kind of importance that 
this program has and ultimately the amount of money that will save us.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. 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 gentlewoman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


         Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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. 37 offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
       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

[[Page H8660]]

     required to be appropriated or otherwise made available by a 
     provision of law is hereby reduced by 0.05 percent.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, in listening to all this 
discussion, I have to think that the taxpayers of America have to 
wonder what's going on here, that in this bill there has been a 
proposal to say, well, we'll let these government agencies spend 100 
cents on the dollar, 100 percent of everything they had last year. Oh, 
it's terrible, we can't do that.
  Then there was one at 102 percent of what they had last year. No, we 
can't do that. Then there is one at 102.5 percent of what they had last 
year. No, it's terrible. They can't do that.
  So here's one more try. What this does is reduce the increase in 
spending by .05 percent. That is 5/100 of a percent. That leaves them 
with a whole lot of money and a lot more of an increase, almost the 
same increase they had last year.
  Now, I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that the people of America can't 
understand why people on other side of the aisle, the majority 
Democrats, would have a problem with this. I can't understand it 
either.
  I think perhaps they don't understand what this is. Now, this 
amendment would save the taxpayers $27 million. Now, that's real money, 
$27 million, by which the deficit will not increase. We have a deficit, 
and we are robbing the Social Security surplus. It's $27 million we 
would save the taxpayer.
  I have five explanations, five examples I would like to give here to 
perhaps help my friends on the other side of the aisle understand just 
what this proposal is to see if there is anything, anything at all that 
they believe is possible to reduce spending. Is there any waste in 
government?
  Is there anything government can do for only 103 percent of what they 
had last year? First of all, this does take the spending increase from 
3.5 percent to basically 3.45 percent, basically the change in the 
interest. That's number one.
  Number two, it still increases spending in these Departments by 
$1.574 billion over last year, $1.574 billion more.
  Let me give a third example. This is a $100 bill. This represents how 
much the government is spending on these programs now. Here's three 
more dollars and five cents. This bill represents this bill as it's 
currently written, the $100 they had last year, three more and five 
more cents. Here, Mr. Chairman, is how much the government would have 
to get if this amendment were to pass, $100, $3, but not the 5 cents; 5 
cents on $103. Somehow this is going to greatly damage programs and 
what we are doing.
  Let me give a fourth example. The gentleman from Ohio mentioned in 
the last debate a particular function that he said would have 245 
agents under their bill as proposed. If this amendment were to pass, 
how many agents would there be? Well, there would still be 245 agents, 
but you would have to tell one of those agents that they would only 
work a 7-hour day instead of an 8-hour day. That is the significance of 
this bill.
  Now my final example, if we look at the entirety of this blue donkey 
as a complete government program as proposed by my friends on the other 
side of the aisle, we have seen a proposal already to have 99 percent.
  Now, when you look at them, you may say, well, gosh, they look almost 
the same. That's because they are almost the same. I don't know if you 
or others can see the change we made, but what we did was we tried to 
reduce about 1 percent of the total donkey surface area up in the air, 
but, no, that's been rejected.
  So we said let's make it 99.5 percent of what you want to spend, 
still an increase over the last year, but of what you want to spend a 
little more here. There is still not much difference, I think, to most 
people, but, no, can't do that.
  So on the last bill I proposed a quarter of a percent cut. Quarter 
percent. Could you get by on quarter of a percent less of an increase 
than what's been proposed? That was ``no'' also.
  Now we are trying again, 5/100 of 1 percent. Let me try to do that 
graphically here. I do have a blue marking pen, 99.95 percent of the 
increase that you want, you can hardly tell the difference. But if we 
do this on every bill, every bit of spending over the government, we 
will eventually start to save money.
  This is the way it works. The average American taxpayer understands 
that, that if I put away $10 a week, $10 a month, eventually I will 
have quite a bit of money. But I have to have the discipline to do it. 
That's what we are trying to say here.
  We have a deficit. We are robbing the Social Security surplus. One 
thing that is not in dispute is that we are heading for a fiscal train 
wreck. Within 30 years, Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid alone 
will eat up 100 percent of the taxes currently received. What are we 
going to do? Are we going to double or triple taxes, or are we going to 
reform those systems, reform government and start now?
  Yes, it's 30 years from now, but if we don't start on it now, the 
problem will be closer and bigger and closer and bigger. We see that if 
the other side is not willing to do this, what will they do, other than 
increase taxes?
  Now, we see tax increases going on now. We have seen a budget that 
includes either the largest or the second largest tax increase in 
American history, and right now we are seeing tax increases proposed by 
the Democrat majority on minority groups, on smokers, they are a small 
minority group. Then just this evening we will probably have one on 
foreign companies who are setting up businesses and creating jobs in 
America.
  Now the other side I know says, oh, no, that's not a tax increase. I 
would like to read you a letter here. This is a letter from Bart 
Gordon, who is a Congressman from the Sixth District of Tennessee, a 
Democrat, to the chairman of Ways and Means, and he says: ``Concerns 
have been raised by Bridgestone America, a company with facilities in 
my district, about the impact the proposed Farm Bill offset would have 
on them. Bridgestone is concerned that the 30 percent withholding tax 
imposed by the proposal would have a broad and negative impact on its 
legitimate international business operations.
  ``I understand the importance of ensuring that multi-national 
companies are not able to abuse tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes, 
but we must also be careful not to punish legitimate business practices 
and discourage foreign companies from insourcing operations in the 
United States. Concerns have also been raised about the effect this 
withholding tax will have on our international treaties.''
  That, Mr. Chairman, is a Democrat, not a Republican, talking about 
this tax, this withholding tax. It's a potential impact on jobs in 
America and the potential impact on trade agreements we have with other 
countries that will affect the ability of American companies to do 
business overseas.
  Now, it's quite a contrast, because that's what they are proposing. 
The majority keeps proposing tax increase after tax increase after tax 
increase, and they will start on minority groups, and they will move to 
everyone, because they can't get it done without everyone. All we're 
asking here, all we're asking here is 5/100 of a percent, one nickel on 
$100, a slightly less increase so we can begin the process of spending 
less, not taxing more.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 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, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from California.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been sitting here listening for a while to the 
debate on this bill, and I have been struck by several issues that have 
come up that I think need to be mentioned. Some have been mentioned 
before, but some new ones.
  I am often asked by school groups what's the difference between 
Democrats and Republicans? I say to them

[[Page H8661]]

the very quick definition is Democrats think they know how to spend 
your money better than you know how to spend your money. Republicans 
think that the less government we have, the better off we are; and the 
more money you are allowed to keep, the better off this country will 
be. I think that this debate certainly exemplifies that.
  I agree with some of my colleagues who said before, the appetite of 
the Democrats is absolutely insatiable for increased spending. They 
never met a program they didn't love to spend money for. They would 
take every dime. They will take every dime, every penny from the 
American people that they can possibly take and spend it on programs 
they think are important.
  They talk about investing government money. The government never 
invested any money. It spends money. The private sector invests money 
and gets results.
  I would challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Show 
me the results of these spendings that you do, and then maybe you can 
argue a little bit about an investment.
  The other thing that I am struck by is how much last year in this 
same debate that the Democrats said the free-spending President Bush, 
busting the budget, doing all this spending; and now they are coming 
here and defend programs that the President zeroed out because they 
were ineffective, and they want to put the money back in.

                              {time}  1530

  That is the height of hypocrisy. There is a limited amount of money 
that Americans have, but the Democrats don't know that. They want to 
take it all. And it is true that the budget they passed earlier this 
year contains the largest or second largest tax increase in America, 
and that to pay for their programs they are going to have to have more 
tax increase.
  This amendment would save a small amount of money, $27 million, but 
it is a step in the right direction. We have got to start reining in 
spending, and those of us who have come here in the last few years 
understand that, those Republicans do, and we want to see the Federal 
Government more responsive to the American taxpayer, less profligate, 
and more interested in saving our freedom, not in taking it away by 
taking away our money and reducing our choices.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, it warms my heart to know that the 
gentlewoman in her district visits schools and talks to local 
schoolchildren, and emphasizes those values of civility and tolerance 
and mutual understanding in our classrooms, and doesn't try to separate 
people by Democrats and Republicans.
  I hope that the next time the gentlewoman goes into those schools and 
talks to those schoolchildren, and they ask her, Mr. Chairman, ``What 
are you doing to keep us safe from al Qaeda and the terrorists who are 
planning against us,'' that she will say to them, ``My proudest moment, 
young children, is that I cut the FBI budget by 0.05 percent, while 
approving tax cuts of $14 billion to the biggest oil companies on 
Earth.''
  I think those children would rather be investing in the FBI to keep 
them safe than be giving away those billions and billions of dollars in 
tax cuts to the biggest oil companies in the America.
  I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, as to how 
much time is remaining on both sides?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. McGovern). The gentleman from California has 
2\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York has 13 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, this has obviously been a spirited debate by men and 
women on both sides of the aisle who I respect. But I do think if the 
American people are watching this debate, and I hope they are, we need 
to dispose of one issue very clearly, and that is there is indeed a 
dictionary over on that part of the floor, and every amendment that was 
brought here today is either going to increase spending in this account 
or level funding. But according to the logic of our friends on the 
other side of the aisle, if you fund something at a lesser quantity 
than somebody else wants it, then you have a Draconian cut. Well, if 
they are increasing this bill 3.1 percent, that is a cut below 3.5 
percent. It is a cut below 4 percent.
  If all these programs are so good, why did you cut them? Why didn't 
you increase it 6 percent? Why didn't you increase it 8 percent? So 
let's dispose of that argument right now.
  Again, the only budget that is being cut here, Mr. Chairman, is the 
family budget. And the family budget is being cut as part of this 
single largest tax increase in American history contained in the 
Democrat's budget resolution, which I know they tried to run away from. 
Now, they said earlier that: We know the cost of everything and the 
value of nothing. Maybe they need to know the value of hard-earned 
paychecks in American families.
  So they need to think about the Zapata family in Kaufman, Texas, 
because when they put their tax increase on them, let me tell you what 
the Zapatas have to say. ``If taxes on my family are increased that 
much, this could seriously affect my life. My mortgage is adjustable 
and will most likely go up. If the taxes go up, it would be 
devastating, and I could face foreclosure.''
  They don't know the value of the paycheck to the Brooker family in 
Wills Point. ``No increase in taxes. My family is one breath away from 
losing our home as it is.''
  Those are the budgets that are being cut today, Mr. Chairman, not 
only by the single largest tax increase in American history, but they 
are about to bring a tax increase to try to fund their farm bill by 
taxing jobs. They are saying somehow foreign companies are evil when 
they come to America and they invest and create jobs, in my district 
among other districts.
  So there is a real choice here: Increase the family budget, or 
increase the Federal budget. We come down on the side of the family 
budget.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank my 
colleague from Texas for reading a letter from constituents out in the 
State of Texas. But I wonder how that family in Texas would feel if 
that family were asked: Do you think that we should continue to allow 
oil companies to earn the greatest profits in the history of any 
industry, in the history of the world? Or, do you think we ought to 
take some of those oil revenues and devote them to putting more cops on 
the street? I think that family would say, ``You know, I would be 
willing to pay a little less at the pump or have the oil company earn a 
little less at the pump if it meant pumping a little more of that money 
into the FBI to keep me safe, or if it meant another bulletproof vest 
for a police officer.'' I think that family would say the record 
profits of that industry, that we had a chance to actually take some of 
those resources and plow it into this country, invest in this country, 
I think that family in Texas would say, ``That means more to me than 
making sure that these companies enjoy corporate welfare and astounding 
profits.''
  Now, my friend says this is only a $31 million cut. How much 
difference could that really make? But my friend isn't willing to say 
where he would cut the money. He wants to spread it around. But he used 
the example of the FBI. Let's say we devoted this entire cut to the 
FBI, and it simply means that you would have one FBI agent working a 
few less hours. Instead of working maybe an 8-hour day, 5 8-hour days, 
they would work 4 8-hour days and a 7-hour day. Well, I don't know how 
much they are paying FBI agents in my friend's part of the State; I am 
from a different part of California. I don't think they pay them all 
that much. I think if you cut $31 million out of the FBI, you are 
cutting a lot of positions out of the FBI.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, will my colleague yield?
  Mr. SCHIFF. My colleagues have already had 15 minutes.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Just to answer your question.

[[Page H8662]]

  Mr. SCHIFF. I am not yielding my time. My colleague had 15 minutes to 
try to make his point.
  So I don't think cutting $31 million out of the FBI makes sense. And 
this gets back to the question that our Chairman posed: What is the 
need? And are we devoting the resources that meet that need?
  The need that I am hearing, the need that our Homeland Security 
Committee is hearing, the need that the 9/11 Commission recognized is 
the need to make greater investments in the safety of our country. That 
is the need that we are recognizing in this bill.
  Do we need those extra FBI agents? Yes, I think we do. Do we need 
those extra cops on the beat? Yes, I think they do. I wish my friends 
in the opposition who fight so hard for our friends in the gun industry 
would fight half as hard for our cops to have the best that they need 
here in this debate on the House floor today.
  I think we need to make these investments in our future. I think we 
need to make these investments in our American family. And, I think 
that my colleagues in the minority here, not in the minority party, 
because, again, this bill enjoys the support of the bipartisan 
majority. But the minority viewpoint that is expressed here today, I 
think they need to ask: What would these families choose, if we give 
them the real choice, not between whether they invest in the FBI or 
they don't invest in the FBI, but whether they invest in the FBI by 
ending corporate welfare for oil companies? I think the answer would be 
yes. I think the answer would be absolutely. And I think the answer 
would be, we want to invest in the country, make it stronger, make it 
safer, give our children a chance to grow up in safer neighborhoods.
  That is the answer I think that letter writer and others around the 
country would give and have given, and that is why I urge this 
amendment to be defeated.
  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. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.
  I just wanted to clarify that my colleagues' arguments from 
California were very fine arguments, except they don't apply to this 
amendment. This amendment does make a 0.0005 or 5 basis points, one-
five-hundredths of a percent reduction in the growth of each program 
equally across the board. So it is 5 cents on $100 of everything.
  I appreciate the argument. It is clear that our friends on the other 
side of the aisle believe that government cannot survive on this, but 
they believe that all kinds of people, companies, entities can survive 
on a whole lot less than that with the taxes they want to increase. It 
is a very clear distinction, Mr. Chairman, between 5 cents on $100 
across the board on every program, which I think would be fine, versus 
all of the various tax proposals, increase proposals, that you have 
both on various minorities, like smokers and foreign companies, and in 
your budget on basically every taxpayer in America.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Again, I would just point out that my friend hasn't shown any 
willingness to trim the profits of his friends in the oil industry by 
0.00000005, which would amount to probably about the same $31 million 
we are talking about here. He is only willing to take that $30 million 
out of our law enforcement efforts across the board, but not out of oil 
industry profits. And that is the difference in philosophy, I think, 
between my colleague and myself.
  MR. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, during this debate we have seen all sorts 
of charts and heard about all sorts of numbers and saw a display of 
dollars. Here are the statistics that count, Mr. Chairman:
  The past 2 years, violent crimes in America are up 3.6 percent. 
Federal law enforcement grants have declined 46 percent. So, under 
their leadership, Mr. Chairman, Federal support for local law 
enforcement has already been cut 46 percent; now we are saying we 
should cut it another five-hundredths of a percent.
  FBI counterterrorism casework is up 100 percent. Meanwhile, FBI 
investigative resources are down 29 percent.
  So what we have here, Mr. Chairman, is more criminals on the streets, 
and an attempt to reduce investments in cops on the streets. What we 
have here, Mr. Chairman, is a bigger caseload of potential terrorists, 
and the FBI being told, ``Shave your budgets.'' That is how far some 
ideologues will go, Mr. Chairman.
  I can't imagine any American watching these proceedings, and then 
hearing the news, learning about the National Intelligence Estimate, 
which says that al Qaeda is proliferating and regenerating, and saying, 
``Now is the time to cut the FBI budget,'' or, ``Now is the time even 
to reduce increased investments in the FBI.''
  Al Qaeda is not cutting the rate of their increase, Mr. Chairman. 
Terrorists are not cutting the rate of their increases, Mr. Chairman. 
This is not the time to begin cutting these budgets.
  The other side is talking about specific reductions in the number of 
FBI agents on counterterrorism cases. They are talking about a specific 
reduction in the number of deployments of cops on the street; crime 
going up, Federal law enforcement grants going down. There is a 
correlation between the two. And now we add insult to injury by saying, 
let's cut it another 0.05 percent, or one-five-hundredths of a percent.
  I want to close, Mr. Chairman, by reminding the Chairman and the 
American people through the Chairman that this debate really isn't 
about one-five-hundredths of a percent; it is about what priorities 
make sense to the American people: $14 billion tax cuts to the biggest 
oil companies on Earth, or 2,800 cops on the street; $90 billion in tax 
shelters for offshore companies that register their headquarters in 
Bermuda to avoid paying their fair share of taxes here, or more cops on 
the street?

                              {time}  1545

  The gentleman talked about a family in his district. I don't know of 
any family in my district that gets to sit at their table, their 
kitchen table with their accountant and be given the advice that they 
should register themselves at a P.O. box in Bermuda to avoid paying 
their fair share of taxes in the United States. You know what they want 
for their tax dollars? Cops on the street, FBI agents protecting them. 
That's what they want. They don't have the right to just go off to 
Bermuda, register themselves at a P.O. box and not pay taxes.
  We understand that every tax dollar has to be jealously safeguarded, 
and that's what we do in this bill. The difference between us is not 
one-five-hundredth of a percent. The difference between us is $90 
billion. They would rather spend that $90 billion on those offshore 
companies with P.O. boxes in Bermuda. We would rather spend a fraction 
of that making sure that there are cops on the street, that kids are 
protected from meth, that women don't have to deal with domestic 
violence, that they can be prosecuted, that the FBI has counter-
terrorist agents, that they have investigative resources. Because as I 
said before, all the statistics bear it out, crime is increasing. 
Terrorists are proliferating. They are not cutting their budgets. They 
are not cutting their numbers. They are not even cutting their rate of 
increase. And we should not turn our backs and allow them this 
advantage, their advantage in the name of a one-five-hundredth of a 
percent cut in this budget.
  This isn't substance. This is politics. And if it weren't so serious, 
it would be silly.
  We want cops on the street and counter-terrorist agents with the FBI. 
That's what the American people want. That's why every Republican on 
the Appropriations Committee supported this bill. And that is why, at 
the end of this debate, we go back to where we were at the beginning of 
this debate.
  This is a small group of Members, a fringe group of Members who say 3 
percent's not enough, 2 percent's not enough, 1 percent's not enough. 
We're going to go to one-five-hundredth of a percent to make our case.
  Every single one of those amendments has been defeated on every 
single one of these bills because Republicans and Democrats in the 
mainstream know better. We understand the priorities of the American 
people. And

[[Page H8663]]

that is why this amendment will face the same fate as all the other 
amendments before them. It will be defeated.
  And Mr. Chairman, let me make one other point. With all due respect 
to my friends, they have spent more taxpayer dollars prolonging this 
debate offering amendment after amendment after amendment, keeping this 
House in session when every single one of these amendments was 
defeated, than the one-five-hundredth of a percent cut that they're 
offering today.
  I would suggest to the other side that they could save taxpayers a 
lot more money by doing these amendments once, getting them over with, 
let them get defeated as they always have, and let this Congress go on 
with the business of the American people and putting cops on the street 
and investing resources in the FBI to keep them safe.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. 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 California 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Conaway

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Conaway:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. It is the sense of the House of Representatives 
     that any reduction in the amount appropriated by this Act 
     achieved as a result of amendments adopted by the House 
     should be dedicated to deficit reduction.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, in the immortal words of Doc Holiday in 
Tombstone, ``Our hypocrisy knows no bounds.'' Both sides equally 
applied.
  The arguments earlier that half of a percent cut, 5 basis points of a 
cut, as if that's some sort of a draconian decision to be made, the 
truth of the matter is the committee, the subcommittee had a fixed 
amount of money to work with, and they chose to make some trade-offs. 
They chose to fund more here and less here, more here and less there. 
But none of those decisions that they made were couched in the terms of 
some sort of mean spiritedness.
  And at the risk of prolonging the debate, which I think is an 
important debate for us to have, I'm going to offer up an amendment 
that I know has a point of order which stands against that.
  Before I do that though, I'd like to quote something from Justice 
George Sutherland. A lot of us heard earlier about the way tax planning 
is done, used, misused, and it was used in the pejorative; that only 
big oil companies or other companies could use the code that we 
currently have in place, that you and I and our colleagues put in 
place, to affect their tax affairs and that families don't get to do 
that. Well, I would argue based on this quote: ``The legal right,'' and 
that's a right, ``of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what 
otherwise would be his or her taxes, or altogether avoid them by means 
which the law permits, cannot be doubted.'' Gregory v. Helvering, 
Justice George Sutherland.
  So as we listen to this debate about how much we ought to spend, 
let's understand that we put in place this code, and if we don't like 
the way that's done, then there are forums to debate that, and we ought 
to have that debate. But let's not denigrate people who are using the 
code we put in place to lower their tax liability and call that some 
sort of a pejorative.
  This is the classic argument that you cannot throw enough money at 
any subject to fix it. And that's what we heard from the other side; 
that the more money you throw at it, the more you're going to fix the 
problem. And I don't necessarily agree with that.
  My colleagues on the other side used the word ``take'' in reference 
to revenues from oil companies, and that's exactly what they would 
intend to do. They would take those revenues and spend them the way 
they would like to. Legitimate way of doing government.
  I'll also argue that in the next 2 weeks we may have some sort of a 
conversation about an energy bill, and during that time frame we will 
argue vociferously that there's enough in reinvestment in domestic 
sources of energy, and those revenues taken from these mean, ugly oil 
companies would otherwise go back into that reinvestment into energy.
  So, as I mentioned, our hypocrisy knows no bounds.
  My amendment is simple. All of this great work that's been done, and 
bad work according to our colleagues on the other side, or wasteful 
work according to our colleagues on the other side, to try to reduce 
spending in the bill is for naught.
  In addition to the ringing defeats that my colleagues endure, were 
they to be successful, the rules of this House do not allow those cuts 
to actually be implemented. If my colleague had actually won the 
argument that we could trim 5 cents out of $100 out of this budget, 
whichever budget, that money would still get spent. The money that 
stays within the 302(b) allocation, which is code for inside the 
beltway stuff, but then would simply not get spent. And so we've spent 
hours and hours and hours down here debating, trying to reduce the 
spending in a particular bill.
  The harsh reality is that were we to win some of those amendments, it 
would simply be a piratic victory, because that money would still get 
spent.
  My amendment, sense of Congress, would say were we to win one of 
those arguments, that money, the reduction in spending would actually 
go against the deficit, or, heaven forbid, that we would ever be in a 
surplus circumstance, that money would increase the surplus.
  So this is something I'm trying to point out on each one of our 
bills, that we've got a goofy set of rules that only you and I 
understand, only you and I appreciate, and maybe only appropriators 
embrace, that does not allow all of this hard debate and work to really 
mean anything at the end of the day.
  And so while I challenge my colleague's characterization of our use 
of this debate time as wasteful in some way, I think it's important for 
the American people to understand as they go about managing their 
affairs that we couch the terms of managing our affairs, their affairs 
through us, in those kinds of terms.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I understand that a point of order lies against 
this, and I will not prolong the debate much further. 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. Garrett of New Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. 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. Garrett of New Jersey:
       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 to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more 
     than 50 employees from a Federal department or agency at any 
     single conference occurring outside the United States.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield a moment to the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

[[Page H8664]]

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have reviewed the amendment, think 
it's a good amendment, and we are willing to accept it.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
chairman's acceptance of the amendment. I will just spend 30 seconds 
just for the edification of the membership of the conference as well 
what the amendment does.
  This amendment harkens back to the days when, not too long ago 
actually, the various Federal Government agencies, when taking part in 
international conferences overseas, would send upwards of 70, 80, 90, 
100, over 100 members of their Departments or agencies to these various 
conferences, spending, obviously, an excessive amount of taxpayers' 
dollars. And as we've heard from both sides of the aisle in an 
appropriate manner, we are here to set priorities. And I agree with the 
effort on both sides of the aisle, and that's exactly what this 
amendment does. It says let's pick a reasonable number, in this case 
it's 50, a limitation as to the number of members of any agency to go 
on these international conferences.
  This amendment has been accepted in the past, and once again I 
appreciate the chairman accepting this amendment. I'm not sure whether 
the ranking member is also in agreement with it as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Stearns of Florida.
  An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona on the Lobster Institute.
  An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona on the East Coast Shellfish 
Research Institute.
  Amendment No. 25 by Mr. Pence of Indiana.
  Amendment No. 41 by Mr. Upton of Michigan.
  An amendment by Mr. Jordan of Ohio.
  An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia.
  An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave of Colorado.
  Amendment No. 37 by Mr. Campbell of California.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 202, 
noes 212, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 734]

                               AYES--202

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--212

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Carter
     Castor
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Gutierrez
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     LaHood
     Michaud
     Musgrave
     Paul
     Shays
     Spratt
     Tierney
     Young (AK)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in 
this vote.

                              {time}  1623

  Messrs. INSLEE, HOLDEN, BAIRD, DINGELL and MITCHELL changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BILBRAY and Mr. KAGEN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) on the Lobster Institute on

[[Page H8665]]

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. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 87, 
noes 328, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 735]

                                AYES--87

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Broun (GA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Deal (GA)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Keller
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--328

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     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
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     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)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Abercrombie
     Baird
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Carter
     Castor
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Jordan
     Kennedy
     King (IA)
     LaHood
     Michaud
     Musgrave
     Paul
     Young (AK)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is less than 1 minute 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1628

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) on the East Coast Shellfish Research Institute 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. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 77, 
noes 337, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 736]

                                AYES--77

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Broun (GA)
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Deal (GA)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gingrey
     Graves
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Keller
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Linder
     Mack
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--337

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley

[[Page H8666]]


     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     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
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     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)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Baird
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castor
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Garrett (NJ)
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     LaHood
     Michaud
     Musgrave
     Paul
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1632

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


                 Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Pence

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215, 
noes 205, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 737]

                               AYES--215

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Chabot
     Clay
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Castle
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Carter
     Castor
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     LaHood
     Michaud
     Musgrave
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1638

  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania and Mr. LEWIS of California changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Upton

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Upton) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page H8667]]

  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 404, 
noes 16, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 738]

                               AYES--404

     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)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     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 (KY)
     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
     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
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     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 (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     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)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     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 (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     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)
     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

                                NOES--16

     Blackburn
     Cannon
     Inslee
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     McCrery
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pitts
     Simpson
     Tancredo
     Walsh (NY)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Carter
     Castor
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     LaHood
     Michaud
     Musgrave
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 30 seconds remain 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1642

  Mr. ABERCROMBIE and Mr. WELCH 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. Jordan of Ohio

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 138, 
noes 282, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 739]

                               AYES--138

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--282

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)

[[Page H8668]]


     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     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
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Carter
     Castor
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Herger
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     LaHood
     Michaud
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1645

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


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159, 
noes 261, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 740]

                               AYES--159

     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--261

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     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
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Carter
     Castor
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hobson
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     LaHood
     Michaud
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1649

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

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

[[Page H8669]]

                             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 186, 
noes 235, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 741]

                               AYES--186

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--235

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     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
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Carter
     Castor
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     LaHood
     Michaud
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1652

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


         Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 228, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 742]

                               AYES--192

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks

[[Page H8670]]


     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     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
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     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)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Carter
     Castor
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fortuno
     Hunter
     Johnson (GA)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     LaHood
     Michaud
     Smith (TX)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1656

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


                          personal explanation

  Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, due to a meeting with the 
President at the White House this afternoon, I was not present to cast 
my votes on rollcall votes 734 through 742. Had I been present, I would 
have voted yea on the Stearns amendment--rollcall 734, ``aye'' on the 
Flake amendment--rollcall 735, ``aye'' on the Flake amendment--rollcall 
736, ``aye'' on the Pence amendment--rollcall 737, ``aye'' on the Upton 
amendment--rollcall 738, ``aye'' on the Jordan amendment--rollcall 739, 
``aye'' on the Price of Georgia amendment--rollcall 740, ``aye'' on the 
Musgrave amendment--rollcall 741, and ``aye'' on the Campbell 
amendment--rollcall 742.


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I was at the White House this afternoon with 
several of my colleagues to brief the President on our recent trip to 
Iraq. As a result, I was absent from the House Floor during a series of 
rollcall votes.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcalls 734, 735, 
736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741, and 742.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, with today's passage of the fiscal 
year 2008 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill I am pleased to 
acknowledge the inclusion, in this important legislation, of funding to 
begin the implementation of the National Windstorm Impact Reduction 
Program.
  In 2004, the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Act, legislation 
championed by Rep. Randy Neugebauer and myself, became law. On its road 
to passage, H.R. 2608 (P.L. 108-360) enjoyed widespread support in both 
the House and the Senate. The enactment of this legislation established 
the interagency National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program (NWIRP) to 
improve windstorm impact assessment and streamline the implementation 
of federal mitigation efforts to minimize loss of life and property due 
to severe windstorms like hurricanes and tornados.
  All states and regions of the United States are vulnerable to 
windstorms, and we all share in the cost of repairing the several 
billion dollars in economic damage caused each year by these storms. 
Vulnerabilities also continue to grow as our communities grow, but 
improved windstorm impact measures have the potential to substantially 
reduce future losses. Sadly, up to this point few resources have been 
committed to research and program coordination in this area, and no 
funding has been appropriated to begin the implementation of the NWIRP.
  While federal programs cannot eliminate the occurrence or dangers of 
future windstorms, the programs authorized as part of the NWIRP, if 
properly funded, will help policymakers, private industry, and 
individual homeowners adopt strategies for reducing risks to human life 
and economic loss. The NWIRP also provides an important new opportunity 
to initiate badly needed research to understand how wind affects 
structures, to enhance windstorm damage collection and analysis, and to 
develop and encourage the implementation of mitigation techniques.
  The language included in the House version of the fiscal year 2008 
Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill will direct much needed 
funding to the National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, and the National Institutes of Standards 
and Technology that will allow each agency to begin the implementation 
of each distinct component of the NWIRP for which it is responsible. 
Again, I am very pleased with the inclusion of this funding in the 
House version and strongly encourage its inclusion in any conference 
agreement on this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this vitally 
important appropriations bill that addresses a wide range of our 
nation's critical needs. H.R. 3093, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008 provides local communities 
with the help they need to keep our streets safe; makes significant 
increases into scientific research to keep our Nation's economic 
preeminence in the world; and bans civil rights and privatization 
abuses furthered by the Bush administration.
  Last year, the FBI reported that violent crime had its biggest 
increase in over a decade. Under Republican control from 2001 to 2006, 
funding for state and local law enforcement grants was cut from $4.4 
billion to $2.5 billion--a 43 percent decrease. This bill reverses 
those trends, making major investments into restoring state and local 
law enforcements grants. It appropriates $725 million for Community 
Oriented Policing Services (the COPS program)--$693 million over the 
President's request and $183 million above 2007--to support local law 
enforcement agencies, including $100 million for the ``COPS on the 
Beat'' hiring program, not funded since 2005. The Congressional 
Research Service estimates that 2,800 new police officers can be put on 
America's streets with these funds. The President's budget would have 
cut these grants by 94 percent.
  H.R. 3093 also funds the Office on Violence Against Women at $430 
million, $60 million above the President's request and $48 million 
above 2007, to reduce violence against women, and to strengthen 
services to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual 
assault, and stalking. It provides $1.3 billion for the Office of 
Justice Programs for grants to state and local organizations to fund 
activities like crime prevention, the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
Program, Drug Courts and Byrne Grants. It also appropriates $400 
million for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
for state and local grants to address the problems surrounding juvenile 
offenders, including $100 million for a competitive youth mentoring 
grants program.
  To keep our Nation's economic preeminence in the world we need to 
stay on the cutting edge of science and technology. To that end, H.R. 
3093 makes significant investments in scientific research at the 
country's top agencies devoted to science. It provides $28 billion, $2 
billion above 2007 and $1 billion above the President's request, for 
science and science education as part of the Innovation Agenda to keep 
America competitive in the global market. The bill also tackles the 
enormous challenge of global climate change, with $1.86 billion for 
research and development projects to study what is happening, what 
could happen, and what we can do about it.
  The bill also funds other essential federal programs including the 
Legal Services Corporation, for civil legal assistance to people who 
are unable to afford it, allowing an additional 31,000 low-income 
client cases to be concluded. The program was funded at $400 million in 
1995 and has been cut repeatedly since. A 2005 study found that for 
every eligible person served, another was turned away due to lack of 
resources. This bill provides $377 million for that program, $28 
million above 2007 and $66 million above the President's request. H.R. 
3093 also appropriates $333 million for the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission, to reduce the backlog of pending cases--
projected to increase 70 percent from 2006 to 2008 under the 
President's request--and requires that all complaint calls be handled 
by EEOC employees, cancelling the outsourcing of this service.
  Finally, the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill 
prohibits administration policies that have infringed on our civil 
rights and curbs privatization policies that have led to waste, fraud 
and abuse. H.R. 3093 bars the FBI from authorizing National Security 
Letters in contravention of the law, a practice that we

[[Page H8671]]

have examined in the Judiciary Committee. The Justice Department's 
Inspector General has found multiple instances of FBI abuses and 
misuses of its authority in issuing these letters. The bill also 
prohibits the privatization of work performed by employees of the 
Bureau of Prisons or of Federal Prison Industries, Inc. It also allows 
federal employees the same appeals rights as contractors after 
decisions are made on public-private competitions.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this bill because it gets us 
back on the right track after six years of misguided cuts whose 
disastrous effects are now becoming apparent with the FBI's latest 
crime statistics. This legislation deals literally with life and death 
issues that need to be given adequate resources. H.R. 3093 will put 
more police on our streets, aid crime victims, help juvenile offenders 
get their lives back on track, and provide critical legal services to 
those who can't afford it. It also makes vitally important investments 
in our Nation's economic future by encouraging scientific research. 
Finally, it protects us from government and contractor abuses. The New 
Direction Congress is once again working to align the priorities of the 
Federal Government with the needs of the American people.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 3074, the FY08 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations bill.
  I want to thank the Chairman Obey, Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member 
Frelinghuysen, and the Appropriations Committee for their hard work on 
this piece of legislation.
  This bill will keep our communities safe by providing increased 
funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services Grants Program and 
the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants Program.
  Both of these programs assist our law enforcement agencies by 
providing grants for the hiring of additional police officers.
  The CJS Appropriations bill also provides assistance for the Office 
on Violence Against Women.
  The COPS program, Byrne Justice Assistance Program, and the Office on 
Violence Against Women would not have been severely under funded in the 
President's budget and I commend the committee for their work to fund 
these vital programs.
  This bill also contains vital funding for two projects in my 
district: the Houston YMCA of Greater Houston's Apartment Outreach 
Project and the Harris County Integrated In-Car Mobile Technology 
Project.
  The YMCA's Apartment Outreach Project will provide for staffing and 
supply costs for this program which combats youth crime and gang 
activity in Houston's apartment complexes.
  The Harris County Integrated In-Car Mobile Technology Project will 
provide county sheriff officers with mobile data computers to link with 
license plate recognition technology.
  Unfortunately, this bill does not provide funding for several 
projects that I strongly support.
  These projects would have provided funding for the Harris County, TX 
to acquire a 10 acre tract of land for the Buffalo Bayou Partnership 
plan to redevelop the bayou and funding for Houston Community College 
to purchase equipment for training programs conducted by its Public 
Safety Institute.
  While it is impossible to fund all of the projects that we request, I 
believe that these programs need federal funding.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today today to express my support 
for the National Textile Center. Textiles are an important part of our 
daily life and of our Nation's economy. It is imperative that we remain 
internationally competitive in this industry. The National Textile 
Center does exactly that--ensure that the fiber, textile, and apparel 
industries in our country have the research and innovations needed to 
continue to be viable and competitive.
  The National Textile Center is a consortium of eight coordinated 
locations across the country. They have come together in a nationwide 
effort to promote research and education in developing new and 
innovative fabrics and materials. These are important collaborative 
centers that develop new fibers, fabrics, and manufacturing methods 
with broad ranging applications.
  I am proud that one of the partners of the National Textile Center is 
the University of California Davis. Their participation in this 
national research consortium benefits the education, workforce 
development, and economy of the Sacramento region and our entire 
country. A key project at U.C. Davis funded by the National Textile 
Center is the development of new personal protection clothing to keep 
our first responders and military safe. We cannot turn our backs on 
these vital workers, whom we trust with the health and safety of our 
Nation.
  The National Textile Center funds important interdisciplinary 
collaborations that translate to many other industries. Basic research 
funded by this important consortium has applications that will 
reverberate in many fields, such as biomedical applications, 
electronics, and nanotechnology. I urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to join me in supporting funding of the National Textile 
Center. We need to oppose efforts to strike funds from this important 
program that benefits constituents nationwide.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, as we begin debate on the FY2008 Commerce, 
Justice, Science Appropriations bill, I want to highlight the National 
Textile Center (NTC). The NTC is a 15-year-old grant program that 
supports research at nine member universities, including Georgia Tech, 
and is the main source of innovation for U.S. textile, fiber and 
apparel industries. In Georgia, the textile, fiber and apparel industry 
is the state's largest manufacturing employer with annual payroll of 
$500 million. It is imperative that this industry continue to benefit 
from the infusion of new ideas and talent that is the basis of the 
programs of the National Textile Center. National Textile Center 
projects in Georgia have lead to improving Georgia industry processes 
including new approaches to carpet recycling and new environmentally 
friendly approaches to dyes and bleaches that lower costs, increase 
competitiveness, and improve the local plant environmental impact. 
Outside of helping the textile industry respond to rapidly changing 
market demands, the NTC has also inspired and trained highly skilled 
talent for the U.S. textile industry and created educational 
opportunities in science, engineering, and technology for U.S. citizens 
and permanent residents from K-12 through the doctoral level.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Textile Center has clearly been an 
excellent steward of past funding provided by the Department of 
Commerce. With this in mind, I ask Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member 
Frelinghuysen, and my colleagues in both bodies to preserve current 
funding and remember the importance of this program during the 
Conference process.
  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, when most of us think about law 
enforcement, we imagine police patrolling the streets, or we think of 
lawyers and judges in a courtroom. But there's another chapter to the 
law enforcement story. Once a criminal has been caught, tried, and 
convicted in federal court, the U.S. prison system is charged with 
detaining him--sometimes for the rest of his life.
  Just as Congress talks about supporting police and protecting judges, 
we need to talk about supporting our prisons. In recent years we have 
seen the Federal inmate population grow without a corresponding 
increase in the number of corrections officers. This is a dangerous 
situation that we cannot allow to continue.
  Since 1980, the population of inmates in Federal prisons has 
increased from 24,000 to almost 200,000--an 830 percent increase. 
Unfortunately, funding hasn't increased nearly that fast, and too many 
facilities are facing staffing shortages. Right now, Federal prisons 
are overcrowded by about 37 percent.
  Frankly, that isn't right. We can't claim to be tough on crime and 
neglect our prisons. Congress has to provide enough funding to the 
Bureau of Prisoners to ensure the safety of our guards and the quality 
of our prisons.
  As a member of the House Corrections Caucus, last month I authored a 
letter to the House Appropriations Committee requesting increased 
funding for the Bureau of Prisons. Together, we requested $427 million 
over 2007 for the Bureau of Prison's ``salaries and expenses'' account 
and $210 million for the ``buildings and facilities'' account. 
Unfortunately, resources are stretched thin and that amount could not 
be met.
  In order to continue managing the increasing prison population and 
providing a safe work environment for our correctional officers we need 
to provide the BOP with the necessary funding. We must ensure that the 
BOP receives the funds it needs to conduct maintenance on current 
facilities and build the new facilities necessary to deal with 
overcrowding.
  Congress can never remove all of the risk from the job of guarding a 
prison. Risk accompanies any law enforcement job. But we can provide 
the resources to help our guards do their jobs as safely as possible 
and demonstrate that we are tough on crime.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to explain the 
purpose of two amendments I submitted to H.R. 3093, the Commerce, 
Justice, Science Appropriations Bill of 2008. While I had planned to 
offer these amendments, I was disappointed that just prior to offering 
my amendments to the bill on the House floor, was informed that the 
Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 
Science was going to object to my amendments and insist on a point of 
order against them. After discussion with the Parliamentarian, who said 
the point of order would be upheld on a technicality, I decided to not 
offer my amendments. I am disappointed that the Democrat majority chose 
to object to my amendments on a technicality, particularly when you 
consider that technical objections were waived for a host of other 
provisions in

[[Page H8672]]

this same bill. I believe if is important to explain here and get on 
the record the substance of these amendments and why they are critical 
to securing our homeland.
  My first amendment (No. 14) would have tied funding for the Community 
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program to whether recipients are 
complying with the federal prohibition on sanctuary policies. Sanctuary 
cities have been prohibited under Federal law (8 U.S.C. 1373 and 1644) 
for more than 10 years. Yet, there is no enforcement mechanism and no 
penalty for those cities that choose to disobey the law.
  My amendment would have prohibited COPS funding from going to State 
or local governments that have sanctuary policies which prevent 
cooperation between local or state police and federal immigration 
authorities or prevent local or state police from enforcing immigration 
laws.
  Terrorists know all about sanctuary cities and the concealment that 
such cities provide. The 9/11 terrorists are a case in point. Two of 
the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, ran afoul of police months and 
days before the attack.
  Mohammed Atta was ticketed in Broward County Florida in the Spring of 
2001 for driving without a license. Atta was in the U.S. on an expired 
Visa and was in the U.S. illegally. If the local or state police had 
looked into Atta's immigration status, the leader of the 9/11 attacks 
would have been departed 5 months before the attacks took place.
  In addition, of the 48 Al Qaeda operatives who operated in the U.S. 
between 1993-2001, including the 9/11 hijackers, almost half were 
illegal aliens. Sadly, jurisdictions with sanctuary policies would not 
only prohibit their apprehension, it would also prohibit the police 
from informing federal officials of their immigration status so that 
they could commence deportation proceedings. Three of the Fort Dix 
Six--the men who tried to pull off a terrorist incident at Ft. Dix, 
NJ--were pulled over by local police for traffic violations. Three of 
these individuals had run-ins with police 75 times, but no one ever 
checked their immigration status. They were all in the U.S. illegally. 
The jurisdiction in which they were charged supposedly had a sanctuary 
policy ... which explains why they were never reported to federal 
immigration officials.
  We cannot fool ourselves into thinking that terrorists do not know 
about these sanctuary jurisdictions... so harboring illegal aliens 
creates an environment where terrorists can easily hide and not be 
found out. I want to be clear that I do not believe that all illegal 
immigrants are terrorists. Very, very' few illegal immigrants are 
terrorists. But those few who are terrorists can kill thousands of 
innocent Americans, as only 19 did on September 11, 2001.
  Obviously, the COPS program adds to our arsenal in combating crime by 
increasing the number of police in our communities. But funding 
increased police presence while at the same time not reporting known 
illegal immigrants to federal authorities, as is the policy of 
jurisdictions with sanctuary laws, is contradictory and self-defeating. 
If we simply allowed our law enforcement officers to follow Federal law 
by requiring them to inform immigration officials of violations of 
immigration laws, we would likely need fewer police officers to enforce 
our laws.
  Why would we need fewer officers? Because requiring local 
jurisdictions to cooperate with the Federal agencies to quickly and 
efficiently deport illegal immigrants, particularly those engaged in 
criminal acts, would help reduce the size and capabilities of criminal 
gangs. A large percentage of those who populate violent criminal gangs, 
including MS-13, are illegal immigrants. Violent criminal gangs are 
making these communities unsafe. FBI Director, Robert Mueller, has even 
declared MS-13 as the top priority of the bureau's criminal-enterprise 
branch.
  Even more, the gangs that are populated by illegal immigrants have 
increased the threat to our homeland. Honduran Security Minister, Oscar 
Alvarez, even stated that Al Qaeda might be trying to recruit Central 
American gang members to help terrorists infiltrate the US. 
Additionally, Salvadoran President Tony Saca echoed this theme, saying 
he could ``not rule out a link between terrorist and Central American 
gang members.''
  My second amendment (No. 15) would have tied funding for the State 
Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) to whether recipient 
jurisdictions are complying with the federal prohibition on sanctuary 
policies (8 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1373 and 1644). The amendment would have 
given priority in SCAAP funding to those communities that are 
cooperating with federal immigration officials in deporting illegal 
immigrants, rather than State or local governments that have sanctuary 
policies and simply release criminal aliens back onto U.S. streets.
  My amendment says if you expect to get federal money for 
incarcerating illegal immigrants you must also report them to federal 
immigration authorities so that they can be deported, rather than being 
released back on to U.S. streets. If a community cannot live by this 
policy, it is only right that they not get a taxpayer subsidy.

  What's amazing is how much money sanctuary cities are raking in from 
the Federal Government. During fiscal 2005, the Justice Department 
distributed $287.1 million in SCAAP payments to 752 state, county and 
local jurisdictions. Seventy percent of SCAAP funds went to just 10 
jurisdictions: the states of California, New York, Texas, Florida, 
Arizona, Illinois and Massachusetts; New York City; and two California 
counties, Los Angeles and Orange.
  Many of the largest recipients of SCAAP funds are sanctuary cities 
that refuse to cooperate with Federal authorities on immigration 
enforcement. Some of the largest sanctuary cities and counties that 
received SCAAP money in 2005 include New York City, Los Angeles, San 
Francisco, San Diego, Houston, and Seattle.
  It seems as if we did not learn anything from 9/11 about the need to 
treat illegal immigration seriously and recognize that the failure to 
enforce our immigration laws can endanger our national security?
  Some of America's most important cities are sanctuary even though it 
is prohibited under Federal law. And it is time that the Federal 
Government stops turning a blind eye to sanctuary cities. If a 
community chooses to be a sanctuary, they should no longer expect to 
receive the largess of taxpayers from across this country.
  Once again, I am disappointed that the Democrat majority would not 
permit these amendments to be considered for all up or down vote. 
However, I will continue to work to address this serious national 
security concern.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this appropriations 
bill.
  One of the most important roles of government is ensuring public 
safety. Over the last several years, the Federal Government simply has 
not been providing enough support to local and state law enforcement. 
The Justice Department's Uniform Crime Report statistics have now shown 
for 2 consecutive years measurable increases in violent crime 
nationwide. The Bush administration clearly has its priorities skewed, 
as the budget it proposed for the Community Oriented Policing Services 
(C.O.P.S.) program for Fiscal Year 2008 was a mere $32 million, a 
reduction of over half a billion dollars from last year's level.
  This bill addresses that problem by increasing C.O.P.S. program 
funding to $725 million, and designating $100 million of that amount to 
be used to hire an additional 2800 police officers nationwide.
  There is simply no question that our country's far more robust 
commitment to putting cops in the streets in the 1990's help reduce 
violent crime over the last decade. According to the General 
Accountability Office ``C.O.P.S. funded increases in sworn officers per 
capita were associated with the declines in rates of total index 
crimes, violent crimes, and property crimes.'' The same GAO study 
showed that between the years of 1998 and 2000, C.O.P.S. hiring grants 
were responsible for reducing crime by about 200,000 to 225,000 
incidents--one third of which were violent. Across the state of New 
Jersey, approximately 4,790 officers were hired by local police 
departments using C.O.P.S. funds. This meant an additional 628 police 
officers and sheriff deputies walking the beat in the local communities 
of my Congressional District. Further, 33 school resource officers were 
hired to ensure that our children's schools are safe. The committee's 
increase in funding for this program for Fiscal Year 2008 is a welcome 
change from recent years, but I hope it will only be a down payment on 
much larger increases to come. Ideally, we should return to the kind of 
funding levels that gave us the kind of nationwide police presence we 
enjoyed in the last decade.
  I am pleased that the committee has provided a robust increase for 
the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants Program by more 
than $80 million over the Fiscal Year 2007 level to $600 million. These 
grants are vital to our local communities--they help local law 
enforcement organizations get the support they need to combat violent 
crime, particular gangs and drug-related criminal activity.
  In the area of science funding, the bill provides for much needed 
increases in the overall budget of the National Science Foundation, and 
for science education funding. Recent history has shown that when the 
federal government invests in science programs and education, our 
Nation as a whole benefits.
  When funding for the National Institutes of Health was doubled during 
the previous decade, many students recognized the opportunity and acted 
accordingly. Federal seed money fostered high-income, highly desirable 
jobs and entrepreneurial companies that lead the 21st century economy. 
Their innovations have made the U.S. the global leader in the life 
sciences and biotechnology.
  Earlier this year, I led more than 80 of my colleagues in an appeal 
to this committee that it increase overall funding for the NSF as well

[[Page H8673]]

as education-specific funding. I'm pleased that the committee responded 
by increasing NSF funding to $6.509 billion, $80 million over our 
collective request, as well as adding $72 million specifically for 
science education funding. I want to thank the chairman of the full 
committee, Mr. Obey, and the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Mollohan, for 
demonstrating a commitment to make meaningful investments in the NSF's 
physical sciences and engineering programs.
  Finally, the Commerce Department portion of this bill provides badly 
needed additional funding to address perhaps the greatest threat to our 
collective future--global climate change.
  The committee has added $171 million over the President's request to 
help fund a number of key climate change initiatives, including a 
comprehensive study of the problem, as well as changes to National 
Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) 
program to ensure that critical climate monitoring sensors are added 
onto future NPOESS platforms. It is vital to both our economic and our 
national security that we take whatever measures are necessary to gain 
a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms that drive global 
warming so that we can implement the full range of measures necessary 
to combat it.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the committee for bringing us a bill that 
reflects the priorities of the American people, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendment put forward by the gentleman from Arizona.
  We should not be reducing the funding for the National Textile 
Center. Our national economic prosperity has grown from the formidable 
work ethic of the American people and vigorous investment in all areas 
of science and technology. We must not lose the scientific commitment 
which has brought our Nation so far and can help us go so much further.
  The National Textile Center conducts advanced research work with 
life-saving applications. Some examples include the use of micro-
technologies to develop heart stents, and three-dimensional weaving 
techniques to produce life-saving armor. Beneficiaries of the National 
Textile Center's work include fire-fighters, police officers and 
soldiers who require protective clothing that allows them to carry out 
their dangerous jobs. I am proud to have several companies in my 
district including 3Tex and FirstChoice Armor who are working closely 
with the National Textile Center to produce the next generation of 
life-saving textile products.
  The research conducted by the National Textile Center is also 
advancing our understanding of more efficient textile manufacturing. 
New developments spearheaded by the National Textile Center help make 
our industrial processes more effective and help ensure we remain 
competitive in the international arena.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and maintain our 
national commitment to investments in science and technology that 
provide real benefits to American workers and real solutions for the 
greater good.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Commerce, Justice, Science, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008''.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Tauscher) 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, he reported the bill back to the House 
with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be 
agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under House Resolution 562, the previous 
question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Is it appropriate at this time to ask for a re-vote on 
each and every amendment just voted on?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has just queried on that matter.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


         Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I am in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. LEWIS of California moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 
     3093, to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House promptly with a deficit 
     neutral amendment to provide:
       (1) additional funding for Department of Justice 
     immigration law enforcement capabilities (including 
     investigative, prosecutorial and incarceration programs); and
       (2) funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 
     at the level authorized pursuant to section 1196 of Public 
     Law 109-162.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, the motion I have at the desk 
is a motion to recommit to recognize the fact that right now this 
country faces a crisis on its borders.
  Illegal immigration not only affects those of us who represent States 
on the border, it is a pervasive problem across the country. The 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill that passed the House earlier 
this summer included significant increases for more Border Patrol 
agents and other border protection efforts.

                              {time}  1700

  The homeland security bill represents an important piece of our 
immigration enforcement system, but it does not fund all of it. It is 
this bill that funds prosecution and incarceration of the most violent 
criminal aliens, such as drug dealers, human traffickers and gang 
members. It is this bill that provides critical assistance to State and 
local law enforcement agencies that are on the front lines of the 
immigration problem.
  As we increase our border enforcement efforts in the Department of 
Homeland Security, we must make sure that the Department of Justice has 
the funds it needs to fully prosecute and incarcerate all of the 
criminal aliens arrested by the Border Patrol and Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement. In addition, until the Federal Government is able 
to secure its borders, we must provide our local governments with 
sufficient resources to reimburse them while they protect our 
communities.
  Because my colleague from California, David Dreier, former chairman 
of our Rules Committee, has been most involved in this issue and is on 
the point of our attempting to find a solution in California, I yield 
the balance of my time to Mr. Dreier to round out this discussion.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me just say that in the 109th Congress, Mr. Lewis and I joined 
together to offer an amendment to the Violence Against Women Act which 
actually authorized a level of $950 million for the reimbursement to 
the States for the incarceration of illegal immigrant felons. At that 
time, Madam Speaker, 414 Members of this House voted in support of that 
bill. Just yesterday, 338 Members voted in favor of the amendment that 
we offered which had an increase to a level of $460 million total for 
the issue of the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. It is 
literally a drop in the bucket. Even with this new level, State and 
local governments will, Madam Speaker, only receive 10 cents on the 
dollar that they expend for the incarceration of people who are in this 
country illegally and commit crimes.
  I believe that it is absolutely essential, if we're going to allow 
State and local governments to work on the very, very important crime 
problem that

[[Page H8674]]

they have, that we should step up to the plate and take on the 
responsibility that only the Federal Government can address, and that 
is the security of our Nation's borders.
  Madam Speaker, any Member who votes against this motion to recommit 
is, in fact, voting to not provide reimbursement to State and local 
governments for this onerous responsibility which we have thrust upon 
them by virtue of the fact that we are not securing our Nation's 
borders.
  Vote to support the motion to recommit that Mr. Lewis is offering 
here so that we will have a chance to provide that very, very important 
support for State and local governments and the security for the 
constituents who we represent.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, and I 
won't use any more time, I appreciate very much Mr. Dreier's assistance 
in this matter. I urge very strongly that all Members vote ``aye'' on 
this motion to recommit.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit. If I heard the gentleman from California correctly, I believe 
he misspoke and said that he encouraged a vote against the motion to 
recommit. Of course he's not against the motion to recommit, but if he 
were, that would be the only place that I agree with him on this 
amendment.
  Obviously this is a killer amendment. This is the ``I got you'' 
amendment. It provides for promptly returning the bill back to the 
House. That means that the bill will not pass today on the Floor. 
That's the ``got you'' part of each one of these motions to recommit. 
It means we wouldn't be able to pass the bill here today.
  Additionally, the amendment asks for additional funding for the 
Department of Justice immigration law enforcement capabilities. We just 
had a number of amendments proposing across-the-board cuts during this 
proceeding. Many of their supporters have argued that there's too much 
money in these bills and in these accounts. We're funding this bill 
substantially above the President's request, $3.2 billion above last 
year and $2.3 billion above the President's request.
  It would always be good to have additional funding in law 
enforcement, but we're proud of how robustly we are funding law 
enforcement, and particularly for State and local law enforcement, 
which is $1.7 billion above the President's request. Those funds help 
with the local law enforcement, including prosecutorial, incarceration 
programs, and many others across the board. While this bill is well in 
excess of the President's request, much of that is for funding for law 
enforcement above last year's levels.
  The other provision of this motion to recommit would fund the State 
Criminal Alien Assistance Program at the level authorized. Let me just 
suggest that the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program is a 
privileged account in this bill. We began funding through subcommittee 
at $375 million. In full committee, it increased to $405 million. On 
the floor, this program was again increased now to $460 million. It is 
certainly getting its fair share of funding relative to other accounts 
in the bill.
  Indeed, if this motion to recommit were passed and were acted upon, 
we would have to go back and cut State and local law enforcement, FBI, 
DEA, and meth programs. We would have to cut law enforcement funding 
that puts police on the streets, that hires additional FBI agents, 
additional DEA agents, and funds meth programs.
  If we approve this motion to recommit, we would really have to go 
back and cut all of that funding.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe 
Lofgren).
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I concur with the 
suggestion that this motion to recommit be defeated.
  As the author of the amendment yesterday to increase SCAAP funding by 
$55 million, I can certainly not be counted as someone who does not 
support funding for State and local alien incarceration programs.
  On the other hand, we had offsets for our amendment yesterday, $55 
million in offsets, and if I had found additional offsets that didn't 
adversely impact the Drug Enforcement Agency or the FBI or the COPS 
program or the National Science Foundation, I would have suggested an 
even bigger amount. I couldn't find those offsets.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this is not about substance. This is about 
killing this bill. The gentleman will say it comes back promptly. It 
doesn't come back promptly.
  We spent 14\1/2\ hours trying to get money to law enforcement, 
immigration enforcement and all the other objects in law enforcement, 
first responders, in this bill. This is about killing this bill. This 
is about delay. This is about politics, trying to give some of our 
people a bad vote.
  Vote this motion down because it is not real. It is not for substance 
sake. It is not for the objective as it is articulated in the 
amendment. It is designed to fail. Reject this chicanery on this floor. 
Vote ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209, 
noes 215, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 743]

                               AYES--209

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

[[Page H8675]]



                               NOES--215

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     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
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

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

                              {time}  1726

  Mr. LAMPSON and Mr. HILL changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, on July 26, I was participating in a 
briefing on National Security and I missed the first vote.
  I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the 
Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no'' on recorded vote number 743.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 281, 
nays 142, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 744]

                               YEAS--281

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     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
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--142

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Hunter
     LaHood
     McDermott
     Michaud
     Sherman
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are less than 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1734

  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida changed her vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 26, 2007 On Page H8675 the following appeared: Ms. GINNY 
BROWN-WAITE of Florida changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Ms. GINNY BROWN-
WAITE of Florida changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained 
and missed rollcall 744, final passage of H.R. 3093, the FY08 Commerce, 
Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Had I not 
been detained, I would have voted in favor of final passage.




                          ____________________