[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 64 (Tuesday, May 8, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2346-H2440]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2013


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H.R. 5326, and that I may include 
tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 643 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5326.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1406


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5326) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and 
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, with Mr. Bishop of Utah in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am pleased to begin the consideration of H.R. 5326, making 
appropriations for fiscal year 2013 for Commerce, Justice, Science, and 
Related Agencies. The bill provides funding for programs whose impacts 
range from the safety of people in their homes and communities to the 
farthest reaches of space.
  The bill before the House today reflects a delicate balancing of 
needs and

[[Page H2347]]

requirements. We have drafted what I consider to be a responsible bill 
for FY 2013 spending levels for the departments and agencies under the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction. We've had to carefully prioritize the 
funding in this bill and have had to make hard choices about how to 
spend scarce revenue.
  I want to thank Chairman Rogers for supporting us with a fair 
allocation and in helping us to move the bill forward. I also want to 
thank the ranking member, Mr. Fattah, who has been an effective and 
valued partner and colleague, and I am grateful. I appreciate his 
principled commitment and his understanding of the programs in the 
bill.
  I also would like to thank the members of the subcommittee for their 
help and assistance, as well as to thank Congressman Norman Dicks, the 
ranking member of the full committee.
  I want to recognize the subcommittee staff, including our clerk, Mike 
Ringler; Leslie Albright; Stephanie Myers; Diana Simpson; Colin Samples 
and Scott Sammis; as well as Darek Newby and Bob Bonner from the 
minority staff, for their work in preparing the bill before us today.
  I also want to recognize a number of the majority and minority 
associate staff members--all of their names and the offices that they 
are connected with.

       Dan Scandling and Thomas Culligan in my office; Michelle 
     Anderson-Lee in Mr. Fattah's office; Robert LaBranche and 
     Ryan Stalnaker in Mr. Culberson's office; Mark Dawson and 
     Megan Medley in Mr. Aderholt's office; Mike Sharp in Mr. 
     Bonner's office; Tyler Grassmeyer, Steven Gilleland and 
     Jessica Talbert in Mr. Austria's office; Jason Lawrence in 
     Mr. Grave's office; Patrick Carroll in Mr. Yoder's office; 
     Megan O'Donnell in Chairman Rogers' office; Jeff Lowenstein 
     and Tim Bergreen in Mr. Schiff's office; Ken Takeda, A.J. 
     Bhadelia and Eric Werwa in Mr. Honda's office; Jheanelle 
     Brown and Matt Alpert in Mr. Serrano's office; and Pete 
     Modaff and Colin Sheldon in Ranking Member Dicks' office.

  The bill totals $51.1 billion in discretionary spending, which is a 
reduction of 3.1 percent below the current fiscal year and 1.4 percent 
below the President's request.

                              {time}  1410

  Since the beginning of the 112th Congress, the committee has cut 
$13.2 billion, reducing the total amount of the CJS bill by over 20 
percent over the 3 fiscal years. We have focused limited resources on 
the most critical areas: fighting crime and terrorism--including a new 
focus of preventing and investigating cyberattacks--and boosting U.S. 
competitiveness and job creation by investing in science, exports, and 
manufacturing.
  For the Department of Commerce, the bill includes $7.7 billion, an 
increase of $96 million above FY12. The bill makes critical investments 
in manufacturing, export promotion, and job creation, including a task 
force and an EDA grant program to incentivize U.S. companies to bring 
their manufacturing and services activities back to the United States, 
particularly back to the U.S. from China.
  For NIST, the bill includes $830 million, including $128 million for 
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, program and $21 million 
for an advanced manufacturing competitive research program to make the 
American manufacturing sector a source of job growth.
  The bill also makes critical investments in weather forecasting and 
disaster preparedness to save lives and protect property, including 
funding above the President's request for the National Weather Service 
operations and for tsunami preparedness. Also included is an increase 
of $126 million for the weather satellite acquisitions, including the 
full amount requested for the new JPSS satellite. This funding is 
necessary to better protect Americans from natural disasters such as 
tornados, hurricanes, and tsunamis, just like we've seen in the Midwest 
this year, Kansas, Alabama, and places like that this year. It is also 
with regard to snowstorms and drought.
  Science. A primary area of focus in the bill this year is scientific 
research, innovation, and competitiveness.
  Investments in scientific research are key to long-term economic 
growth and job creation. The bill includes $7.3 billion for the 
National Science Foundation, an increase of $299 million, or 4.3 
percent above FY12, for basic research and science education. This 
funding will go toward the types of research that will keep America's 
economy strong by setting the groundwork for the development of new 
technologies.
  Developing a well-educated STEM workforce is also critical to 
America's competitiveness. More than $1 billion is provided throughout 
the bill for science education, including $876 million for NSF to 
improve the quality of science education.
  NASA. The bill includes $17.6 billion, including funding above the 
aggregate request, to keep the development schedule for the Orion crew 
vehicle and heavy-lift rocket. Commercial crew development is funded at 
$500 million, consistent with the current authorization and the report 
accompanying the House budget resolution.
  To find the fastest, safest, and most cost-effective means of 
achieving a U.S. capability for access to the international space 
station, the bill directs NASA to winnow the commercial partners and 
advance the schedule for moving to traditional government procurement 
methods. Continuing on the current path runs a high risk of failure by 
one or more companies receiving government subsidies, similar to what 
we last saw last year with Solyndra, and leaving the taxpayer with no 
tangible benefits in exchange for a substantial investment. We do not 
need a space Solyndra. I say this to Members on both sides of the 
aisle. We have heard Solyndra thrown around. We do not need a space 
Solyndra.
  We have received letters from Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan, and James 
Lovell endorsing the committee's approach to commercial crew as 
``reasonable and appropriate.''
  According to the GAO, we have invested $100 billion in the station, 
so we need to develop our own capability to get our astronauts up there 
to use it quickly rather than relying on the Russians and paying the 
Russians.
  The bill also includes $570 million--which is $18.4 million above the 
request--for aeronautics research. Aerospace is a pillar of the 
American manufacturing sector and one of the leading exports. This is 
an industry that creates thousands of jobs in America. This investment 
will boost our aviation competitiveness so America continues to be 
number one.
  The bill includes $5.1 billion for NASA science programs, including 
$1.4 billion for planetary science. This amount restores cuts in the 
President's request that would have inhibited progress on all planetary 
science goals, including flagship missions to Mars and Europa.
  For the Department of Justice, the bill includes $27.1 billion, $11 
million above the current level.
  The top mission priority of the Justice Department is defending 
national security from both internal and external threats. The bill 
includes $8.3 billion, an increase of $148 million, for the FBI, 
including an increase of $23 million to prevent and combat 
cyberintrusions. Director Mueller has predicted that cyber will soon 
overtake terrorism as the Bureau's number one threat. The increase will 
be the first step in building a nationwide capability for 
cyberinvestigations that complements the other cyberinitiatives under 
consideration in the House.
  The bill restores funding for the National Gang Intelligence Center, 
which the President wanted to terminate. Every district in this country 
has violent gangs running throughout your districts, such as MS 13 and 
many other groups. If you've been down along the border, you will see 
many of the gangs in Mexico have operations up here. To shut that down 
and terminate it, this is a major threat to the country. It also 
provides an additional funding for FBI's Safe Streets Task Forces. Now 
is not the time to retreat in an effort to combat the growing gang 
problem, not only on the border but throughout the country.
  Bureau of Prison operations are funded at the requested level of $6.8 
billion, an increase of $269 million above FY12, to activate newly 
constructed prisons and ensure safe and secure Federal prison 
facilities in light of, unfortunately, continued population growth.
  This bill includes $1.85 billion for justice programs that provide 
grants for States, localities, and nonprofits. Despite the reduction, 
the bill prioritizes proven high-priority programs, including justice 
assistance grants, SCAAP.

[[Page H2348]]

The administration was at $70 million on SCAAP. We're at $165 million.
  It also includes funding for missing and exploited children programs 
and DNA grants.
  The bill includes funding for prescription drug monitoring grants. 
And I want to give a lot of credit to Chairman Rogers for his effort 
here.
  It also includes a significant increase in DEA's Tactical Diversion 
Squads to address our Nation's fastest growing drug problem: 
prescription drug abuse.
  The funding for violence against women and for victims of trafficking 
is increased above the current level and above the President's request. 
There's more money in here for violence against women than this 
administration put.
  We recently marked the fifth anniversary of the shootings at Virginia 
Tech. Following this terrible tragedy, Congress passed a bill to 
improve the National Instant Background Check System, NICS, a critical 
tool for keeping firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons. But 
the NICS is only as effective as the State databases on which it 
relies. This bill includes $12 million to improve NICS records, $7 
million more than the 2012 request.
  Finally, we're asking the Office of Inspector General to do a follow-
up review of the justice task force that looked at cases affected by 
flawed FBI lab practices in 1990. A new OIG review is a necessary next 
step to ensure that prosecutors follow through on task force findings 
and that defendants' rights are upheld. No one should get sentenced to 
jail for life when we know there is information that has not been 
shared. So we've had the OIG review and take a look at this.
  In closing, that is a summary of the bill before us today. It 
provides increases where needed to maintain and strengthen operations 
of critical law enforcement. It carries on the fight against terrorism, 
crime, and drugs and provides important increases to boost scientific 
research, innovation, and competitiveness. It provides strong support 
for all the various NASA missions. It represents our best take on 
matching needs with scarce resources.
  We have tried hard to produce the best bill we possibly could within 
the resources we had, And I would hope that all Members would support 
the bill.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2349]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08MY12.001



[[Page H2350]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08MY12.002



[[Page H2351]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08MY12.003



[[Page H2352]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08MY12.004



[[Page H2353]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08MY12.005



[[Page H2354]]

  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to start out first and foremost by thanking my colleague and 
the chairman of the subcommittee, Frank Wolf, for continuing to be a 
model chairman for the Appropriations Subcommittee. He is a 
professional; he's principled, and he has involved us, the minority, in 
every level of the distributions as we've developed this bill.
  I would also like to thank my staff and the committee staff on both 
the majority and minority side for their work on this bill, along with 
all those who have had input in it.

                              {time}  1420

  Now I start out in this process with a number of priorities. First 
and foremost in the science arena, neuroscience. And I want to thank 
the chairman--I will speak about it in some detail in a minute--but for 
his collaboration and this effort around brain research.
  Manufacturing. We will talk about the support in this bill, the 
hundreds of millions of dollars to continue to position our country in 
terms of manufacturing. We now lead the world in manufacturing, and we 
want to continue that, but we have real competition that we have to 
contend with.
  And then also in the area of steering our young people away from 
antisocial activity, youth mentoring. And the chairman, in the 
chairman's mark, as passed in the subcommittee and the full committee, 
and as we bring this bill to the floor, again makes significant 
improvements in our investment around youth mentoring.
  So let me start with the Department of Commerce. There are healthy 
funding levels for research at NIST, the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, and for the NOAA satellite programs, which 
are so important to our weather forecasting challenges as a Nation.
  In the chairman's mark, he very wisely rejected the proposed cuts 
that were going to be made in both the technical capabilities and the 
personnel at the National Weather Service, including air quality and 
the tsunami warning system and wind profile measurements, in which 
we've already invested tens of millions of dollars as a Nation.
  The bill provides funding at or near the requested level for the 
Department of Justice law enforcement agencies, including an increase 
above the request for the FBI and to augment its capabilities in terms 
of cyberinvestigation and surveillance. I know that all of the members 
of the committee and all of the Members of the House understand the 
very significant challenges that the country faces in terms of 
cybersecurity. And the chairman has appropriately focused resources in 
that regard.
  The bill provides an increase for the Office on Violence Against 
Women grant programs. Of course these are programs that we are dealing 
with the authorization of in a different part of our processes, but 
they are very important in terms of support for women who face abuse. 
And also, there's a small increase for Crime Victims Fund programs.
  The chairman's mark in the bill, as passed from the full committee, 
provides a healthy increase for the National Science Foundation, the 
world's premiere national entity focused on basic scientific research.
  The bill makes a strong commitment, as the chairman has noted, to 
NASA science and also fully funds the James Webb Space Telescope and 
makes a significant investment in commercial crew and in space 
technology. And even though I don't go as far as the chairman, I do 
support the idea that we need to move as rapidly as possible to this 
new focus on having American enterprise compete for opportunities to 
participate fully and at a much more cost-effective level in terms of 
our space exploration. The bill makes a significant increase in terms 
of future robotic missions to Mars, and we make a requirement in the 
language that this be part of a sample return mission, as the National 
Academy of Sciences' report indicates.
  Due in some part to the limits on the allocation, there are a number 
of areas in the bill which we should try to improve as we move through 
this process. And we'll hear some of that in the amendment process, and 
we will do as much as we can in the conference process that will 
follow. But because this bill is based on the Ryan budget, it is less 
than the Senate counterpart, which was moved out of committee $731 
million higher in its allocation. This will have to be reconciled in 
this process.
  I hope that as we go about that, we can look at the EDA, the Economic 
Development Administration, and look at the Census Bureau. And most 
importantly, to me, the Legal Services Corporation and the COPS program 
are areas where I hope that we are able to raise to additional levels 
of funding. The State and local grant programs also take a significant 
decrease off of what we would hope that they could be.
  But I want to focus a little bit of my comments on the fact that in 
full committee, there were a number of nonfinancial items added to the 
bill. One related to firearms, another related to swimming pool 
regulations for the disabled. There are always going to be 
disagreements around regulatory issues, but I'm not sure that this bill 
is the appropriate place. In fact, I would suggest that this bill is 
not the appropriate place to try to reconcile those issues. And I'm 
sure that as we move through, there will be additional input as to how 
we might deal with this question.
  But let me talk in some detail for a minute about some of the great 
initiatives that I think we were able to come to agreement on. And 
again, I want to thank the chairman and the staff. For our country and 
for my caucus, there's nothing more important than manufacturing. And 
we see that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership receives $128 
million, with a special carve-out for the National Innovative 
Marketplace, a Web-like portal that will help our manufacturers compete 
for manufacturing initiatives at the Federal level. I think it's very 
important. The $21 million requested by the President was met in this 
bill for a new Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program at 
NIST. And also, we provide $149 million to the National Science 
Foundation for their advanced manufacturing initiative.
  We continue a program authorized under the America COMPETES Act that 
we funded last year to help small manufacturers bring technology onto 
the plant floor. And I would note that the chairman held, as his last 
hearing, a hearing on manufacturing. And I think it really brought 
light to the subject of what the country can and needs to do in terms 
of helping our manufacturers compete with competitors abroad and much 
larger countries that are trying to overtake us in terms of 
manufacturing.
  I would like to personally thank the chairman for fully funding the 
Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House, which has 
taken the lead in this neuroscience initiative that has been a 
bipartisan agreement to really try to build a collaboration of Federal 
agencies focused on some of the challenges that we have in terms of 
brain research, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, autism, and addiction, which 
is a big issue for the chairman of our full committee, Chairman Rogers, 
and for many of the people that we represent. There are issues related 
to traumatic brain injury affecting our veterans. So this collaboration 
is critically important, and I want to thank the chairman for fully 
funding that office, which is leading this effort, and the other 
important work that it does.
  There is a lot more that I could say. Let me conclude, however, 
because we're going to spend a long time on the floor, and I will have 
plenty of chances to speak about the Youth Mentoring Initiative, which 
funds a variety of national groups that do work. But I think the 
shining light at the very top of the pyramid is the Boys & Girls Clubs, 
with some 4,000 clubs all across our country, on all of our military 
bases, and also in sovereign Native American reservations and lands, 
working with over 4 million young people, along with Big Brothers and 
Big Sisters and a number of other organizations which work to help 
American youth move in positive directions in their lives.
  So I think that the bill that we bring to the House, even though it 
is not the bill in every respect that I would bring--and obviously 
there is room for improvement, and that's the part of the process that 
we'll go through on the floor and in conference--this is a bill that 
had complete unanimous, bipartisan support out of subcommittee

[[Page H2355]]

and was voice-voted out of the full committee. And I am happy to join 
my colleague, the chairman, as we present it now for House action.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for yielding the time.
  I rise in strong support of this bill. This bill, the first for 
fiscal '13, marks one of the earliest starts to the appropriations 
process in recent memory, which is a good sign for moving all 12 bills 
before the September 30 end of the fiscal year.

                              {time}  1430

  I look forward to an open and transparent process as we consider each 
of the bills, staying faithful to our commitment to smart, reduced 
levels of spending to help do our part in controlling the Federal 
deficit.
  I want to especially commend Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah, 
members of the subcommittee, and my colleague and ranking member, Norm 
Dicks, and all of the staff who have hard work invested in this bill.
  The Appropriations Committee has held more than 100 hearings and 
briefings since January, which helps us determine the best use of 
limited tax dollars that we must spread out over a great number of 
vital Federal programs, services, and Agencies. The Commerce, Justice, 
and Science Appropriations bill is in line with the House-passed budget 
resolution. It totals $51.1 billion, which is $1.6 billion below 
current level and below the pre-stimulus, pre-bailout level of 2008.
  Within this total, the committee prioritized programs and services 
that:
  One, protect our people from threats at home, abroad, and in 
cyberspace;
  Two, that maintain the competitiveness of American industry and 
businesses; and,
  Three, that encourage the scientific research that has kept America 
at the forefront of the world in innovation.
  Some of these critical investments include $8.3 billion for the FBI; 
$468 million for the International Trade Administration; $830 million 
for the National Institute of Standards and Technology; and $2.4 
billion for the Drug Enforcement Agency. In addition, this bill 
includes various provisions to promote freedom and liberty, while also 
fulfilling our moral obligation to the most vulnerable among us. The 
bill helps to uphold our Second Amendment rights; prevent violence 
against women; help victims of trafficking, and missing and exploited 
children; and bring under control our country's fastest-growing drug 
threat--the abuse of prescription drugs--which the CDC has now labeled 
a national epidemic.
  We were able to fund these programs at adequate, responsible levels 
while cutting spending--including terminating 37 duplicative, 
unnecessary, or lower-priority programs.
  Not all of these decisions were easy to make, and I know many of my 
colleagues will have amendments to offer as we debate the bill. But I 
am proud of the work that this committee and this subcommittee has done 
to ensure responsibility and sustainability in these Federal budgets. 
While making important reductions that curtail unnecessary overhead and 
wasteful inefficiencies, this bill makes judicious and sensible 
investments in programs that make America the great Nation that it is, 
an America that's safe and secure, an America that leads the way in 
scientific development and innovation, and an America that helps get 
its people back to work.
  I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I thank the chairman 
for yielding.
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member 
of the full committee, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Fattah for yielding to 
me and for his hard work on this important bill.
  As we begin the floor consideration of the first of the 2013 
appropriations bills, I would like to state as a preface that I regret 
the majority's decision to not abide by the bipartisan Budget Control 
Act. Reducing the overall allocation for fiscal year 2013 by an 
additional $19 billion I think is both unnecessary and economically 
unwise. I believe the reduced discretionary allocation in the Ryan 
budget threatens to stall economic growth and job creation, and in the 
near term it introduces uncertainty in our appropriations process that 
might imperil our ability to produce these bills in a timely manner.
  That said, I remain committed to working collaboratively with the 
majority as we continue through the appropriations process this year 
because I remain cautiously optimistic that this reduced allocation is 
merely temporary. At the end of the process, I believe the House and 
Senate will come to an agreement that reflects the Budget Control Act 
level of $1.047 trillion rather than the level of $1.028 trillion that 
is based on the Ryan budget.
  With regard to the bill before us, I want to thank Chairman Wolf, 
Ranking Member Fattah, Chairman Rogers, and their staffs for their hard 
work on this bill. The majority worked closely with our side to put 
this bill together, and there were many issues on which we were able to 
reach agreement.
  While the level of funding in this bill may not be as low as a strict 
proportional reduction based on the Ryan budget, it is nevertheless not 
adequate to meet the needs in some areas. In comparison, the CJS bill 
in the other body has passed through committee with only one dissenting 
vote, and it is $731 million higher than the House allocation. Clearly, 
there is significant bipartisan support for this higher allocation.
  The House bill contains several funding levels that will be difficult 
for Democrats to support. The COPS hiring program is cut by 76 percent, 
even as State and local budgets continue to recover from historic 
losses in revenue. The Legal Services Corporation is also cut when it 
should be getting an increase, as has been proposed by the President 
and supported in the other body.
  I'm also concerned that some important NOAA programs have been cut, 
in part to pay for necessary new satellites. While I support the 
development and deployment of new satellites, it is important that we 
find a way to pay for them without making such drastic reductions in 
other important NOAA programs.
  Let me state that there were some very positive aspects of this bill. 
In particular, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member for 
funding the Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Fund at this year's enacted 
level and for once again funding an increase to the Mitchell Act 
program. These are vitally important programs in the Pacific Northwest.
  I'm also pleased that the subcommittee mark contains $6.4 million for 
research in ocean acidification. The measurable increase in acidity in 
the world's oceans is already having an economic effect on the 
shellfish industry in the Pacific Northwest, interfering with the 
formation of the shells of oysters, mussels, clams, and other 
organisms, such as phytoplankton.
  I also appreciate that this bill provides significant increases for 
our Federal law enforcement agencies, especially an additional $23 
million for the FBI to investigate cyberintrusions. The bill also 
includes an important increase in funding for youth mentoring programs, 
which provide crucial support to at-risk youth in underserved 
communities and also to military kids, many of whom are struggling to 
adapt to the multiple deployments of one or both parents.
  I want to echo the words of Ranking Member Fattah about the Boys and 
Girls Club of America. I find that the Boys and Girls Club have been 
one of the outstanding organizations and have done so much to help 
youth with their after-school programs.
  I thank the gentleman, again, for yielding to me.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the 
full Committee on Science, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL. I, of course, rise in support of H.R. 5326, the Commerce, 
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 2013. This 
bill includes over $30 billion for four key agencies under the Science, 
Space, and Technology Committee's jurisdiction: the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, 
the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

[[Page H2356]]

  It's a very strong bill, and I want to commend the gentleman from 
Virginia, Chairman Wolf, for his continued passionate support for 
science and space issues in a challenging fiscal environment. Mr. Wolf 
is a true champion of science, and this bill is reflective of that. I 
also appreciate Chairman Wolf's work to address my concerns and 
priorities as chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, 
and want to highlight a few specific areas of importance to us in this 
bill.

                              {time}  1440

  With regards to NASA, this legislation recognizes the budget 
realities that we must confront by responsibly imposing measured 
reductions across the Agency's portfolio. Importantly, this bill 
maintains development of a new heavy-lift launch system and crew 
capsule. It maintains a healthy space science enterprise, continues to 
support innovative aeronautics research, and funds the administration's 
commercial crew program at the authorized level of $500 million. Our 
committee will continue to provide oversight on the commercial crew 
program and work with the appropriators to support a program that has 
the best chance to succeed on schedule, with appropriate safeguards for 
the crew, and with the best use of taxpayer dollars.
  With regards to the National Science Foundation, the modest increase 
for the Foundation is appropriate, as basic research and development 
play a critical role in our economic success. I strongly encourage NSF 
to broadly use this funding for fundamental research which keeps the 
United States at the very leading edge of discovery and not to blur 
this essential role with other initiatives that are best left to the 
private sector.
  Chairman Wolf has also worked to sustain the programs of the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, that directly benefit our 
Nation's competitiveness. The critical link between fundamental 
measurement science and our economic success allows NIST to innovate 
new ways to help U.S. companies excel within a global marketplace and 
create high-paying jobs.
  With respect to NOAA, I thank Chairman Wolf for his continued strong 
support and oversight of NOAA's satellite programs and for his efforts 
to restore balance to NOAA's research portfolio. The bill does this, in 
part, by redirecting the administration's proposed significant 
increases for climate science to higher priority weather research that 
will help to protect lives and property through improved severe-weather 
forecasting. This topic is important to all regions of our Nation and, 
most recently, to northeast Texas, where an outbreak of tornadoes and 
severe weather in April caused significant damage to homes and 
property, including in my home county in Royse City. Regarding these 
weather research priorities, I hope to work with you as the bill moves 
to conference to preserve and enhance this particular NOAA priority.

         House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, 
           and Technology,
                                   Washington, DC, April 17, 2012.
     Hon. Frank Wolf,
     Chairman, Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies 
         Appropriations Subcommittee, House Appropriations 
         Committee, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Wolf: On April 2, President Obama delivered a 
     speech highly critical of the recently passed House 
     Republican budget. The speech included the direct and serious 
     charge that approval of the Republican budget will result in 
     degraded storm warnings. Specifically, the President stated:
       ``Over time, our weather forecasts would become less 
     accurate because we wouldn't be able to afford to launch new 
     satellites. And that means governors and mayors would have to 
     wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a 
     hurricane.''
       I object to the President's characterization of this issue, 
     and believe it is important that we set the record straight 
     with respect to the origin, outlook, and mitigating options 
     associated with the potential weather satellite data gap 
     referenced by the President. More importantly, I would like 
     to work with you in our respective leadership roles on the 
     relevant authorizing and appropriating Committees to redirect 
     questionable priorities in the President's budget and place a 
     greater emphasis on saving lives and property through 
     improved weather forecasting. Recent tornado outbreaks across 
     the country--including in and around my Congressional 
     district and Northeast Texas--serve as a reminder of the 
     importance of accurate and timely severe storm forecasts.
       As you know, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee's 
     fiscal year 2013 (FY13) Views and Estimates (V&E) 
     communicated general concerns with and recommendations 
     regarding the President's budget request for the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These views 
     were delivered to the Budget Committee on March 9, 2012. 
     However, in light of the President's remarks, as well as 
     NOAA's failure to send Congress its budget until March 19--
     ten days after the Budget Committee V&E deadline--I believe 
     it is important to reiterate and expand upon key concerns 
     with the President's budget.
       Regarding the President's suggestion that the Republican 
     budget will result in a satellite data gap, the Committee 
     views explicitly addressed this issue, noting:
       [T]he Committee remains extremely concerned about the 
     potential for a data gap between the time that NPP expires 
     and the first JPSS satellite is launched in 2018. 
     Furthermore, the Committee does not agree with NOAA's 
     characterization of the gap as a result of insufficient 
     funding in prior fiscal years. For years, this program and 
     its predecessor have been plagued with cost over-runs, poor 
     management, agency infighting, technical problems and 
     contractor mistakes. The program restructuring in 2010 
     increased costs and delayed the program schedule. 
     Furthermore, in the two years since the Administration 
     announced the separation of the original program, NOAA has 
     not re-baselined the JPSS budget as required under P.L. 110 
     161 and P.L. 109 155. This inaction and delay is troubling, 
     and significantly hinders the Committee's ability to conduct 
     proper oversight and undertake a complete assessment of the 
     program's future. Additionally, the Committee is extremely 
     concerned that NOAA has not developed a viable plan for 
     acquiring necessary data if the gap materializes as expected. 
     The Committee recommends an immediate focus on such an effort 
     and believes that any such plan should be developed in a 
     scientific manner, utilizing the resources and expertise of 
     other NOAA line offices.
       These concerns remain and provide important context to the 
     President's misleading charges. Additionally, it is important 
     to note that while the Joint Polar Satellite System the 
     President refers to is a key component of two- to five-day 
     forecasts, significant increases in warning times for 
     tornadoes must come from better models, advanced radar 
     technology, and more measurements from ground-based and 
     aerial sensors that directly measure wind speed, direction, 
     temperature and moisture. These relatively inexpensive Earth-
     bound observing and computing systems provide the most vital 
     information for severe storm forecasting, and are 
     unfortunately the types of systems President Obama is 
     actually proposing to cut.
       Finally, I believe the President's request misses critical 
     opportunities to advance much higher priority weather-related 
     research and technology development that will increase the 
     accuracy and timeliness of severe storm forecasting, 
     ultimately improving protection of American lives and 
     property. Instead, the Administration has chosen to direct 
     virtually all of its $29 million (7.6 percent) increase for 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Research to climate research. In 
     fact, proposed FY 2013 climate spending of $213 million is 
     over $60 million more than the level approved by your 
     Subcommittee in last year's House-passed appropriations bill.
       Simply diverting some of this increase for climate research 
     to research on Earth-based observing systems and development 
     of weather forecasting innovations would greatly improve 
     allocation of taxpayer resources and pay important dividends 
     to the country. In particular, I recommend a shift of funding 
     of $13 million to the President's anemic weather research 
     request of less than $70 million for the following four 
     areas:
       1. Unmanned Aircraft Systems ($6 million), which will allow 
     for testing and use of instruments to significantly enhance 
     atmospheric observations, particularly in severe weather such 
     as hurricanes and tornadoes.
       2. Graphic Processing Unit (GPU) supercomputing R&D ($5 
     million) to enable weather forecast models to run much faster 
     and more accurately with significantly greater detail.
       3. Weather radar advanced algorithm and software 
     development ($2 million) to maximize the utility and use of 
     new dual-polarization radar hardware capabilities.
       4. Observing System Simulation Experiments (OSSEs $3 
     million) to objectively and quantitatively assess the 
     potential benefit of alternative weather data systems to 
     improve global weather prediction, hurricane track intensity 
     and forecasting, tornado warning times, and the prediction of 
     local severe storm outbreaks. At a recent SST Committee 
     hearing, a broad cross-section of stakeholders recommended 
     NOAA fund OSSEs to better guide weather data system decision-
     making and also inform options associated with minimizing the 
     loss of forecast accuracy in the event of continued satellite 
     launch delays and resulting gaps.
       Although I support maintaining resources for important 
     climate research activities such as the National Integrated 
     Drought Information System, I would also recommend an 
     additional shifting of funding of $10 million from climate 
     research to the National Weather Service to fund observing 
     systems such as the NOAA Profiler Network and the National 
     Mesonet. These on-the-ground systems have already proven 
     vital for providing

[[Page H2357]]

     data increasing the accuracy of short-term weather forecasts 
     and severe storm warnings.
       Taken together, these initiatives, with a small relative 
     cost paid for by simply diverting a portion of the 
     President's requested increase for climate research, could 
     provide tremendous returns in terms of lives saved, out-year 
     budget savings and the avoidance of billions of dollars in 
     property loss and damage.
       Thank you for considering this important request. I look 
     forward to working closely with you as you develop and 
     advance the FY13 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related 
     Agencies appropriations legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Rep. Ralph M. Hall,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
the great State of Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) who is a senior member of the 
House Appropriations Committee.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank Ranking Member Fattah for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise today to oppose the fiscal year 2013 
Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies appropriations bill, 
but I want to commend Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah for their 
truly diligent work on this bill.
  The bipartisanship shown during the markup of the bill was remarkable 
in today's political climate and a tribute to both Members' willingness 
to compromise in order to move legislation forward, doing the work we 
were sent here to do.
  I would also like to thank the Appropriations staff for their hard 
work on the first fiscal year 2013 bill the House will consider. From 
my perspective, the Appropriations staff is the hardest working 
committee staff in Congress and deserves recognition for all their 
efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation we are considering today fails to make 
the necessary investments to promote economic growth in jobs across 
this country. It also fails to provide significant resources for law 
enforcement officials, particularly local law enforcement, as they face 
difficulties from austerity cutbacks by State and local governments.
  The total funding for this bill is the result of the Republican 
leadership breaking the agreement made in the Budget Control Act. The 
agreed-upon funding levels were an attempt to get our fiscal house in 
order in a fair and balanced way. It is unfortunate that the 
Republicans are going back on their word and slashing funding for 
programs that create jobs and support law enforcement.
  Importantly, funding cutbacks for the Economic Development 
Administration fail to meet President Obama's request for that 
important initiative to strengthen America's manufacturing base.
  In addition, the underlying bill fails to provide State and local law 
enforcement with the Federal support they deserve. Cutting nearly $400 
million from State and local programs at the Department of Justice is 
not only unacceptable but dangerous, in my view.
  A particular concern for me is the lack of resources provided to meet 
the President's request for additional funding to combat financial and 
mortgage fraud. The President requested additional resources for the 
FBI, the Criminal Division, Civil Division, Civil Rights Division, and 
U.S. Attorneys. Less than half of the funding requested for the FBI is 
provided in this bill. No other funding is provided to investigate and 
prosecute financial and mortgage fraud.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman.
  Let me just state for the record that the average return on 
investment for one corporate fraud agent was approximately $54 million 
over the last 3 years in fines and restitution that they get back for 
our taxpayers because of their work. What a tremendous return on 
investment that is for every taxpayer dollar, recovering those funds 
from combating financial and mortgage fraud makes total common sense.
  Finally, I oppose the provision in the bill that repeals existing 
prohibitions on reductions in force at NASA. There was an agreement we 
reached as a Congress on how to do that. This bill does not conform to 
that restructuring proposal.
  For these reasons, I oppose the bill in its current form and, again, 
commend Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah for bringing us to this 
point.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kinzinger).
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise today for the purpose 
of a colloquy with the chairman to discuss the importance of assessing 
our global competitiveness in manufacturing through an online tool that 
will calculate the costs of manufacturing in the United States versus 
overseas. I would like to recognize and thank the chairman for 
including the online manufacturing tool in last year's Commerce, 
Justice, and Science Appropriations Act.
  On the Energy and Commerce Committee, we've been working to find ways 
to highlight the shift in U.S. manufacturing competitiveness. According 
to a recent analysis by the Boston Consulting Group, China's 
overwhelming manufacturing cost advantage is shrinking, and by 2015, 
the cost gap between the United States and China will virtually close.
  Companies need to reassess their manufacturing strategy with a 
rigorous analysis of the costs for manufacturing overseas compared to 
the cost in the United States. I'm excited by the online tool that will 
be developed by the Department of Commerce to assist U.S. companies in 
determining the costs of manufacturing overseas, and I commend the 
chairman for his work in promoting U.S. competitiveness.
  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. WOLF. I want to thank you, Mr. Kinzinger, for your work and for 
bringing up this important topic.
  The Department of Commerce can play a pivotal role in educating 
companies on the benefits of manufacturing in the U.S. We need to 
ensure that the Department is using innovative tools such as online 
calculators to assist companies. This online tool has the potential to 
not only educate companies but also provide clarity in advantages and 
disadvantages of manufacturing in the U.S.
  Also, I think people ought to know this is not only a tool; this is 
almost a moral issue. We just went through and had hearings with 
Congressman Chris Smith when Congress was away. The country of China 
had Chen and beat up his wife and did a lot of other things. So not 
only is it this issue, it is a moral issue. And Apple, if you have an 
iPad, it is made in China; iPhone, made in China; iPod, made in China, 
and those jobs ought to be coming home. So we also have language in 
there to provide for grants to repatriate, to bring these jobs back.
  China is a trouble. They have a one-child policy. Fifty million men 
cannot find wives. They have corruption in the military, and they are 
unraveling. And this is a great opportunity, using this tool, but just 
for the American manufacturers to come home, to come back to the United 
States. So I thank the gentleman for raising the issue.
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Reclaiming my time, I thank you and I look 
forward to it, and I appreciate your leadership on this issue.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I am glad there is a recognition of the 
importance of manufacturing, and the chairman has done a yeoman's job 
in making sure we, in a number of ways, attack this.
  I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the committee, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  First of all, I'd like to congratulate Chairman Wolf and Ranking 
Member Fattah for their work, but especially for their continued desire 
to work together, to work in a bipartisan fashion to bring about this 
bill that's on the floor today.
  Now, for those of us on our side, we know that there are folks on the 
other side that speak only about budget cuts, but when it comes to 
Chairman Wolf, there is a desire to balance the desire of having those 
budget cuts along with making sure that these bills in fact accomplish 
servicing the American people.
  So I stand ready with the ranking member to be supportive of this 
bill,

[[Page H2358]]

with the understanding that there are two things that have to happen 
that are very serious to that final vote. One of them is a continued 
commitment that as this process goes along we will work to make the 
bill better than it is now, and that we will work to remedy those 
situations that exist within the bill now that need to be taken care 
of.
  Secondly, that in the large and, perhaps, vast amendment process that 
we will have--which is a good sign of being able to have this kind of 
an open rule--the bill doesn't get brought back to a situation where 
some of us cannot be supportive of it. I single out, for instance, just 
two agencies that need betterment, and not necessarily to be destroyed. 
That's the Census Bureau and the Legal Services Corporation. Both of 
those agencies serve a vital purpose in our society. They come under 
heavy attack on so many occasions. I think it's important to know that 
many of us will be looking to make sure that we don't step back even 
further than the bill speaks to now on these two agencies, and as I 
said before, that we work jointly to make the bill even better than it 
is today, but understanding fully the work that Chairman Wolf and 
Ranking Member Fattah have done during this period of time is important 
to me and important to many members of this committee, and of the whole 
House.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder) for such 
time as he may consume.
  Mr. YODER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Commerce-
Justice-Science 2013 appropriations bill, our first appropriations bill 
of the upcoming fiscal year. I'd like to commend the chairman and 
Members of both parties in their efforts to put together some 
bipartisan reforms in this legislation, and also to find ways to reduce 
spending to get our national debt back in line.
  Like many Americans, I am concerned about the national debt crisis 
facing this country--almost $16 trillion now in national debt that 
we've racked up; that is a factor now--and the economic decisions we 
have to make every day in this country. It will be a burden that we'll 
pass on to our kids and grandkids for generations to come. So any 
opportunities that we have to reduce spending and find ways to get our 
budget back in line should be supported by this Congress as we attempt 
to become fiscally responsible.
  We've had a spending epidemic in this city for far too long, many 
times not finding any cure on this House floor and no support for 
reducing spending. So I want to commend the committee for actually 
reducing spending in this legislation below the 2008 levels, below the 
pre-stimulus levels, to try to put us back on a track towards fiscal 
responsibility.
  It used to be in Washington the idea that a spending cut was not 
getting the amount of increase that you requested. You requested a 3 
percent increase, you only got a 2 percent increase, and an agency felt 
they were cut. So we're turning that on its head. We're changing the 
course of business in this town and actually reducing spending from one 
year to the next, and it's a good first start. Certainly, there are 
many miles to go and additional reductions to make in all areas, but 
this legislation heads us in the right direction, and it does so in a 
responsible way. Not only does the legislation reduce spending, but it 
re-prioritizes spending to those things that have the greatest value to 
the American people and make the greatest impact on the economic 
challenges our country is facing.
  Not only does it increase support for the FBI and different law 
enforcement agencies, but it also supports the National Science 
Foundation with an increase in spending, the Commerce Department, and 
our Trade and Patent Offices, those types of bottleneck agencies that 
make a difference on whether small business owners, entrepreneurs can 
create jobs and grow and expand the economy.
  So we need to get Washington out of the way and create these 
efficiencies, and this legislation goes in the right direction towards 
cleaning up some of those problems and supporting the programs that 
have the greatest impact by re-prioritizing spending.
  So if you're focused like I am on reducing spending, like many 
Americans are on this national debt crisis, but you also want to see 
Washington spend less resources on endless bureaucracy in Washington, 
D.C., and more on the types of programs that help Americans back home, 
this is the right type of legislation; it strikes the right balance.
  My hope is that the two political parties can work together to 
support this legislation. Let's get it moving. And let's start 
producing the types of priorities and the types of bills that the 
American people want to see us continue to work on, continue to see us 
be productive on, working together to reduce the national debt, reduce 
spending, but finding ways to re-prioritize spending on those things 
that matter most.
  I'd like to commend the chairman and the committee for working 
together.
  Mr. FATTAH. I would note that the chairman and I are both in a 
significant minority on this floor in voting for the Bowles-Simpson 
proposal, so we're for a balanced fiscal approach, but we also know 
that we have to make important investments.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mr. Keating) to enter into a colloquy on 
an important matter related to marine science.
  Mr. KEATING. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his leadership 
and his willingness to preserve resources for marine mammal stranding 
response in the fiscal year 2013 Commerce-Justice-Science 
appropriations bill.
  I understand that the House Report 112 463 includes language 
encouraging NOAA to maintain funding for essential marine mammal 
stranding grants. The competitive Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue 
Assistance grant program is a cost-effective, community-oriented 
program that works with stranded mammals, enables the collection of 
data to prevent future strandings, and deals with the practical dilemma 
communities face with beached dolphins weighing 200 to 500 pounds, as 
well as with right whales.
  Based on conversations with the chairman and ranking member, I will 
not be offering my amendment specifying this grant at this time. I look 
forward, rather, to working with the gentleman from Virginia towards 
inserting this language in conference.
  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KEATING. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for raising the 
issue, and I promise we will work with him and our colleagues in the 
Senate during the conference to ensure an adequate level of funding for 
this program.

  Mr. WOLF. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield 2 minutes to my fraternity brother, the gentleman 
representing the great State of Michigan (Mr. Clarke) to talk about the 
importance of science and STEM-related education.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Thank you, Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member 
Fattah, members of the greatest fraternity there is.
  As a member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee that 
authorizes the National Science Foundation, I wanted to thank the 
leaders of this budget for fully funding the National Science 
Foundation's education budget according to the President's 
recommendation. This is going to help us provide more education to our 
young people, especially youth from the inner city, who very rarely get 
a chance to be educated in the areas of science, technology, 
engineering, and mathematics, because this is the only way--one of the 
most powerful ways--that our young people can get the education and 
training that they need to get good-paying jobs.
  This funding in this budget will help centers such as the Detroit 
Science Center better reach out to these young people. And we're 
looking forward to the soon reopening of the Detroit Science Center. 
Again, we thank this budget for the support of the National Science 
Foundation, which will be able to help provide resources on a 
competitive basis to centers around the country such as the Detroit 
Science Center.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. On behalf of the Democrats, I yield back the balance of 
our time. We have no further speakers.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H2359]]

  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chair, I am in strong support for funding the 
National Sea Grant College Program in H.R. 5326, making appropriations 
for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related 
Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other 
purposes.
  First, I want to commend the Administration and my colleagues in the 
Congress for not making any significant budgetary changes for our 
National Sea Grant College Program, or Sea Grant, given our budget 
limitations and push for fiscal responsibility.
  The National Sea Grant College Program, through the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration, continues to play a significant role in 
the stewardship of our lakes and oceans. Our coastal communities have 
continued to work closely with Sea Grant's national network of more 
than 30 universities in all parts of the U.S, including our 
Territories. Like our land-grant universities, Sea Grant conducts 
research, training, and extended science-based projects that are 
beneficial for the conservation and use of our aquatic and coastal 
resources. I strongly believe that we as a nation are not investing 
enough in Sea Grant as we have done so with land-grant universities.
  In the last decade, the U.S. has imported an astonishing almost 20 
million tons of seafood from around the world. I feel that this is an 
opportunity, through the many training and research programs by Sea 
Grant, we can continue to diversify and support a more sustainable 
seafood supply. Sea Grant also prepares and supports our local 
communities by providing the necessary data and scientific information 
so that they may be able to make sound decisions that would provide for 
better water quality, more sustainable and healthy ecosystems, or 
adaptation to climate change.
  I want to recognize the positive strides Sea Grant has made not only 
in our Territories but also our coastal and Great Lake states. I urge 
my colleagues to support funding for our National College Sea Grant 
Program.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chair, funding for research, 
innovation, and STEM education is an investment in our future, perhaps 
one of the most important investments we make as a nation. China, the 
European Union, and many other countries understand this and are poised 
to surpass the United States in innovation capacity and in the creation 
of a highly skilled 21st century workforce, if they have not already. 
According to an analysis carried out by the Information Technology and 
Innovation Foundation, the United States ranks second to last of the 44 
countries and regions analyzed in terms of progress in innovation-based 
competitiveness over the last decade. It used to be that the world's 
best and brightest flocked to our shores. Now many of our own best and 
brightest are finding better opportunities in other countries, and we 
are losing our edge in the competition for top talent from around the 
world.
  In 2007, and again in 2010, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation--
the America COMPETES Act--that recognized the importance of increased 
investment in research, innovation, and STEM education. The funding 
trajectories we put forth in those bills were developed while our 
budget situation was healthier than it is today. While falling short of 
the authorized levels, we nevertheless have still managed to come 
together on a bipartisan basis with the Administration to ensure that 
funding for scientific research remains relatively unscathed as many 
other important programs and initiatives suffer deep cuts. This is 
particularly the case with the CJS bill before us today. I want to 
thank Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah, Chairman Rogers, and 
Ranking Member Dicks and for their to funding science and STEM 
education even as they made very difficult cuts in other worthy 
programs.
  In particular, I want to commend the Appropriators for their enduring 
support for the National Science Foundation. The NSF is the only agency 
to fund basic research across all of science and engineering, and its 
support for education research has transformed the way we think about 
teaching and learning. The returns on our 65-year investment in the 
National Science Foundation include such critical discoveries as the 
hole in the ozone layer and the warming of the Arctic and such 
inspiring discoveries as new planets in the cosmos above and 
breathtaking creatures in the deep seas below. Our relatively modest 
investments have also led to such economically important technologies 
as fiber optics, the bar code, computer-aided design, cloud computing, 
and to a large extent the internet. But perhaps NSF's most important 
investment is the investment it makes in human capital--both in the 
great scientists and innovators of tomorrow and in the workforce at all 
level that will fill the jobs that would not be possible without those 
scientists and innovators.
  While I am very pleased with the overall funding levels proposed for 
NSF, I do want to make a couple of specific comments. First, in their 
report on NSF, the Appropriators raise a few important oversight 
issues, especially with respect to management of research facilities. 
The Science, Space, and Technology Committee is undertaking a series of 
oversight hearings in preparation for a reauthorization of NSF next 
year. We've already held two hearings this year focused solely on 
facilities. I look forward to working with the Appropriators as we 
refine our own guidance to the agency through a careful and 
deliberative process. Second, I remain concerned that the agency 
continues to flat-fund its broadening participation programs and is now 
proposing a significant cut to its informal STEM education program even 
though the National Academies found that out-of-school learning 
provides a special opportunity to provide science learning experiences 
for millions of students who don't have access to such experiences in 
their under-resourced schools. We can't afford to continue leaving 
behind such a large and growing percentage of our brainpower. Given the 
overall growth in the Education Directorate proposed in this bill, I 
hope we can work together to ensure that NSF does not let up in its 
commitment to broadening participation in STEM.
  Turning to NASA, it is clear that NASA is a critical part of the 
nation's research and development enterprise, as well as being a source 
of inspiration for our young people and a worldwide symbol of American 
technological prowess and good will. We need NASA to succeed. While 
fiscal challenges require difficult decisions, those decisions should 
not come at the expense of losing critical capabilities.
  I'm pleased to see that the House bill restores a portion of the 21% 
cut to our planetary exploration program--a program that has been a 
highly successful scientific undertaking that has captured the 
imaginations of people around the world. Planetary science has also 
been an increasingly international effort, especially in plans for 
future Mars exploration. The rationale to back out of our plans for 
Mars collaborations with Europe was never clear, and this restoration 
of planetary funding provides the opportunity to resume our engagement 
in that effort and sustain critical U.S. capabilities.
  Regarding the Commercial Crew development program, I have witnessed 
the enthusiasm from aspiring commercial crew companies testifying 
before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and I wish 
them well. But as a steward of the taxpayers' dollars, I cannot let 
enthusiasm override the need for hardheaded oversight. NASA has yet to 
provide Congress with a convincing explanation of why it reversed 
course and scrapped its plan to use FAR-based contracts--contracts that 
allow NASA to ensure that its safety and performance requirements are 
met for whatever systems it funds--in favor of a agreements that cannot 
mandate that safety requirements be met. We don't have the luxury of 
paying for a ``hope for the best'' strategy that risks having us pay 
more down the road the problems that inevitably arise when that hope-
based approach collides with reality. That is why I support a 
commercial crew development approach that returns to FAR-based 
contracts as soon as actionable.
  I am pleased that the House bill provides increases for the Space 
Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle--also known as Orion--over 
the amounts in the budget request, although even these levels are 
significantly below authorized amounts. It is essential that both the 
SLS and Orion remain on track for planned flight tests in 2014 and 
2017. With respect to Orion, I hope that by the time the House and 
Senate have completed their negotiations on this appropriations bill, 
funding for that important capability will be at least at the level in 
the Senate's Committee-passed. We need to ensure that the development 
of Orion includes sufficient funding to enable preparations for its use 
as a back-up or alternative to commercially provided crew and cargo 
transportation in a timely manner in the event those commercial vehicle 
programs are delayed.
  With respect to NOAA, I am pleased to see the CJS appropriations 
includes the full requested level of funding for the Joint Polar 
Satellite System, JPSS. It is vitally important that during a time 
where every region of this country is experiencing various extreme 
weather phenomena, we ensure that we make the needed investments in our 
premier weather and climate observational and forecasting tools. This 
year alone, this country has witnessed in every region and on every 
coastline some of the most extreme, record-breaking weather events. We 
must ensure that Americans are provided accurate short--and long--term 
weather forecasts--forecasts that are critical to saving lives and 
properties and to making informed plans.
  Finally, I am very pleased that the bill before us today recognizes 
the important role that the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology plays in fostering innovation and industrial 
competitiveness. In this bill, NIST's research budget receives a level 
of funding that

[[Page H2360]]

will allow it to continue its important work with industry to advance 
the nation's technology infrastructure. I am also pleased that the 
research budget, along with a decision to continue robust funding for 
the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program and to initiate funding 
for the promising Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia program, 
will help U.S. manufacturers compete and flourish in the global 
marketplace.
  One of the keys to our ability to grow the economy for the future 
lies in our ability to spur innovation-based economic development in 
regions throughout this country. The America COMPETES Reauthorization 
Act of 2010 recognized how critical regional innovation is to our 
competitiveness and authorized a regional innovation program at the 
Economic Development Administration. This program built on initiatives 
already underway at EDA, but provided the agency with the tools and 
flexibility that it needed to ensure the biggest bang for its buck by 
funding the projects with the greatest innovative potential. I am 
disappointed that this bill does not follow the Senate's lead by 
providing a separate line item of funding for this regional innovation 
program. If our shared goal is to promote innovation and economic 
growth, we should fund these activities under the program that was 
developed specifically with this goal in mind and not continue to 
require these activities to be funded through programs that were 
developed for other economic development purposes.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment who has 
caused it to be printed in the designated place in the Congressional 
Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5326

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                   International Trade Administration

                     operations and administration

       For necessary expenses for international trade activities 
     of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and for 
     engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including 
     expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose 
     of promoting exports of United States firms, without regard 
     to sections 3702 and 3703 of title 44, United States Code; 
     full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate 
     families of employees stationed overseas and employees 
     temporarily posted overseas; travel and transportation of 
     employees of the International Trade Administration between 
     two points abroad, without regard to section 40118 of title 
     49, United States Code; employment of citizens of the United 
     States and aliens by contract for services; rental of space 
     abroad for periods not exceeding 10 years, and expenses of 
     alteration, repair, or improvement; purchase or construction 
     of temporary demountable exhibition structures for use 
     abroad; payment of tort claims, in the manner authorized in 
     the first paragraph of section 2672 of title 28, United 
     States Code, when such claims arise in foreign countries; not 
     to exceed $294,300 for official representation expenses 
     abroad; purchase of passenger motor vehicles for official use 
     abroad, not to exceed $45,000 per vehicle; obtaining 
     insurance on official motor vehicles; and rental of tie 
     lines, $467,737,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2014, of which $9,439,000 is to be derived from fees to be 
     retained and used by the International Trade Administration, 
     notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code: 
     Provided, That, of amounts provided under this heading, not 
     less than $11,400,000 shall be for China antidumping and 
     countervailing duty enforcement and compliance activities: 
     Provided further, That the provisions of the first sentence 
     of section 105(f) and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual 
     Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall apply in carrying out these 
     activities; and that for the purpose of this Act, 
     contributions under the provisions of the Mutual Educational 
     and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 shall include payment for 
     assessments for services provided as part of these 
     activities.

                              {time}  1500


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Peters

  Mr. PETERS. I rise to offer an amendment on this paragraph.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $9,000,000)''.
       Page 65, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $17,000,000)''.
       Page 76, line 16, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,790,000)''.

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. Chairman, there's a lot of talk here in Washington 
about the need to cut our budget deficits; and while that is certainly 
true, we also need to be talking about another deficit, and that's our 
country's trade deficit.
  Last year, the United States ran a trade deficit of $558 billion. If 
you look just at the trade in goods, this number jumps to an astounding 
$737 billion.
  According to a recent report by the Economic Policy Institute, the 
growth in the U.S. trade deficit with China alone has led to the loss 
of almost 3 million American jobs in the last 10 years.
  Too often, the U.S. opens its markets to foreign competition without 
reciprocal access. And while we play by the rules here in the United 
States, other countries impose unfair tariffs, duties, and technical 
barriers, and even use techniques like currency manipulation to game 
international trade rules.
  China aggressively uses trade policies, including currency 
manipulation, to protect and subsidize their domestic industries, while 
undermining American companies. In response to the World Trade 
Organization case that the United States brought against China, the 
Chinese Government recently imposed new retaliatory duties on American-
made vehicles which are clearly in violation of WTO requirements.
  Additionally, China consistently advances policies to force 
technology transfers from non-Chinese companies and obtain the 
intellectual property that drives these advanced technologies. China 
has also used these policies to help gain an advantage in a number of 
different industries, including wind turbines and water purification.
  Given the aggressive actions taken by China and other countries, we 
simply cannot afford not to use every tool at our disposal to combat 
unfair trade practices. This is why Representative Michaud and I have 
joined with our colleagues from across the aisle, Representatives 
McCotter and LaTourette, to put forward a bipartisan amendment to fully 
fund the new Interagency Trade Enforcement Center, or ITEC.
  President Obama created ITEC to enhance the administration's 
capabilities to proactively challenge unfair trade practices around the 
world, including in China. ITEC represents a new, aggressive ``whole-
of-government'' approach to addressing unfair trade practices and will 
serve as the primary forum within the Federal Government for executive 
Departments and Agencies to coordinate enforcement of international and 
domestic trade rules.
  It is now up to us here in Congress to fund ITEC and give it the 
teeth it needs to aggressively attack unfair and illegal foreign 
practices. It is certainly a step in the right direction that the 
Appropriations Committee provided $15 million of the requested $26 
million in funding for ITEC to get it off the ground. But with our 
Nation running a half-a-trillion-dollar trade deficit, now is not the 
time for half measures.
  We must do everything possible to level the playing field for 
American workers and American companies. Our budget-neutral, bipartisan 
amendment will fully fund ITEC by making a small reduction in the Cross 
Agency Support in NASA, an item funded at $2.84 billion. This amounts 
to a reduction of less than sixth-tenths of 1 percent for this item. 
And while I certainly support NASA, this reduction does not come from 
their core budget items of education, exploration, or aeronautics.
  American workers are the best in the world, and they can out-compete 
anybody, but Congress must pass legislation to ensure that they compete 
on a level playing field.
  Whether you believe in aggressively moving forward with additional 
trade agreements, or you believe that we need to rethink American trade 
policy, we should all agree that we cannot and must not let foreign 
governments cheat because when they do, American workers and American 
firms lose.
  A vote against this commonsense amendment is a vote to allow China 
and other nations to continue gaming international trade laws. Stand up 
for American workers. Fully fund ITEC,

[[Page H2361]]

and vote ``yes'' on the Peters-McCotter-Michaud-LaTourette amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCOTTER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from 
Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCOTTER. I rise in support of the bipartisan Peters-McCotter-
Michaud-LaTourette amendment to fully fund the Interagency Trade 
Enforcement Center.
  Common sense is afoot. I know the novelty is frightening to many in 
this Chamber. However, let us start by examining some of the premises 
behind this necessary amendment.
  First, despite what many claim, we do not live in a period of time 
where we have free trade. We live in a period of time of negotiated 
trade; and, as such, trade must be reciprocal, not suicidal.
  The United States, throughout our lifetimes, has been the economic 
engine of the world. It has remained so because we are a free people, 
free to engage in contracts, free to engage in research and 
development, free to innovate, free to manufacture, free to show the 
world what we can achieve economically as well as politically.
  What this amendment will do is something that is a long time coming. 
It is to treat other nations' unfair trade practices as a comprehensive 
problem. No more Whack a Mole, no more pretending the problem doesn't 
exist. What we need to do is, quite simply, take a ``root and branch'' 
approach to those mercantilist countries whose own oppression leads to 
the lack of necessary freedom for their people to be able to achieve 
and compete with the United States.
  A refusal to support this amendment simply shows that we will 
continue to go on the same old tired path of watching the best workers 
and the best entrepreneurs in the world be cheated out of their pursuit 
of prosperity, and us all be cheated out of a healthier, more vibrant 
economy.
  I urge my colleagues to embrace this bipartisanship, this common 
sense, so that, together, we can strike a blow for free and fair trade 
and protect American jobs by allowing for free and fair competition 
amongst nations.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. The bill already includes important increases for trade 
enforcement, including $15 million for the Interagency Trade 
Enforcement Center, an increase of nearly $11 million.
  We pushed Kirk to add Chinese speakers. He wouldn't even do it. He 
wouldn't even do it. We have pushed him to do it.
  This is a bad amendment. The offset is a problem. Sometimes you can 
come here and be for one thing but also want to protect the other.
  The Cross Agency Support Account is not free money that can be cut 
without consequences. The committee has already extracted more than 
$150 million of savings from this account relative to fiscal year 2012, 
and NASA will not be able to absorb the additional reductions through 
efficiencies.
  NASA has already been cut. Now we want to cut it more. These cuts 
will include critical programmatic functions. These are the functions 
that they want to kind of cut in there. Cybersecurity, cybersecurity to 
fend off relentless attacks by China. Their computers have been hit. 
While NASA is a civil Agency, much of its technology also has military 
applications, and protecting this information is a national and 
economic--that area they will be taking money from that.
  Human space flight safety oversight. We learned the hard way on the 
Challenger and Columbia tragedies that relentless attention to safety 
is necessary. Cuts to this account could hamstring NASA's efforts to 
minimize the risk of loss of life or property.
  Verification and validation of mission-critical software that 
operates the satellites and the space station. We spend billions of 
dollars on these space projects, and those investments could easily be 
wasted by fundamental software errors if such software isn't rigorously 
tested.

                              {time}  1510

  This account also deals with medical support services to keep the 
astronauts and ground workers healthy. Many NASA employees work 
regularly in hazardous environments, and I don't want to be responsible 
for endangering them. The procurement account, which is the operation 
of agency-wide testing, is a big source for jobs. It funds nearly 
10,000 contractor workers, and nearly 8,000 are government employees, 
FTEs, who carry out these activities.
  This cuts vital, important things for NASA. If you want to cut NASA, 
then you ought to cut this. If you support sticking it to NASA and 
cutting NASA--if you're against the Orion, if you're against the 
commercial crew, if you're against all the things they do for space 
safety--support this amendment. If you want to protect NASA, then I 
urge you to oppose this amendment.
  Lastly, I take a backseat to no one in this body in criticizing the 
Chinese Government. Frankly, this administration has been weak in 
aggressively pushing with regard to trade and things like that. We 
forced and urged and told Kirk to put Chinese speakers on. We put the 
money in for Chinese speakers when they didn't ask for it.
  If you want to protect NASA, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. In part, I rise out of a desire to have my cake and eat 
it, too.
  I agree with the gentleman, Mr. Peters, that trade enforcement is 
critically important. This administration has put a premium on it in 
that regard, bringing case after case--the tire case--against the 
Chinese. We could go through the laundry list. There is an $11 million 
increase embedded in the bill, as it has come to the floor, over last 
year's appropriation. I am not sure you can find a part of this budget 
in which there has been a more significant increase. However, it is not 
at the level of what the administration had requested.
  I could support moving additional dollars in this direction, but this 
target of the Cross-Agency account at NASA, which we're going to see 
repeated dozens of times on the floor, I think is not the appropriate 
way to go. We don't want to rob our space agency of the important 
resources it needs to protect our astronauts, to protect its 
cybersystems. We have to be careful here.
  So I would say to the gentleman that, no matter what the result on 
the amendment, I will be glad to work with him as we go forward in the 
conference to try to find additional resources for trade enforcement. I 
think this administration has done a great job in fighting the good 
fight, but they do need the resources. The chairman has provided $11 
million in additional resources, but if we can find a few more dollars 
in that direction, I think it's a worthy investment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Peters).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $13,748,940)''.
       Page 4, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,019,990)''.
       Page 6, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,125,000)''.
       Page 6, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $860,670)''.
       Page 6, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,880,000)''.
       Page 7, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $7,600,080)''.
       Page 7, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,367,040)''.
       Page 11, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $18,635,190)''.
       Page 13, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $89,051,130)''.

[[Page H2362]]

       Page 13, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $89,051,130)''.
       Page 13, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $89,051,130)''.
       Page 17, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,650,000)''.
       Page 21, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,309,660)''.
       Page 22, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $383,160)''.
       Page 23, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $25,901,010)''.
       Page 26, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $60,000)''.
       Page 27, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $343,680)''.
       Page 28, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $35,654,640)''.
       Page 29, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,701,170)''.
       Page 30, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $245,550,210)''.
       Page 31, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $71,895,120)''.
       Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $34,600,350)''.
       Page 34, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $204,606,510)''.
       Page 59, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $175,500)''.
       Page 65, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $85,305,000)''.
       Page 70, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $8,982,000)''.
       Page 70, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $133,200)''.
       Page 71, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $275,790)''.
       Page 73, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,997,040)''.
       Page 74, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,490,000)''.
       Page 74, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $510,000)''.
       Page 74, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $510,000)''.
       Page 76, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $90,750)''.
       Page 76, line 16, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,537,530)''.
       Page 76, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $153,630)''.
       Page 101, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $874,593,990)''.

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. This amendment would reduce the administrative 
spending salaries and expense accounts in the underlying bill by just 3 
percent.
  During this time of fiscal crisis, it is imperative that Congress 
works to get both entitlement as well as discretionary spending under 
control. As we all know, over the last 2 years, House Members have 
voted to reduce their own administrative accounts, their Member 
Representational Allowances, by just over 11 percent. Yet, over that 
same period, many agencies have seen much lower cuts in their spending 
and have even seen increases in their spending.
  For example, under this bill, the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration would see a 12 percent increase in its 
salaries and expenses accounts between FY11 and FY13. The Federal 
Prison System would receive an additional 9 percent increase in 
salaries and expenses. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 
would receive a 7 percent increase. The U.S. Marshals, FBI, and Drug 
Enforcement Administration would all receive a 6 percent increase.
  Now, some may argue that these agencies perform important tasks. 
Certainly, we can all agree that those employed by law enforcement 
agencies, which are funded by this bill, are deserving of the pay that 
they receive; but, Madam Chairman, the fiscal writing is on the wall: 
The U.S. Government is broke. We here in Congress must face the facts 
and stop the denial of our economic position and crisis that we're in. 
If we are serious about reducing spending, if we are serious about 
reducing our deficit, we have to ask every agency to follow Congress' 
lead to take small reductions in their administrative funding.
  To be clear, a 3 percent reduction in these accounts would, in many 
cases, still result in less than a 10 percent reduction in funding from 
the FY11 funding levels. While this amount is small, it would pay 
dividends, rich dividends, resulting in nearly $875 million in savings 
in this bill alone.
  It is long past time to get serious about spending. Madam Chairman, 
this amendment represents a balanced way to achieve significant 
savings. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Let me give just one example, and then I will just stand 
in opposition to the amendment.
  On page 30, line 15, this amendment would cut the FBI by $245 
million. Now, we know of the important work being done on behalf of the 
safety of Americans throughout the world by the FBI and, most 
particularly, here in our own country. Our job under the Constitution 
is to figure out what appropriations are needed. Under our 
Constitution, the Ways and Means Committee is responsible for figuring 
out how to pay for it. We can't say that somehow the safety of our 
citizens is too expensive for the wealthiest, greatest country on the 
face of the Earth. I stand in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I want to remind my good friends on the other 
side, those who oppose this, that if my amendment is passed, the FBI 
still gets a 6 percent increase in what their funding is over today. So 
they still not only continue their funding but have an increase over 
current funding levels. This would just reduce the administrative 
costs, not the funding for the FBI agents out in the field. It's not 
going to interfere with the security of American citizens.
  Mr. FATTAH. In reclaiming my time, you are, indeed, a person who 
provides a lot of leadership here in the House, and you lead our 
Thursday prayer efforts. I want to thank you for all the work that you 
do, but in this instance, I disagree with you.
  I have met with Director Mueller right in my office. The FBI needs 
additional resources. The chairman has provided $128 million in this 
committee bill. This cuts $245 million when we're trying to deal with 
the principal responsibility for the world these days in providing 
protection against terrorist attacks. We just saw in the news today a 
new device that was attempted to be used to bring down an American 
commercial airliner. If such a device were to go off, it would cost our 
economy more, not just in lives, but in real economic costs if we had 
to reshape our airline industry. It would be, I think, foolish of us as 
a Nation to retreat from investments at this time in the FBI.
  On that point, on page 30, line 15, I oppose this amendment, and I 
ask my colleagues to do likewise.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun). His 
heart is in the right place, and I think the whole concept of getting 
control of the budget is very important. But I rise in opposition.
  It would cut the FBI, DEA, NIST, U.S. Trade Rep and the National 
Science Foundation. Some of the increases are in here because the House 
Intelligence Committee approached us. As Mr. Rogers said:

       There are two kinds of companies in America: those who have 
     been hit by cyberattacks and know it, and those who have been 
     hit by cyber by the Chinese and do not know it.

  Many of those important functions the Intel Committee has asked us to 
carry in order to help and many others would be severely hurt. So I 
thank the gentleman for the amendment. I think what he's trying to do 
is important, but I think this would be the wrong way to do it.
  I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H2363]]

the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 3, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $277,824,000)''.
       Page 101, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $277,824,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chairman, this amendment cuts more than a 
quarter-billion dollars in unauthorized appropriations from the 
International Trade Administration.
  What does the International Trade Administration do? Well, it's got 
some legitimate functions in forcing trade agreements and treaties, and 
this amendment leaves those functions untouched. But ITA also--and this 
is from their own material--``provides counseling to American companies 
in order to develop the most profitable and sustainable plans for 
pricing, export, and the full range of public and private trade 
promotion assistance, as well as market intelligence, and industry and 
market-specific research.''
  That's all well and good, Madam Chairman, but isn't that what 
businesses and trade associations and the chambers of commerce are 
supposed to do with their own money? Why should taxpayers be 
subsidizing the profits of individual businesses? If a specific 
business or industry is the beneficiary of these services, shouldn't 
they be the sole financiers of those services, either individually or 
collectively through trade associations?
  It's true this program has been around for generations, but Franklin 
Roosevelt--who was hardly a champion of smaller government--had the 
right idea when he slashed its budget back in 1932 and closed 31 of its 
offices. The problem is that reform didn't take. Today the ITA has some 
240 offices.
  The ITA's authorization lapsed way back in 1996. That's 16 years ago. 
It's not been reviewed or authorized by Congress since then, but we 
still keep shoveling money out the door at them. Although it hasn't 
been reviewed by Congress in all of these years, it has been thoroughly 
weighed by the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management 
and Budget, and most recently the President's fiscal commission, and 
they have all found it sadly wanting.
  The Simpson-Bowles report summed it up quite nicely when they said:

       Services provided by ITA's U.S. commercial services and 
     other divisions directly providing assistance to U.S. 
     companies should be financed by the beneficiaries of this 
     assistance. While the agency charges fees for those services, 
     its fees do not cover the costs of all of its activities. 
     Additionally, it is argued that the benefits of trade-
     promotion activities are passed on to foreigners in the form 
     of decreased export costs.

  Simpson-Bowles goes on to say:

       According to a study by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, businesses can receive similar services from State, 
     local, and private sector entities. The CBO option to 
     eliminate ITA's promotion activities or charge the program's 
     beneficiaries saves $267 million in 2010 and $1.6 billion 
     through 2014.

  Madam Chairman, if the CBO, the OMB, and the President's fiscal 
commission agree this is wasteful, and Congress hasn't bothered to 
reauthorize it since it expired 16 years ago, why do we continue 
spending money that we don't have duplicating services that the 
beneficiaries of those services either don't need or are quite capable 
of funding on their own? If the companies that we are told directly 
benefit from all of these essential services are not willing to fund 
them, maybe that's just nature's way of telling us that we shouldn't be 
fleecing our constituents' earnings to pay for them either. Why would 
we tap American taxpayers to subsidize the export activities of 
foreigners, as Simpson-Bowles notes?
  Madam Chairman, the rules of the House were specifically written to 
prevent this type of unauthorized expenditure. And they provide for a 
point of order to be raised if it is included in an appropriations 
bill, which is what we're talking about right now. But alas, that rule 
is routinely waived when these measures are brought to the floor, 
making this amendment the only possible way of ferreting out this kind 
of duplicative program and outright waste.
  This is a prime example of corporate welfare. We ought to be done 
with it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Less than 1 percent of American businesses export to any 
other country. We've been engaged in a process to increase the level of 
exports, in part with the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. A 
number of these other activities are connected. But this is an activity 
that has borne fruit. I've met with businesses and the people who run 
these efforts around the country, and they're doing real work, helping 
real businesses all across our country, and it creates real jobs.
  I'm against the amendment. And I guess if you don't think that we 
should be focused on jobs and exports, you could oppose it. As for 
myself--and I would ask those who want to support American jobs--partly 
we have to do that through selling to the 90 percent of consumers who 
are somewhere else other than in our own country. So I support 
continued funding for this effort.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. This would be a draconian cut. I heard that 5,000 of the 
6,000 products in Wal-Mart are made in China. We want to export our 
jobs. We want to export our products. We want to make cars in Michigan 
and send them around the world. We want to make things and export them. 
We want to develop applesauce and export it. We want to export. So I 
have a long list I'm not going to say, and there are so many things in 
this bill that are not authorized. There are four pages of things that 
are not authorized, and if we didn't do things that weren't authorized, 
then we would have to shut this place down and move off to some other 
place.
  I just think it's a bad amendment. I understand what the gentleman is 
doing to save money. But I think we need to export and create jobs, and 
I want to see American products sold in China, American products sold 
in England, American products sold in Berlin, American products sold in 
Indonesia. So I urge a ``no'' vote for the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


             Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Turner of Ohio

  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 3, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Madam Chair, my amendment increases by $5 million 
the minimal level of funding for the International Trade Administration 
in the amount that they must devote to cracking down on unfair Chinese 
trade practices.
  We must ensure that U.S. manufacturers and workers can compete on a 
level playing field in the global marketplace. Unfortunately, unfair 
trade practices from countries like China make this increasingly 
difficult.

                              {time}  1530

  Since the year 2000, there has been a 300 percent increase in the 
amount of goods imported from China to the United States. Moreover, the 
Import Administration, tasked with cracking down on unfair trade 
practices, has for years experienced a growing workload of cases 
involving trade with China. In

[[Page H2364]]

my own Dayton community, paper producers and their employers have been 
hurt by unfairly subsidized imports of thermal-coated paper from China 
and Indonesia.
  For the last several years, Congress has directed the International 
Trade Administration to devote the same level of funding, $11.4 
million, for China anti-dumping and countervailing duty enforcement and 
compliance activities.
  Given the rise in Chinese imports and the increased complexity of 
cases the ITA must evaluate, we must ensure that efforts to protect 
U.S. manufacturers and employees from unfair trade practices receive 
sufficient dedicated funding. My amendment simply increases the minimal 
amount that the International Trade Administration must use for these 
activities by $5 million, from $11.4 million to $16.4 million using 
existing resources provided for under this bill.
  I want to thank Chairman Wolf for working with me on this amendment, 
and I urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FATTAH. We would agree to the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. WOLF. I accept the amendment. I think it's a good amendment. The 
committee continues to support the International Trade Administration, 
particularly with regard to China. And I won't go on. But I thank the 
gentleman for the amendment, and I completely agree with it. I urge all 
Members to support it.
  Mr. TURNER of Ohio. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Bureau of Industry and Security

                     operations and administration

       For necessary expenses for export administration and 
     national security activities of the Department of Commerce, 
     including costs associated with the performance of export 
     administration field activities both domestically and abroad; 
     full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate 
     families of employees stationed overseas; employment of 
     citizens of the United States and aliens by contract for 
     services abroad; payment of tort claims, in the manner 
     authorized in the first paragraph of section 2672 of title 
     28, United States Code, when such claims arise in foreign 
     countries; not to exceed $13,500 for official representation 
     expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under 
     the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by 
     section 1(b) of the Act of June 15, 1917 (40 Stat. 223; 22 
     U.S.C. 401(b)); and purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use with 
     special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase without 
     regard to any price limitation otherwise established by law, 
     $101,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the provisions of the first sentence of section 105(f) 
     and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational and 
     Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) 
     shall apply in carrying out these activities: Provided 
     further, That payments and contributions collected and 
     accepted for materials or services provided as part of such 
     activities may be retained for use in covering the cost of 
     such activities, and for providing information to the public 
     with respect to the export administration and national 
     security activities of the Department of Commerce and other 
     export control programs of the United States and other 
     governments.

                  Economic Development Administration

                economic development assistance programs

       For grants for economic development assistance as provided 
     by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, for 
     trade adjustment assistance, for the cost of loan guarantees 
     authorized by section 26 of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology 
     Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 3721), and for grants, 
     $182,000,000, to remain available until expended; of which 
     $5,000,000 shall be for projects to facilitate the 
     relocation, to the United States, of a source of employment 
     located outside the United States; and of which up to 
     $5,000,000 shall be for loan guarantees under section 26: 
     Provided, That the costs for loan guarantees, including the 
     cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That these funds for loan guarantees under such 
     section 26 are available to subsidize total loan principal, 
     any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to exceed 
     $70,000,000.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Michaud

  Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 5, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $38,000,000)''.
       Page 7, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $38,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MICHAUD. I rise today to offer an amendment to restore funding to 
the Economic Development Administration. EDA is the only Federal Agency 
with the single mission of creating high-quality jobs here at home. The 
investments made by EDA in all of our districts lead to economic 
development and job creation.
  By law, EDA projects require a 50 percent local share and must 
leverage significant private sector investment. As a result, EDA 
funding goes to projects that have been developed and vetted by local 
leaders and businesses. Their investments are competitive, merit-based, 
and are based on regional comprehensive economic development 
strategies. As a result, EDA projects reflect local priorities and 
contribute to broader economic development in the area. But most 
importantly, all EDA investments must result in the creation and 
retention of high-quality jobs.
  The program has a strong track record of success in my home State of 
Maine and throughout the country. In fact, between 2005 and 2010, EDA 
investments have helped to create over 314,000 jobs nationwide. At a 
time when our economic recovery continues to be slow and millions of 
Americans are out of a job, it does not make sense to cut the one 
Federal program singly dedicated to funding projects to put them back 
to work.
  My amendment will maintain level funding for EDA, and it is offset by 
cuts to the periodic census and programs account, which is currently 
funded at 3\1/2\ times that of EDA. Even though the next census is 8 
years away, the overall census program was cut by just under $10 
million. EDA was cut by $38 million. Reducing the census account by $38 
million is only a 6 percent decrease. By cutting EDA by the same amount 
is a 17 percent decrease in their funding. Some might come to the floor 
today to criticize EDA or its investment.
  I agree that we should do everything we can to make sure this and 
other Federal programs work well. But cutting EDA's funding or 
eliminating it altogether would be shortsighted at a time when we need 
every job-creating tool at our disposal.
  My amendment continues level funding for a program that is uniquely 
designed to address almost any economic development activity. It 
continues funding for a program that has specific tools and expertise 
to address chronically poor and distressed areas, post-disastrous 
economic recovery, and the consequences of plant closures or 
downsizing.
  I am offering this amendment because I believe it is the wrong time 
to turn our backs on investments in our communities that will make a 
real difference and because I believe that it is the right time to get 
our priorities right and insist on Federal investments that are focused 
on job creation. I offered this amendment last year, and more than 300 
Members of the House joined me in voting to restore EDA funding. I urge 
my colleagues to join me once again this year and help pass this 
amendment to restore the funding to EDA and to support a proven job 
creator.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMPEO. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POMPEO. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Just because you 
call something ``economic development'' does not make it so. We could 
name an Agency many things. This administration is one that most folks 
have never heard of. I had never heard of it before I came to Congress 
16 months ago. This is a classic case of the Federal Government taking 
from one and giving to another, often for the benefit of private 
companies.

[[Page H2365]]

  You'll see in a minute that I have got an amendment that takes a very 
different approach to economic development and how we ought to attack 
this problem. But I heard the distinguished gentleman from Maine talk 
about job creation. It's one thing for elected officials to go to a 
ribbon-cutting and stand in front of a facility and talk about jobs and 
say those are all the jobs that we created when, in fact, those jobs 
were created by taking money from taxpayers. Where elected officials 
often don't want to go is to stand in front of the unemployment line or 
talk about folks who had to pay too much in taxes or stand there and 
tell someone why that company got money and the company over on the 
other side didn't get this particular grant from the Economic 
Development Administration.
  I have seen this Agency up close and personal. It is a very, very 
political use of capital. This is not the free market that we all know. 
This is an agency that distributes money all over the country, very, 
very intentionally into 400-plus districts all across America with the 
aim of making sure that this Agency continues to exist in perpetuity. 
This is precisely the kind of stimulus that we have demonstrated time 
and time again in America. It doesn't work. And for that reason, I 
oppose increasing the funding for the Economic Development 
Administration.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I rise in strong support of the Michaud amendment to keep 
level funding for the Economic Development Administration, and I want 
to thank Congressman Michaud for offering this important amendment. He 
is a true leader in protecting American manufacturing jobs and 
businesses from unfair free trade agreements and works tirelessly to 
promote jobs and economic development here at home.
  I want to say to our dear colleague from Kansas, when you look across 
America--and I realize this may be just your first term--but, you know, 
the whole State of Kansas is held up by the Federal Government, all 
those agricultural subsidies, CRP, rural development, wetlands reserve, 
etc. When one takes a look at the whole Farm Credit Administration, for 
heaven's sake, not every community in America has those sorts of props 
under them. And agriculture is a success story. Agriculture is doing 
very well. We, in Ohio, understand that. But there are parts of Ohio 
that aren't covered by programs like your State benefits from. And 
that's where you need Agencies like the Economic Development 
Administration, in those corners of America that actually manufacture 
but may not grow things.

                              {time}  1540

  Mr. POMPEO. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I'll be more than pleased to yield to the gentleman when 
I finish.
  Madam Chairman, the Republican majority claims their priority is to 
create jobs and promote economic development. However, here we are 
today with an appropriations bill that drastically cuts resources for 
the only government agency whose sole mission is economic development.
  EDA's diverse portfolio of construction, technical assistance, 
finance and investment planning programs are designed to help 
communities build upon their regional assets to foster job creation and 
business expansion. Particularly at a time when banks are hoarding 
capital and not lending, EDA's capacity becomes even more important and 
vital.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers gave America's infrastructure 
a D grade and estimated that over the next 5 years, $2.2 trillion is 
needed to upgrade our Nation's infrastructure--ports, for example, to 
ship some of that Kansas grain. That's why I'm a strong supporter of 
EDA, and particularly of its Public Works program, which funds a 
variety of infrastructure projects that can help America address our 
aging infrastructure.
  I don't understand why Republicans don't want to help fund 
investments in America's infrastructure, the greatest job creator we 
can possibly have in this year of 2012.
  EDA's work is generating real returns. So the argument of being 
concerned with the deficit falls short when you consider EDA. Every 
dollar in EDA funding is expected to leverage nearly $7 worth of 
private investment. We've seen it in State after State after State. In 
fiscal year 2010, EDA created or retained about 48,500 jobs and 
generated nearly $6 billion in private investment. What a good story 
that is.
  Mr. Chairman, I support Mr. Michaud's amendment to restore EDA 
funding to FY12 levels, and I'd be very pleased to yield to the 
gentleman from Kansas for any comments he might have.
  Mr. POMPEO. Thank you very much for yielding.
  You said that, because I'm in my first term, maybe I didn't 
understand. Perhaps it's because you've been here a couple of years 
that you don't appreciate how jobs are really created in the real 
world, not here in Washington, D.C.
  You talked about Kansas. You may have forgotten that the air capital 
of the world, where 60, 70 percent of all aircraft are manufactured--
indeed, the business I was in for a decade--was good manufacturing 
jobs. What we didn't need was more taxes and more government spending. 
What we needed was the government out of the way.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I'm really glad the gentleman stated that because, as a 
member of the Defense Subcommittee, I know exactly where the R&D comes 
from for fighter aircraft, for all of our support craft, for all of our 
Air Guard, and I know how the commercial sector benefits and why we 
lead the world in terms of airline exports and so forth. But that 
doesn't abrogate the argument, that doesn't nullify the argument I 
offered that the whole State of Kansas is doing very well and has a 
very close relationship to the Federal Government.
  Agriculture achieves a special place in this economy, but that's not 
true in many other sectors, and particularly where we're talking about 
aging infrastructure, which belongs to all of us. EDA is really vitally 
important. It's an important ingredient in helping us to modernize 
coast-to-coast.
  So I just want to say to the gentleman from Maine, thank you so very 
much for keeping the program level. We're not talking about egregious 
spending here. We're talking about trying to help to rebuild this 
country. And we know the most important investment we can make in order 
to create jobs in this country--after assuring unemployment benefits 
for those out of work, which gets spent immediately in the economy--is 
investment in infrastructure.
  It's too bad that the Republicans can't seem to move a highway bill, 
a transportation bill out of this Congress. That would be the best 
thing we could do to create more jobs in this country in the year of 
2012. But in any case, passing the gentleman's amendment to fully fund 
EDA makes common sense and it certainly makes job sense.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. I don't think the issue here should be looked at as 
whether or not the EDA needs more help. It's why, again, we are bashing 
the Census Bureau. I really think that it's surprising that we would do 
it on this side, since we will note for the next many hours that 
there's plenty of folks on that side that will want to do that.
  When I first got on this subcommittee years ago and I had the 
privilege of being ranking member to Chairman Rogers and then ranking 
member to Chairman Wolf, I could never figure out what the attack was 
on the Census Bureau. Then it dawned on me--and I may be totally 
wrong--that some folks would just like the Census Bureau to do just 
enough, meaning if you count yourself, that's fine; but if you have to 
go out and do extra dollars to count folks who ordinarily may not count 
themselves, then that's not good for some folks and the results may be 
something they don't want to see. That's the only explanation I could 
come up with for the fact that--as we will see in the next hours--there 
will be many desires to cut the Census Bureau and, in some cases, get 
rid of the whole department.

[[Page H2366]]

  What we need to know and remind ourselves is that there's probably 
very few vital functions of agencies like the Census Bureau that are 
more important than this one. Plans, policies, redistricting, other 
decisions in this country are based on that count that takes place 
every 10 years. Unlike other things we do in this Congress and in this 
country, this is a constitutional mandate, to count the people amongst 
the States, and every 10 years the Census Bureau gears up for it.
  We have found in the past that when we make cuts to the Census 
Bureau, it ended costing us more money later when we tried to get back 
some of that money. And then States that may be supportive now of cuts 
later run to us and say, No, we need a better count; we need a fairer 
count; we need a count that will make my State show the true growth in 
population.
  So I suspect at the end of today when this vote is taken, there will 
be a mass vote, as has been in the past, for this amendment. But I 
really think it is totally foolish to continuously bash the Census 
Bureau and continuously desire not to have a proper count in this 
country. It is a vital issue and it's one that we should continue to 
protect. That's why I would be one of the few voting against this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I rise in support of the spirit of this amendment, and I 
move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I also have reservations about the offset. But let me 
talk first about EDA.
  It's critically important--and I'm sorry, I want to apologize to the 
gentlelady from Ohio--we don't want, in this debate, to substitute 
insult for insight. I think that what we want to do is focus on the 
issue at hand. We do need to create jobs.
  The EDA is a program that I think almost everyone should be able to 
support because it's local decisionmaking, investing in communities of 
interest. It's worked in every State of the country to help communities 
work through difficult economic circumstances when plants close and the 
like. It's a return of taxpayers' money to their communities for 
economic development activities.
  What we need to do as we go forward is think about how we pay for 
this. This is a $38 million increase that the offset of the census will 
have political attractiveness. But the truth is that we can't 
substitute that for our constitutional responsibilities to conduct a 
census and to do it properly. And we have to prepare for it.
  So I want to work with the gentleman as the bill goes through the 
process to try to find additional dollars for EDA, but I hope that at 
the end of the day we're able to provide more revenues for the census, 
to do our job as a Congress to fully fund our constitutional 
responsibilities to have a census and to do it correctly.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine will 
be postponed.

                              {time}  1550


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

  Mr. POMPEO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 5, lines 17 through 21, after each dollar amount, 
     insert ``(reduced to $0)''.
       Page 6, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     to $0)''.
       Page 101, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $219,500,000)''.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POMPEO. Madam Chair, I rise today to talk about something that 
Congress doesn't often get a chance to do. I talk to my constituents, 
and they often tell me, you know, we never get rid of anything. 
Programs just continue on and on. They grow. They go away for a little 
bit, and then they come back.
  We have a real opportunity here. My amendment is to eliminate the 
entire Economic Development Administration. We are $16 trillion in 
debt. This gives Members on both sides an opportunity to start 
addressing a serious spending problem in a real way. This is an 
amendment that has bipartisan support that I will talk about in just a 
little bit. Having spent over $1.5 billion on grants, the EDA does 
nothing but simply pick winners and losers by region, by industry, by 
community, and by particular businesses. It is very similar to 
earmarks.
  This administration uses the EDA to advance local projects and 
narrowly benefit a particular company or group. At its core, it is 
nothing more than a wealth-redistribution program, a stimulus bill 
built up in the nature of an Agency that has been around since 1965.
  Let me describe how it works. It begins by taking dollars from all 
across the country. That money flows to Washington, DC and before it 
ever goes back out, over 20 percent of it is consumed here in 
Washington, DC, no value returned. Then it asks companies and 
communities to apply for free money from the Federal Government to 
renovate a movie theater or build a road, for a new industrial park. 
Some of these projects are ridiculous; some of them perhaps not so bad. 
However, each one is a local project that the Federal Government has no 
business being involved in, and almost every one of these projects 
would advance without taxpayer resources.
  A frequent flier, the EDA Administrator travels all around the 
country for groundbreakings and ribbon-cuttings, taking credit for 
creating jobs when it was really private companies that would have 
created them anyway. He proudly took credit for a $1.6 billion steel 
plant in Minnesota with a $1.4 million EDA grant. This is one-tenth of 
1 percent of the project. I promise you that the CEO of that steel 
plant had no idea that that money was in his capital structure.
  Now, you might not be familiar with EDA projects, so let me talk 
about just a couple. In 2008, the EDA provided $2 million to begin 
construction of the Harry Reid Technology Park. As best I can tell, 
that facility continues to be empty.
  Sometime later, the EDA granted money for a culinary amphitheater, 
some $2 million of your taxpayer money.
  Then, $1.5 million for what I am sure is a beautiful theater, but 
what business does the Federal Government have in providing money for a 
theater such as this? We have many in Kansas, too. We didn't happen to 
get this particular grant. We didn't strike the EDA lottery.
  And, finally, half a million dollars as far back as the 1980s to 
build replicas of Egyptian pyramids. To this day, you can't drive to 
this facility that is uncompleted. Half a million dollars of taxpayer 
money spoiled and wasted.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. Groups 
like the Business Coalition for Competition, Club for Growth, Heritage 
Action--folks who believe in the private sector's capacity to create 
jobs support this.
  I will close with this thought. I talked about this bill being 
bipartisan. The Simpson-Bowles Commission included the elimination of 
EDA in its projections. It said this Agency ought to go away, on a 
bipartisan basis. But more, perhaps surprisingly, in 2008, I want to 
quote from then-Senator now-President Barack Obama who criticized the 
EDA as ``little more than a fund for corporate welfare.''
  Madam Chair, I agree with the President, and I hope my colleagues 
will join me in supporting the Pompeo amendment to this bill.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. It would zero out EDA. Last year the House voted 305 127 
to, strangely enough, increase funding for EDA by $80 million. This 
year, we are

[[Page H2367]]

funding the EDA at $219.5 million, which is $38 million less than the 
base appropriation provided to EDA last year. Last year and this year, 
we in the subcommittee directed the EDA to designate a portion of its 
grant funding to work with companies to bring back their outsourced 
manufacturing activities to economically distressed communities in the 
United States.
  So we have asked them to change their whole thrust of the grants, to 
not do what the gentleman says--and I think he makes some valid points 
here--but to now have it whereby a community can work to incentivize to 
bring a company back from China or back from Mexico. Last year, the 
House voted 305 127 to increase the funding to EDA by $80 million. This 
year, we were at $219.5 million, $38 million less, so I urge a ``no'' 
vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maine is recognize for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MICHAUD. Madam Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
amendment to eliminate funding for EDA. As was mentioned earlier, EDA 
is the only Federal program whose focus is to create jobs. The program 
funds merit-based competitive grants for projects that also require 
local funding. EDA's grant decision process is void of political 
influence and awards grants based on merit. The economy is improving, 
but we're not back on our feet yet; 12 million Americans are out there 
still looking for work. Now is not the time to eliminate this program.
  My friend from Kansas calls EDA a wealth-distribution program and 
argues that it picks winners and losers. The financial crisis picked 
winners and losers. In contrast, the EDA is bound by law to provide 
investments only to communities experiencing economic distress; 305 
Members of the House from both parties, including the gentleman from 
Kansas, voted to fully fund this program last year. So I urge my 
colleagues to once again support the EDA in a vote against this 
amendment to eliminate the program.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. And I think the gentleman might be in opposition. Last 
year he voted to increase by $80 million to EDA as we went through this 
process; and today he comes and says he wants to zero it out.
  Let me just put this in some context. We have seen gas prices go down 
for the last 5 weeks in a row; 200,000 homeowners today have their 
principals being reduced. We have 4.25 million jobs created over 26 
months by the private sector. Our economy, unlike those in Europe--
Britain has slumped into a double-dip recession; we have 25 percent 
unemployment in Spain--America is coming back. So this notion that 
somehow we need to kind of just stop trying to help communities move in 
the right direction I don't think makes a lot of sense to me. So I join 
the chairman on the majority side asking that we oppose this amendment.
  If there are some people somewhere who don't want economic 
development assistance from the Federal Government, they don't need to 
apply. These are merit-based competitive grants, locally decided; and 
it is helping communities all across our country. We had testimony in 
the Appropriations Committee from Members on both sides of the aisle 
about work being done by EDA in Alabama and all across our country. So 
the notion that we should support this amendment to zero this Agency 
out, to me, doesn't move us in the right direction. We want to go 
forward as a country. I move to oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas.
  The new House Republican majority was elected last year with the 
specific charge to bring wasteful spending under control. We can't 
blame the Senate or the President if there is waste in the budget 
anymore. Money doesn't get spent by this government unless the House 
says it gets spent. In a very real constitutional sense, the buck 
starts here.
  Now, here we have an appropriations bill originating in this House 
that still has outrageously wasteful and indefensible programs in it, 
and the flagship of that waste is the $182 million in unauthorized--
there's that word again--in unauthorized spending for the Economic 
Development Administration. This is solely and simply a slush fund that 
gives away money for the most dubious of local projects. Local projects 
that benefit local communities should be funded locally. We shouldn't 
be robbing St. Petersburg to pay St. Paul. We have to ask ourselves, if 
these projects are so important to local communities, why are those 
local communities unwilling to pay for them?

                              {time}  1600

  If the communities that directly benefit from these projects are 
unwilling to pay for them, why are we spending Federal money that we 
don't have?
  To add insult to insanity, this particular Agency is sitting right 
now on $845 million. Why on Earth would we provide it with another $180 
million? We ought to abolish this Agency and recover the unspent funds, 
not throw good money after bad.
  Tim Carney hit it on the head in The Washington Examiner last October 
when he wrote this:

       Nearly every Republican voted against President Obama's 
     stimulus in 2009, arguing that the deficit was too high, that 
     government shouldn't be in the game of picking winners and 
     losers, and that Washington doesn't create jobs. But the EDA 
     adds to the deficit, picks winners and losers, and purports 
     to create jobs. If Republicans vote to continue the EDA, they 
     flaunt their hypocrisy to critics.

  I have to agree.
  I appreciate that the appropriations bills are making incremental 
improvements in the status quo, but these are times that demand much, 
much more than that. When Members vote for these appropriations bills, 
they become responsible for the spending in them and for the waste in 
them. And I, for one, do not intend to explain to my constituents that 
a ``culinary amphitheater'' was worthy of $2 million of their hard-
earned taxes. This spending is simply indefensible. Doling out grants 
with little, if any, accountability, this ought to be the poster child 
for waste in government.
  I appreciate the fact that the leadership has agreed to an open 
amendment process, giving us the opportunity to correct this particular 
oversight on the floor. But the fact of the matter is that the House is 
ill-equipped to comprehensively address this kind of waste from the 
floor, and we must do better in both the authorizing and the 
Appropriations Committees in combing these bills earlier in the process 
for these kind of unconscionable and indefensible expenditures.
  I commend the gentleman from Kansas for offering the amendment. I 
wholeheartedly support it.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Chairwoman, my district has 
historically lagged behind others in the Commonwealth and in the 
Nation, which is why I have made the economic development of rural 
Kentucky my top priority since coming to Congress.
  Creating jobs in a mountainous region without sufficient roadways or 
suitable water infrastructure might seem an insurmountable challenge, 
but I've always encouraged my constituents and community leaders to 
``plan their work and work their plan.'' With the help of EDA, this is 
what we've done in southern and eastern Kentucky.
  The Economic Development Administration is one of the few entities in 
our Federal Government uniquely qualified to address the needs of 
communities with chronically high unemployment or facing enormous 
setbacks due to natural disasters. EDA's grants, awarded in a 
competitive fashion, leverage over $10 from the private sector for 
every Federal dollar invested and are targeted at facilities that are 
essential for private industry to remain or locate in these 
underachieving areas. As

[[Page H2368]]

a result of these targeted investments in water systems, workforce 
training centers, intermodal facilities or broadband networks, 
struggling communities around the country have seen the creation of 
some 314,000 jobs in the last 7 years.
  I wholeheartedly concur with the sponsor of the amendment that the 
role of the Federal Government isn't to create jobs, but instead, to 
create the conditions favorable for private sector job creation. By 
partnering with local area development districts, leveraging public and 
private dollars, and engaging the local workforce, EDA does just that.
  This bill provides $220 million for the agency--which is already $38 
million below the current level--rejects the administration's request 
to shift funds away from vital public works programs, and supports a 
loan guarantee program to development innovative manufacturing 
technologies that will keep rural areas competitive nationally and 
globally. With unemployment in rural areas around the country still 
hovering at well above the national average, this is an investment we 
cannot afford to lose. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Pompeo, to eliminate funding 
for the Economic Development Administration (EDA).
  The importance of EDA cannot be overstated. Established in 1965, EDA 
empowers economically distressed communities, among them communities 
that I represent, to develop and revitalize their economies based on 
their needs and resources. These funds allow rural communities to be 
active participants in today's economy by helping to create and retain 
jobs.
  The EDA underwrites basic infrastructure needs, such as water and 
sewer systems and the expansion of broadband services that help to 
attract jobs and stimulate economic development. While much of the 
Nation takes for granted the ability to turn on the faucet and have 
clean drinking water flow out, countless families in rural America do 
not. For them, answering such a basic human need is a daily struggle. 
For them, the EDA is a Godsend.
  EDA funding has helped to provide the needed infrastructure for 
development of industrial parks in my State. These up-to-date 
facilities create modern spaces that enable existing local businesses 
to grow and entice other businesses to locate to these livable, rural 
towns that boast ready workforces.
  Those who would undo EDA surely cannot understand what a huge 
difference the seed money it provides is making in our tough economic 
times. They must not have seen how it expands the reach and 
effectiveness of educational institutions or leads to better employment 
for working men and women. They must not get how the relatively small 
investments the EDA makes are helping struggling communities to 
transform themselves into economic engines.
  There is nothing frivolous about the EDA. This is an agency that is 
meat-and-potatoes government at its best. The funds it provides are not 
handouts. To the contrary, these are investments that are enabling our 
citizens to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
  In addition to anecdotal stories though, EDA's success has been 
proven by an independent study that found that EDA investment in rural 
areas generates between 2.2 and 5 jobs per $10,000 in incremental EDA 
investment, translating to a cost of between $2,001 and $4,611 to 
produce a single job. As the Nation's economy emerges from the 
recession, EDA is one of the most efficient ways that the Federal 
government can assist in economic recovery and prevent another 
downturn.
  I have seen firsthand the benefit of a coordinated effort of EDA 
investments. Between 2006 and 2011, EDA made 25 investments in my 
district totaling approximately $10 million. These projects are 
expected to help create approximately 1,125 jobs and help attract 
approximately $98.5 million in private investment.
  I urge the House to recognize the value of EDA as a necessary 
component to revitalizing our economy, ensuring that the United States 
remains an economic force, and creating new jobs for American workers.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing Mr. Pompeo's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POMPEO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas will 
be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Cicilline

  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 5, line 17, strike ``grants'' and insert ``grants, 
     including grants authorized under section 27 of the 
     Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. 
     3722)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Chairman, in an effort to drive innovation and 
regional collaboration, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 
2010 mandated the creation of a Regional Innovation Program within the 
Economic Development Administration. This program is intended to 
encourage and support the development of regional innovation 
strategies, including regional innovation clusters and science and 
research parks.
  The President's fiscal year 2013 budget requested $25 million to fund 
the Regional Innovation Strategies Program. Funding for the Regional 
Innovation Program would support the Economic Development Agency's 
interagency effort to build regional innovation clusters, including the 
Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge.
  The Jobs Accelerator is a competitive interagency grant that supports 
the advancement of high-growth regional industry clusters, very 
important all across America and particularly important in my home 
State of Rhode Island.
  EDA is currently working in partnership with other Federal agencies, 
including the Department of Labor's Employment and Training 
Administration and the Small Business Administration, to promote 
regional collaboration to spur job growth and economic development.
  The Jobs Accelerator aggregates existing investments and technical 
assistance from multiple Federal agencies to strengthen regional 
industry clusters--networks of interconnected firms and institutions 
working to accelerate job growth, business formation and expansion, 
innovation, workforce training, and small business development. A 
targeted investment in this program will help Federal, State, and local 
entities leverage existing resources, spur regional collaboration, and 
advance economic recovery and job-creation efforts in high-growth 
industries.
  Through the Regional Innovation Program, local leaders are empowered 
to maximize existing assets and are provided resources to ensure that 
historically underrepresented communities, including those hardest hit 
by unemployment and economic decline, are able to participate in and 
benefit from the regional cluster.
  My amendment is simple and straightforward. It does not create any 
new program or authorization. It does not increase or decrease a single 
account in the appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, Science, and related agencies. Rather, this amendment serves 
to specifically cite the Regional Innovation Program to focus attention 
on this vitally important job-creating initiative as the appropriation 
process moves forward.
  The Regional Innovation Program has been specifically supported and 
cited in both the fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 Senate CJS 
Appropriations Committee report.
  We have to recognize that innovation is critically important to 
America's ability to compete in the global economy. Supporting the 
development of regional innovation clusters will strengthen our 
capacity to create and retain new jobs and sustain our economic 
recovery.
  The Regional Innovation Program will help Federal, State, and local 
entities leverage existing resources, spur regional collaboration, and 
support economic recovery and job creation in these high-growth 
industries. I urge my colleagues to support this very straightforward 
and simple amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CICILLINE. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, this costs no money. We have no objection to 
the amendment and accept the amendment.

[[Page H2369]]

  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CICILLINE. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FATTAH. We are prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1610

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of administering the economic 
     development assistance programs as provided for by law, 
     $37,500,000: Provided, That these funds may be used to 
     monitor projects approved pursuant to title I of the Public 
     Works Employment Act of 1976, title II of the Trade Act of 
     1974, and the Community Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1977.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise

  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 6, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $7,500,000)''.
       Page 17, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,706,000)''.
       Page 101, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $18,206,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, the amendment that I bring to the desk 
brings the two Agencies, EDA and Commerce, back to the pre-2008 
spending levels. And as we're focusing on bringing overall spending in 
this bill, the CJS bill, to pre-2008 levels, I wanted to also bring 
those two Agencies in line on their overhead, and that's specifically 
what my amendment deals with.
  I want to first applaud the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia, 
for the work that he and his committee have done to start the process 
of reducing spending. We recognize that Washington has a spending 
problem, and some of us here are willing to do something about it and 
start forcing Washington to live within its means, and that means we 
have to start the process of setting priorities.
  One of the things that was done in the original CJS bill that's been 
filed is to implement a 52 percent cut to the programs that are 
implemented, for example, in EDA. And, again, I applaud the gentleman 
for making those improvements and those reforms in the base of the bill 
to actually bring the spending in those programs in line with pre-2008 
levels.
  But one thing that was not done was the spending for the salaries and 
expenses, the overhead of those Agencies. So as the agencies are being 
trimmed back, their salaries and overheads are not being subsequently 
trimmed back, and so that's what we do in this amendment. We actually 
reduce spending to the point where we will save $18.2 million that will 
reduce the Federal deficit.
  Again, this is one small step in a large number of steps that we need 
to take as a body, but I want to talk a little bit about what these 
cuts will mean and what the subsequent corresponding cuts will mean to 
the cuts that have already been made in the programs themselves.
  I think there have been some good examples that have been shown of 
these programs, what EDA does and some of the money that's wasted. And 
when you go and you look through what these Agencies have spent money 
on--again, this is money we don't have--they've spent money on things 
like building a replica of the Great Pyramids, building a replica of 
the Great Wall of China.
  Two million dollars was spent giving money that we don't have to a 
city to build an amphitheater with a wine tasting room. I'm sure there 
are a lot of people in that amphitheater would like going to a wine 
tasting room, but there are a lot of places you can go in the private 
sector that already do that without borrowing money from China to go 
and build these things with money we don't have.
  And so, again, as the committee did the work of cutting 52 percent of 
the EDA program, they did make some cuts in the overhead, but not to 
bring it to the 2008 levels. So, as the bill currently stands, in its 
base form, these two Agencies will see a 25 percent increase in their 
overhead from the 2008 budget. So, in that 4-year period, even with the 
cuts that have already been made, these two Agencies still have a 25 
percent increase in their spending.
  Now, keep in mind this is coming at a time when States, when local 
governments, when families in our districts back home have been cutting 
back, have actually been making due with less to live within their 
means, as everyone should when times get tough. And yet, in Washington, 
even though 42 cents of every dollar that's spent here is borrowed 
money, Washington still hasn't cut back subsequently to live within its 
means; and we've got to start that process, and that means setting 
priorities.
  These Agencies would still have, combined, $74 million to spend on 
their overhead. But at least it brings them back to their 2008 levels, 
just as the programs that they're administering have been brought back 
to 2008 levels.
  So think about it. You know, we're asking people to do more with 
less. If my amendment doesn't pass, they would be asked to do less with 
more. The programs that they administer are being cut, and yet the 
salaries and overhead are not being cut subsequently.
  We just had a district work period this last week. I go back home and 
I talk to small businesses throughout my district in southeast 
Louisiana, and what they tell me, the things that are holding them back 
from creating jobs are the regulations, the red tape, and the excessive 
spending coming out of Washington. Yet, if you look at this, you know, 
nobody in my district said that they need to see the Great Wall of 
China being built with taxpayer money. But what they do say is what's 
holding them back from creating jobs is borrowing money from China to 
spend on programs that we just can't afford to fund.
  So while I applaud the cutting of those programs, because the 
programs in the base of this bill have been cut, what hasn't been cut 
subsequently is the overhead to go along with it to bring it to those 
pre-2008 levels. This is a step we need to take to not only save $18.2 
million that will reduce the deficit, but to start sending the signal 
that we're living within our means.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I rise to oppose the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. My colleague mentioned small businesses. It brings to 
mind that, in today's financial times, it shows that we have the 
highest enthusiasm for hiring and economic optimism in the small 
business community that we've had in this country in a very long time.
  Over $70 billion was made available through the Obama administration 
for small business loans, through 2009 and 2010, and we now see the 
results of it. We see millions of private sector jobs being created. 
Our economy has seen a decrease over 11 months from an unemployment 
rate of 9.1 percent to now 8.1 percent, and most economists agree it's 
going to drop into the 7 percent number over the next few months.
  This notion that we can cut programs and, therefore, we should cut 
administration sounds like a lot of common sense. But when you think 
about it, whether one Member comes over to the floor today or 100 
Members, we still have to have staff on the floor. There's still 
security; there are still lights. There are still expenses in an agency 
when you have to run any part of the program. So if you have to run a 
loan program, if you have to run other programs, you need the expertise 
and the staff to do it. Whether you cut the program back a little bit--
it's like a classroom in a school. Unless you're going to eliminate an 
entire classroom, you need to hire the teacher; you need to have the 
lights on.
  So I would just suggest that, even though the gentleman may be 
focused on trying to do something, he says, about the deficit, that, in 
reality, unless he's actually trying to cripple the Commerce Department 
as it competes with much larger countries like China and India, 
economic competitors like

[[Page H2370]]

the European Union, trying to work on behalf of the American 
businesses, our Commerce Department, we cannot afford to be cutting 
back and cutting in a way that actually does harm to our economy. So I 
rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.

  The Clerk read as follows:

                  Minority Business Development Agency

                     minority business development

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Commerce in 
     fostering, promoting, and developing minority business 
     enterprise, including expenses of grants, contracts, and 
     other agreements with public or private organizations, 
     $28,689,000.


              Amendment Offered by Ms. Clarke of New York

  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 6, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,311,000)''.
       Page 11, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,311,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of 
additional funding for the Minority Business Development Agency. An 
offset for this amendment is by $5.3 million from the $79 million 
increase to the National Institute for Standards and Technology.
  Madam Chair, minority firms currently provide 5.8 million people with 
employment, and we know that they have the untapped potential to create 
even more. That's why, Madam Chair, Ms. Chu of California, Mr. Cohen of 
Tennessee, who are cosponsors of this amendment, and myself, along with 
33 of our colleagues, sent a letter to the CJS Subcommittee in March 
seeking MBDA funding levels at $34 million, in direct response to the 
then-planned closure of the MBDA regional offices and to expand MBDA's 
network of business centers.

                              {time}  1620

  In 2010, MBDA secured $1.6 billion in contracts and $2.2 billion in 
financing for minority firms. That same year, they realized a 125 
percent return on their investment.
  Our Nation's economy will not and cannot fully recover until all 
small businesses are active participants in a robust recovery. The 
MBDA's mission of supporting minority businesses is absolutely 
fundamental to the overall recovery of the economy.
  Madam Chair, I yield at this time to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. I want to thank my colleague from New York for yielding to 
me.
  This is a particularly important amendment because minority business 
development agencies give people a hand up, not a hand out.
  The fact is the folks on the other side are always talking about 
opportunities in businesses and in small business, and this is the 
ideal type of Federal Government program in which small business--
minorities--are given opportunities to get knowledge about contracting 
opportunities with the Federal Government and to get a share and get 
financing capabilities. Minorities have long been denied the 
opportunity to get adequate financing from our banking system, and they 
have been less than properly represented in the number of contracts 
they get from the Federal Government.
  The Minority Business Development Agency just put an office in my 
district in Memphis, Tennessee, which has the largest metropolitan 
population, African American population, in this country. Yet it wasn't 
until this year that a minority business office was placed there--the 
first one in the history of the State of Tennessee.
  There is a lot more that needs to be done to give people an 
opportunity. In this recession, small business has been hurt and 
minorities have been hurt, and minorities have been hurt in a 
disproportionate manner. With this amendment, the Minority Business 
Development Agency can thrive and give people opportunity--give people 
jobs, give people contracts--and make economic development go 
throughout all of America.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, the Clarke-Cohen-Chu 
amendment, and to have a hand up, not a hand out.
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's increase. The bill 
already funds the Minority Business Development Agency at the level 
requested by the administration of nearly $29 million. The 
administration has not asked for more money.
  Also, the offset would not be good. It would cut the scientific 
research activities at NIST that are vital to increasing our 
competitiveness, giving the edge to American manufacturing and also 
doing a lot of work in the area of cyber. Funding the sciences and 
research programs has been a top priority of both political parties, so 
I urge my colleagues to reject this increase and to vote down the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I rise in support of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. This amendment, in all likelihood, is not going to pass 
in the House today.
  The chairman is correct that the appropriations request from the 
administration was fully met in the bill, but I do want to associate 
myself with the remarks of the gentlelady from New York.
  I share a birthday with Dick Durbin, who is the majority leader in 
the Senate, and with the gentlelady from New York. We all happened to 
be born on the same day, but at least between me and Durbin, she is at 
least the best among us.
  This effort to increase our focus on underserved communities is an 
important one, and that is why I am happy that she, along with the 
gentleman from Tennessee, have brought this amendment forward. I think 
that, in order to increase economic opportunity in our country, we need 
to be focused on this agency. It's not so much whether we save an 
office here or there. Rather, it's that we need to put increased focus 
on loans and technical assistance and contracting opportunities for 
businesses that have been left out. I know the chairman agrees with me 
in this regard. We need to continue to look for ways to increase the 
opportunities for this agency in order to serve these communities.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Clarke).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   Economic and Statistical Analysis

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, of economic 
     and statistical analysis programs of the Department of 
     Commerce, $96,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2014.

                          Bureau of the Census

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for collecting, compiling, 
     analyzing, preparing and publishing statistics, provided for 
     by law, $253,336,000: Provided, That, from amounts provided 
     herein, funds may be used for promotion, outreach, and 
     marketing activities.

                     periodic censuses and programs

       For necessary expenses for collecting, compiling, 
     analyzing, preparing and publishing statistics for periodic 
     censuses and programs, provided for by law, $625,357,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2014: Provided, That 
     from amounts provided herein, funds may be used for 
     promotion, outreach, and marketing activities.


                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Lynch

  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I believe I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H2371]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 43, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 44, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. LYNCH. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 5326, 
making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
Science, and Related Agencies bill.
  My amendment would increase by $4 million the amount appropriated for 
fiscal year 2013 for the Office of Justice Drug Courts Program. The $4 
million added to the Drug Courts Program will be offset by decreasing 
the amount by $4 million in the funding for periodic censuses and 
related programs.
  To say that there is a drug addiction problem in the United States is 
an understatement. We're dealing with an epidemic that is in every city 
and town in this country and that reaches across every demographic. 
Addiction does not discriminate as it shatters lives, breaks up 
families, and costs hundreds of billions of dollars annually. In fact, 
according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, estimates of the 
total overall costs related to substance abuse in the United States, 
including productivity and health- and crime-related costs, exceed $600 
billion annually.
  Drug courts are specialized court dockets designed to handle cases 
involving drug and/or alcohol dependent offenders who are commonly 
charged with offenses such as the possession of a controlled substance 
or other nonviolent offenses determined to have been caused or 
influenced by their addictions. These cases are handled through a 
comprehensive program of supervision, drug testing, treatment services, 
and immediate sanctions and incentives that are designed to reduce the 
recidivism rates of these particular offenders. People who don't comply 
with the requirements of drug courts go to jail. They go to jail 
quickly and for various periods of time. It's a ``get tough'' policy. 
Particular offenders have their recidivism rates reduced by helping 
them overcome their substance abuse problems, which are the primary and 
predicate causes of their criminal activities.
  Drug courts coordinate the efforts of judiciary, prosecution, defense 
bar, probation, law enforcement, treatment, mental health, social 
services, and child protection services to break the cycle of substance 
abuse, addiction, and crime. If we can break that cycle, we will all 
benefit.
  Drug courts work. Drug courts save money. They reduce crime and they 
restore families. According to the National Association of Drug Court 
Professionals, the drug court approach reduces crime by as much as 45 
percent more than other sentencing options. In fact, nationally, 75 
percent of drug courts graduates remain arrest-free for at least 2 
years after leaving the program, and reductions in crime by those 
offenders is long term.
  In addition to reducing crime, drug courts save money, and that is a 
theme that has become very popular around here lately. As reported by 
the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, for every dollar 
nationwide invested in drug courts, taxpayers save as much as $27. This 
substantial savings comes from avoiding criminal costs, prison costs, 
reduced victimization, and health care utilization--all areas in which 
vast sums of money are spent.
  Most importantly, drug courts help restore and preserve families. 
According to statistics, family reunification rates for drug offenders 
are 50 percent higher for drug court participants. As people struggle 
through addiction, they lose a sense of themselves and become isolated 
from everyone they've known. Reuniting with their families can be the 
first step in returning to normalcy and to becoming again productive 
members of their communities.
  The underlying bill provides $41 million in drug court funding, which 
is $6 million over the FY 2012 level. For that, I would like to thank 
Chairman Frank Wolf and Ranking Member Chaka Fattah.
  However, drug courts have been historically underfunded since 2001. 
So this $4 million increase would bring funding for the National Drug 
Court Program in line with its historical average of $45 million since 
2001. I appreciate the good work of the census, and I believe that this 
modest offset can be accounted for in the coming years, but the work of 
the drug courts meets an immediate and critical need.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LYNCH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. I have no objection to the amendment. I think it's a good 
amendment. The committee has also been very supportive. Also based on 
the recommendation of Mr. Meehan, they have broadened it now with 
regard to veterans, too.
  But I thank the gentleman, and we accept the amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LYNCH. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. I also can support this amendment.
  I led the effort in the Pennsylvania legislature to create drug 
courts in our State. I'm a big supporter, and I think that the 
chairman--in the bill before us, we've already increased this account, 
but I think that the amendment as offered by my colleague is something 
that we would support.
  Mr. LYNCH. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       National Telecommunications and Information Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, as provided for by law, of the 
     National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
     (NTIA), $45,568,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2014: Provided, That, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1535(d), the 
     Secretary of Commerce shall charge Federal agencies for costs 
     incurred in spectrum management, analysis, operations, and 
     related services, and such fees shall be retained and used as 
     offsetting collections for costs of such spectrum services, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary of Commerce is authorized to retain and use as 
     offsetting collections all funds transferred, or previously 
     transferred, from other Government agencies for all costs 
     incurred in telecommunications research, engineering, and 
     related activities by the Institute for Telecommunication 
     Sciences of NTIA, in furtherance of its assigned functions 
     under this paragraph, and such funds received from other 
     Government agencies shall remain available until expended.

    public telecommunications facilities, planning and construction

       For the administration of prior-year grants, recoveries and 
     unobligated balances of funds previously appropriated are 
     available for the administration of all open grants until 
     their expiration.

                    U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the United States Patent and 
     Trademark Office (USPTO) provided for by law, including 
     defense of suits instituted against the Under Secretary of 
     Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, 
     $2,933,241,000 to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the sum herein appropriated from the general fund shall 
     be reduced as offsetting collections of fees and surcharges 
     assessed and collected by the USPTO under any law are 
     received during fiscal year 2013, so as to result in a fiscal 
     year 2013 appropriation from the general fund estimated at 
     $0: Provided further, That during fiscal year 2013, should 
     the total amount of such offsetting collections be less than 
     $2,933,241,000 this amount shall be reduced accordingly: 
     Provided further, That any amount received in excess of 
     $2,933,241,000 in fiscal year 2013 and deposited in the 
     Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That the Director of USPTO 
     shall submit a spending plan to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     for any amounts made available by the preceding proviso and 
     such spending plan shall be treated as a reprogramming under 
     section 505 of this Act and shall not be available for 
     obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section: Provided further, That 
     from amounts provided herein, not to exceed $900 shall be 
     made available in fiscal year 2013 for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided further, That

[[Page H2372]]

     in fiscal year 2013 from the amounts made available for 
     ``Salaries and Expenses'' for the USPTO, the amounts 
     necessary to pay (1) the difference between the percentage of 
     basic pay contributed by the USPTO and employees under 
     section 8334(a) of title 5, United States Code, and the 
     normal cost percentage (as defined by section 8331(17) of 
     that title) as provided by the Office of Personnel Management 
     (OPM) for USPTO's specific use, of basic pay, of employees 
     subject to subchapter III of chapter 83 of that title, and 
     (2) the present value of the otherwise unfunded accruing 
     costs, as determined by OPM for USPTO's specific use of post-
     retirement life insurance and post-retirement health benefits 
     coverage for all USPTO employees who are enrolled in Federal 
     Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) and Federal Employees Group 
     Life Insurance (FEGLI), shall be transferred to the Civil 
     Service Retirement and Disability Fund, the FEGLI Fund, and 
     the FEHB Fund, as appropriate, and shall be available for the 
     authorized purposes of those accounts: Provided further, That 
     any differences between the present value factors published 
     in OPM's yearly 300 series benefit letters and the factors 
     that OPM provides for USPTO's specific use shall be 
     recognized as an imputed cost on USPTO's financial 
     statements, where applicable: Provided further, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, all fees and 
     surcharges assessed and collected by USPTO are available for 
     USPTO only pursuant to section 42(c) of title 35, United 
     States Code, as amended by section 22 of the Leahy-Smith 
     America Invents Act (Public Law 112 29): Provided further, 
     That within the amounts appropriated, $2,000,000 shall be 
     transferred to the ``Office of Inspector General'' account 
     for activities associated with carrying out investigations 
     and audits related to the USPTO.

             National Institute of Standards and Technology

             scientific and technical research and services

       For necessary expenses of the National Institute of 
     Standards and Technology, $621,173,000, to remain available 
     until expended, of which not to exceed $9,000,000 may be 
     transferred to the ``Working Capital Fund'' Provided, That 
     not to exceed $5,000 shall be for official reception and 
     representation expenses.

                     industrial technology services

       For necessary expenses for industrial technology services, 
     $149,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $128,000,000 shall be for the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership, and of which $21,000,000 shall be for the 
     Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Quayle

  Mr. QUAYLE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 11, line 18, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $21,000,000)''.
       Page 11, line 20, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $21,000,000)''.
       Page 101, line 10, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $21,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. QUAYLE. Madam Chair, this amendment would strike the new Advanced 
Manufacturing Technology Consortia, also called AmTech, and apply the 
$21 million that was provided in the bill to the spending-reduction 
account. This new program is intended to establish a public-private 
partnership initiative that would provide Federal grants to identify 
and support research projects focused on long-term industrial needs.
  We all recognize the importance of advanced manufacturing and the 
value of collaboration and innovation policy. My hometown of Phoenix 
has a strong high-tech base and great research universities. I also 
serve as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology Innovation, 
which has jurisdiction over NIST. Our committee has a long bipartisan 
record of support for NIST and its contributions.
  That being said, in the current budget environment, I simply do not 
believe it is appropriate to be establishing and funding a new program. 
Even without the new $21 million Advanced Manufacturing Technology 
Consortia, this budget is still nearly 8 percent higher than was 
provided last year.
  Madam Chair, when you look at the amount of debt that we've 
accumulated over the course of many years and you look at the budget 
process that we're going through right now, this AmTech was actually 
requested for the funding last time around when we were going through 
the appropriations process, and we rightfully did not fund this new 
program. There are already programs in place for manufacturing, and 
there are other places that we can go in the private sector to be able 
to deal with that in the research and developing new ways to be 
innovative in advanced manufacturing. It is not the time to be wasting 
another $21 million in spending that we don't have in order to put 
forth a new program.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. The amendment would cut $21 million we provided for NIST to 
establish an Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia, or AmTech.
  Revitalizing the manufacturing sector is important to a strong 
economy. Is America going to be making anything? Aren't we all tired of 
going into Wal-Mart and seeing ``made in China''? We have to begin to 
make things in this country. AmTech would be a competitive-grants 
program designed to leverage existing or establish new industry-led 
consortia to develop roadmaps for key long-term industrial research 
needs and support research at universities and government labs. AmTech 
will address multiple components of the innovation cycle from discovery 
to commercialization to accelerate the pace of innovation through the 
various industrial sectors.
  These are precisely the types of programs that we need now to support 
American manufacturing and innovation, and NIST has a strong track 
record of proven success in supporting American manufacturing. 
Manufacturing should be the cornerstone of the economy, and this 
amendment would help stop it.
  I'm going to digress for just a second. When this Congress on two 
different occasions was asked by the administration to do away with the 
so-called ``payroll tax,'' that cost this Congress $125 billion. By 
doing that, both sides of this Congress and the administration gave 
Jimmy Buffett a break and Warren Buffett a break, and they created no 
new jobs. We took $250 billion and literally threw it away and 
jeopardized the Social Security program. They said they were going to 
pay for it by borrowing from the general fund. The general fund is 
broke. This is manufacturing, and we need a manufacturer. We need to 
create jobs in this country.
  I know the gentleman has got a great record on the cutting, but this 
is not the place we want to do it. And I urge a ``no'' vote and yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, there is nothing more important in our 
country than the revival of manufacturing. Over the first decade of 
this century, we lost so many manufacturing jobs.
  At the front edge of this recovery is manufacturing. So that's 
370,000 new jobs. To take our Federal laboratories, which we invest 
billions of dollars that we have--I've visited Sandia and Los Alamos 
and the Fermi Lab and the Argonne Lab. We have tens of thousands of 
scientists and researchers there. This consortia program will allow 
them to work with local manufacturers and communities to help build our 
manufacturing base so that as we compete across the globe to build it 
here and sell it everywhere, that we have the manufacturing 
capabilities to do it.
  I think this is an amendment that is unwise. We have a budget that is 
built not only on the agreement last year, but on the Ryan budget. 
We're operating within the 302(b) allocation. So for people to rise and 
say we don't have the money, no, this is money that's been allocated by 
the majority Republican Congress to spend on behalf of moving our 
country forward. So we should have a debate on what's important. I 
think manufacturing is important. I hope that we will reject this 
amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. QUAYLE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H2373]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                  construction of research facilities

       For construction of new research facilities, including 
     architectural and engineering design, and for renovation and 
     maintenance of existing facilities, not otherwise provided 
     for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as 
     authorized by sections 13 through 15 of the National 
     Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278c 
     278e), $60,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That the Secretary of Commerce shall include in the 
     budget justification materials that the Secretary submits to 
     Congress in support of the Department of Commerce budget (as 
     submitted with the budget of the President under section 
     1105(a) of title 31, United States Code) an estimate for each 
     National Institute of Standards and Technology construction 
     project having a total multi-year program cost of more than 
     $5,000,000 and simultaneously the budget justification 
     materials shall include an estimate of the budgetary 
     requirements for each such project for each of the five 
     subsequent fiscal years.

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

                  operations, research, and facilities

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of activities authorized by law for 
     the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     including maintenance, operation, and hire of aircraft and 
     vessels; grants, contracts, or other payments to nonprofit 
     organizations for the purposes of conducting activities 
     pursuant to cooperative agreements; and relocation of 
     facilities, $2,968,371,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2014, except that funds provided for 
     cooperative enforcement shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2015: Provided, That fees and donations 
     received by the National Ocean Service for the management of 
     national marine sanctuaries may be retained and used for the 
     salaries and expenses associated with those activities, 
     notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code: 
     Provided further, That in addition, $119,064,000 shall be 
     derived by transfer from the fund entitled ``Promote and 
     Develop Fishery Products and Research Pertaining to American 
     Fisheries'': Provided further, That of the $3,102,435,000 
     provided for in direct obligations under this heading, 
     $2,968,371,000 is appropriated from the general fund, 
     $119,064,000 is provided by transfer, and $15,000,000 is 
     derived from recoveries of prior year obligations: Provided 
     further, That the total amount available for National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration corporate services 
     administrative support costs shall not exceed $207,013,000: 
     Provided further, That any deviation from the amounts 
     designated for specific activities in the statement 
     accompanying this Act, or any use of deobligated balances of 
     funds provided under this heading in previous years, shall be 
     subject to the procedures set forth in section 505 of this 
     Act.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Harris

  Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 13, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $542,000)''.
       Page 13, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $542,000)''.
       Page 13, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $542,000)''.
       Page 101, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $542,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chairman, first I want to congratulate the 
committee for doing its work to help curb the rise in government 
spending.
  I rise to offer an amendment to provide level funding for NOAA's 
Climate Portal program, rather than the increase in the funding 
requested by the President and included in the bill as it currently 
stands.
  The Climate Portal program is actually a Web site run by NOAA; and in 
committee testimony, Dr. Lubchenko suggested that this was a science 
Web site. This is where you can share climate science information and 
make decisions.

                              {time}  1640

  Madam Chairman, the request is a 56 percent increase in funding. Now, 
the only thing that's gotten a 56 percent increase over the last 4 
years is the size of the Federal deficit and the debt. So my amendment 
merely reduces the level of funding to the current level.
  But I want to read, as you click on some of these topics, what the 
science is at this port. I am going to read from an article just 
published on the Web site on May 2. It talks about farming.
  ``The rain was as loud as pennies falling on the roof of the truck's 
cab.'' Later on in the paragraph, ``We had been watching Johnson work 
in his field until the fat drops of rain sent us racing for cover.'' 
Next paragraph, ``The machine behind the tractor makes it easier than 
ever for him to roll the grass into submission, thousands of stalks 
pointing accusingly at the device that just pancaked them.''
  Madam Chairman, that's not a scientific article. That's something I 
read to my children at bedtime. But this is what NOAA is advancing as a 
scientific Web site to share scientific information and is asking for a 
56 percent increase in their funding.
  My amendment is simple. Let's just level-fund the Web site. Let's 
revert it to a truly scientific nature and come back next year, if and 
when our finances are better.

  Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman will yield, I think it's a good amendment, 
and I accept the amendment.
  Mr. HARRIS. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. It is our understanding that this affects climate change 
research, and we think that we should not support the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HARRIS. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Hanabusa

  Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 13, line 2, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,600,000)''.
       Page 32, line 4, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,900,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Hawaii is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Chairman, first I would like to say that this is 
a bipartisan amendment. Congressman Young from Alaska has joined in the 
amendment, as well as Congresswoman Bordallo, Congressman Sablan, and 
the gentleman from Washington, Congressman Dicks.
  So, Madam Chairman, this is a very important issue, and it's not 
asking for much in terms of funding. It's asking for funding to be 
restored to the fiscal year '12 level.
  And let's look at what we're talking about here. We're talking about 
the Marine Debris line, which funds NOAA's Marine Debris Program, which 
was really established and mandated by the Marine Debris Research, 
Prevention, and Reduction Act of 2006. As you know, the program works 
to map, identify, assess, remove, and prohibit marine debris.
  Marine debris is, of course, the worst pollution that we're dealing 
with in our oceans, but it has become even more relevant to us after 
the tsunami, the earthquake, and, of course, Fukushima Daiichi in Japan 
on March 11, 2011. And we have, I'm sure, all sat there in amazement as 
reports have been made of a soccer ball being found, I believe, in 
Alaska and a motorcycle in Canada. Definitely, the debris is hitting 
North America.
  I represent Hawaii, and we are on watch as well. All indications are 
that the debris is making its way. It will hit the northern Hawaiian 
Islands maybe in the later part of this year. But definitely we expect 
that the coast will be hit by 2013 as well as Hawaii and other islands.
  And think about what this means. You are not talking about a ship. 
You are not talking about things being dropped in the ocean. You are 
talking about whole cities. I'm sure we can all recall seeing, in 
Japan, that tsunami coming in and wiping out cities. And think about 
where that went.
  I think the problem that we, many of us, have is that we stand there 
in awe

[[Page H2374]]

of what happens, but we don't think about what the consequences are. 
And the consequences here are major. That is floating in the ocean, and 
it is making its way to us.
  That is why this amendment has been proposed, and that is why I 
believe this amendment has the sponsors that it does have, because we 
are simply asking to be restored to the level of fiscal year 2012. What 
that will give us--remember, at that point, we were merely monitoring. 
We didn't have any clear evidence as to what was happening. Now we 
know.
  All this does is say restore it to at least that level so that the 
Marine Debris Program can do its work and map, identify, assess, 
remove, and prohibit more marine debris from hitting our shores. Think 
about the consequences for us.
  Madam Chairman, that is why I ask that we all support this amendment 
and, on page 13, line 2, increase the amount by $1.6 million, just to 
the fiscal year 2012 level.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Grimm

  Mr. GRIMM. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 42, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $18,000,000)''.
       Page 42, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $18,000,000)''.
       Page 13, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $18,000,000)''.
       Page 13, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $18,000,000)''.
       Page 13, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $18,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIMM. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment I 
introduced along with my colleagues, Mr. King of New York, Mr. 
Barletta, and Mr. Runyan, that would ensure funding is maintained for 
regional information sharing activities, such as the Regional 
Information Sharing System, RISS, a program established by Congress 
over 30 years ago as a nationwide resource for law enforcement to share 
criminal and intelligence information.
  The House FY2013 CJS appropriations bill requests $27 million in 
funding for this important program, a 40 percent reduction over past 
years. Our amendment would restore regional information sharing 
activities to the fiscal year 2011 funding level of $45 million. In the 
fiscal year 2013 Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Act, it 
is fully offset by reducing funding for NOAA climate research.
  RISS is a valuable tool that helps nearly 9,000 Federal, State, and 
local law enforcement agencies in all 50 States, the District of 
Columbia, and U.S. territories. They share information more effectively 
in order to combat terrorism, dangerous criminals, gangs, and sex 
offenders.
  Since 2000, RISS support has yielded $942.5 million in narcotics, 
property, and case seizures alone, a 223 percent return on Federal 
investment, and contributed to more than 57,360 arrests. These numbers 
don't lie. It's clear that regional information sharing more than pays 
for itself. These positive results have spurred a greater demand for 
RISS services. However, with RISS experiencing funding cuts in fiscal 
year 2012, Agency needs could not always be met.

                              {time}  1650

  With these additional cuts in fiscal year 2013, RISS will need to 
implement widespread layoffs and potentially dismantle critical 
intelligence centers. So in order to maximize the ability of law 
enforcement to combat crime and keep our community safe, regional 
information-sharing activities must remain adequately funded.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I wish we could have worked something out. I visited the 
RISS center up in Bucks County. My dad was a Philadelphia policeman. I 
take a back seat to no one on the issue of crime.
  But it doesn't cut the climate. We don't go down to that. What we're 
cutting, basically, is weather. What we're cutting is a National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research and facilities issue. 
The account the gentleman is proposing would cut funds for the National 
Weather Service and the satellite office that process all the data with 
regard to weather--hurricanes, tornados.
  As we go on, no matter what the outcome of this amendment, it doesn't 
cut climate service. Also, this is the same level fiscal year as it was 
in the 2012 level and the request. Some Members come down and want more 
cuts; others want an increase. This bill is below the President's 
numbers. It is below last year. It is a good program, but it's 
balancing out.
  So I would urge people to vote ``no,'' and as we go to conference, 
I'll tell the gentleman, we'll work on it. As of now, I urge a ``no'' 
vote. If you vote ``yes,'' then the money is coming out of the weather. 
If there's a hurricane, a tornado, a snowstorm, a problem, then you 
make your own judgment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIMM. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, for necessary retired pay expenses under the 
     Retired Serviceman's Family Protection and Survivor Benefits 
     Plan, and for payments for the medical care of retired 
     personnel and their dependents under the Dependents Medical 
     Care Act (10 U.S.C. 55), such sums as may be necessary.

               procurement, acquisition and construction

       For procurement, acquisition and construction of capital 
     assets, including alteration and modification costs, of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     $1,931,948,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015, 
     except that funds provided for construction of facilities 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That of the 
     $1,946,948,000 provided for in direct obligations under this 
     heading, $1,931,948,000 is appropriated from the general fund 
     and $15,000,000 is provided from recoveries of prior year 
     obligations: Provided further, That any deviation from the 
     amounts designated for specific activities in the statement 
     accompanying this Act, or any use of deobligated balances of 
     funds provided under this heading in previous years, shall be 
     subject to the procedures set forth in section 505 of this 
     Act: Provided further, That the Secretary of Commerce shall 
     include in budget justification materials that the Secretary 
     submits to Congress in support of the Department of Commerce 
     budget (as submitted with the budget of the President under 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code) an estimate 
     for each National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
     procurement, acquisition or construction project having a 
     total of more than $5,000,000 and simultaneously the budget 
     justification shall include an estimate of the budgetary 
     requirements for each such project for each of the 5 
     subsequent fiscal years.

                    pacific coastal salmon recovery

       For necessary expenses associated with the restoration of 
     Pacific salmon populations, $65,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2014: Provided, That, of the funds 
     provided herein, the Secretary of Commerce may issue grants 
     to the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, 
     California, and Alaska, and to the Federally recognized 
     tribes of the Columbia River and Pacific Coast (including 
     Alaska), for projects necessary for conservation of salmon 
     and steelhead populations that are listed as threatened or 
     endangered, or that are identified by a State as at-risk to 
     be so listed, for maintaining populations necessary for 
     exercise of tribal treaty fishing rights or native 
     subsistence fishing, or for conservation of Pacific coastal 
     salmon and steelhead habitat, based on guidelines to be 
     developed by the Secretary of Commerce: Provided further, 
     That all funds shall be allocated based on scientific and 
     other merit principles and shall not be available for 
     marketing activities: Provided further, That funds disbursed 
     to States shall be subject to a matching requirement of funds 
     or documented in-kind contributions of at least 33 percent of 
     the Federal funds.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.

[[Page H2375]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 15, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 101, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
  My amendment would reduce funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon 
Recovery program to the President's FY13 request of $50 million.
  I love salmon. I love to eat them. I love to fish for them. I'm a 
conservationist, and conservation issues are what started my political 
activism. But we also are in an economic crisis as a Nation.
  Let's be clear, this program is basically an earmark, and we should 
be eliminating it altogether. But that's not what my amendment does. 
I'm simply asking that we revert to funding levels back to those 
requested by the President. If $50 million in funding is good enough 
for the administration, that's exactly the amount of taxpayer money 
that this program should receive--and not a cent more.
  Given our current economic emergency, everyone needs to pull their 
weight when it comes to cutting spending. Congress has had to slash its 
own budget. Agencies across the Federal Government are tightening their 
belts left and right, and our Nation's families are reining in spending 
to deal with our failing and flailing economy. Yet the Pacific Coast 
Salmon Recovery is requesting $65 million in their funding--a $15 
million increase in their budget from what the President himself has 
recommended for this year.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to simply save American 
taxpayers $15 million by maintaining the status quo for the Pacific 
Coastal Salmon Recovery funding.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. First of all, I take umbrage at the use of the word 
``earmark'' by my colleague. This is no earmark. This is a national 
program. This affects California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, 
and Idaho. These States, after a whole series of endangered species 
listings that go coast-wide, are trying to save these salmon runs.
  As someone who comes from Washington State, I have been in the midst 
of an effort to try to recover our salmon runs. We have marked our 
fish. We have gone to selective harvests. We're protecting our wild 
runs. We're trying to do everything we can to recover these salmon 
runs.
  Today, on the Columbia River in Washington State, we will be very 
fortunate to get 600,000 salmon back. At a time in the thirties we 
would have 20 million fish coming back every year: wild chinook salmon, 
coho salmon, and others.
  So I think this is a very good program. We have worked hard to make 
sure the money is used for strong habitat restoration work and that we 
have worked to improve our hatcheries. We've done hatchery reform. 
We've done everything we can to restore the habitat for these fish.
  Again, this is a national program that was created during the Clinton 
administration. It is strongly supported in the Pacific Northwest by 
both Democrats and Republicans. I see my good friend from Alaska, Mr. 
Young, has arrived on the floor; and I just want you to know that 
Alaska, where we still have many wild fish, also participates in this 
program from time to time.
  So I urge that we vote ``no'' on this amendment. This is a national 
program. It has been in existence for 12 years. It is doing a good job; 
but we're fighting a very difficult problem, and we still need to keep 
working on this because of the endangered species listing, and we still 
have work to be done. And to cut this back, I think, is a mistake. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      fishermen's contingency fund

       For carrying out the provisions of title IV of Public Law 
     95 372, not to exceed $350,000, to be derived from receipts 
     collected pursuant to that Act, to remain available until 
     expended.

                   fisheries finance program account

       Subject to section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, during fiscal year 2013, obligations of direct loans 
     may not exceed $24,000,000 for Individual Fishing Quota loans 
     and not to exceed $59,000,000 for traditional direct loans as 
     authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936: Provided, That 
     none of the funds made available under this heading may be 
     used for direct loans for any new fishing vessel that will 
     increase the harvesting capacity in any United States 
     fishery.

                        Departmental Management

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the management of the Department 
     of Commerce provided for by law, including not to exceed 
     $4,500 for official reception and representation, 
     $55,000,000: Provided, That the Secretary of Commerce shall 
     maintain a task force on job repatriation and manufacturing 
     growth and shall produce an annual report on related 
     incentive strategies, implementation plans and program 
     results.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $28,753,000.

               General Provisions--Department of Commerce

       Sec. 101.  During the current fiscal year, applicable 
     appropriations and funds made available to the Department of 
     Commerce by this Act shall be available for the activities 
     specified in the Act of October 26, 1949 (15 U.S.C. 1514), to 
     the extent and in the manner prescribed by the Act, and, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3324, may be used for advanced 
     payments not otherwise authorized only upon the certification 
     of officials designated by the Secretary of Commerce that 
     such payments are in the public interest.
       Sec. 102.  During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     made available to the Department of Commerce by this Act for 
     salaries and expenses shall be available for hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 
     1344; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and uniforms 
     or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901 
     5902).
       Sec. 103.  Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation 
     made available for the current fiscal year for the Department 
     of Commerce in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That 
     any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Commerce shall notify 
     the Committees on Appropriations at least 15 days in advance 
     of the acquisition or disposal of any capital asset 
     (including land, structures, and equipment) not specifically 
     provided for in this Act or any other law appropriating funds 
     for the Department of Commerce.
       Sec. 104.  Any costs incurred by a department or agency 
     funded under this title resulting from personnel actions 
     taken in response to funding reductions included in this 
     title or from actions taken for the care and protection of 
     loan collateral or grant property shall be absorbed within 
     the total budgetary resources available to such department or 
     agency: Provided, That the authority to transfer funds 
     between appropriations accounts as may be necessary to carry 
     out this section is provided in addition to authorities 
     included elsewhere in this Act: Provided further, That use of 
     funds to carry out this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 105. (a) Section 105(f) of the Commerce, Justice, 
     Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 
     (Public Law 112 55) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (e)(2)''; and
       (2) by striking ``this subsection'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (e)''.
       (b) The requirements set forth by section 105 of the 
     Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112 55), as amended by 
     subsection (a) of this section, are hereby adopted by 
     reference.
       Sec. 106.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Secretary may furnish services (including but not limited to 
     utilities, telecommunications, and security services) 
     necessary to support the operation, maintenance, and 
     improvement of space that persons, firms, or organizations 
     are authorized,

[[Page H2376]]

     pursuant to the Public Buildings Cooperative Use Act of 1976 
     or other authority, to use or occupy in the Herbert C. Hoover 
     Building, Washington, DC, or other buildings, the 
     maintenance, operation, and protection of which has been 
     delegated to the Secretary from the Administrator of General 
     Services pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949 on a reimbursable or non-reimbursable 
     basis. Amounts received as reimbursement for services 
     provided under this section or the authority under which the 
     use or occupancy of the space is authorized, up to $200,000, 
     shall be credited to the appropriation or fund which 
     initially bears the costs of such services.
       Sec. 107.  Nothing in this title shall be construed to 
     prevent a grant recipient from deterring child pornography, 
     copyright infringement, or any other unlawful activity over 
     its networks.
       Sec. 108.  The Administrator of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration is authorized to use, with their 
     consent, with reimbursement and subject to the limits of 
     available appropriations, the land, services, equipment, 
     personnel, and facilities of any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States, or of any State, local 
     government, Indian tribal government, Territory, or 
     possession, or of any political subdivision thereof, or of 
     any foreign government or international organization, for 
     purposes related to carrying out the responsibilities of any 
     statute administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration.
       Sec. 109.  The Department of Commerce shall provide a 
     monthly report to the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and the Senate on any official 
     travel to China by any employee of the U.S. Department of 
     Commerce, including the purpose of such travel.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Commerce 
     Appropriations Act, 2013''.

                                TITLE II

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         General Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration of the 
     Department of Justice, $110,322,000, of which not to exceed 
     $4,000,000 for security and construction of Department of 
     Justice facilities shall remain available until expended.

                              {time}  1700


                  Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Gowdy

  Mr. GOWDY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 21, line 23, insert ``(reduced by $1,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 101, line 10, insert ``(increased by $1,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. GOWDY. Madam Chairwoman, for well over a year now, committees of 
Congress have been trying to answer basic, fundamental questions about 
an ill-conceived, ill-executed firearms operation called Fast and 
Furious. A Border Patrol agent was killed, hundreds of Mexican citizens 
have been killed, thousands of weapons are unaccounted for and likely 
to be used in future crimes. But the Department of Justice and the 
Attorney General specifically will not provide documents properly, 
legitimately requested, so I am left with no choice, Madam Chairwoman, 
but to offer an amendment cutting the Department of Justice 
appropriation.
  Congress has been patient--indeed too patient in my judgment--and I 
understand that for some everything is a political exercise, but surely 
the Department of Justice can rise above petty, partisan politics and 
comply with a subpoena. The Department of Justice expects others to 
comply with subpoenas, yet they will not do so themselves. For those 
watching at home, what would happen to them if they ignored a summons 
for jury duty? What would happen to them if they ignored a grand jury 
subpoena? What would happen if a committee of Congress demanded 
documents and they summarily refused to cooperate? Madam Chairwoman, 
they would be sanctioned, fined, and probably jailed.
  The Department of Justice is not just one more agency within the 
Federal Government. And the Attorney General is not just one more 
political appointee put in place to advance one agenda or the other. 
Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason. She can see who is in front 
of her, she just chooses not to. The Attorney General is the chief law 
enforcement officer for the United States, and that is a role that is 
far and beyond politics. Citizens must have confidence in institutions 
of justice, and they must have confidence in the top law enforcement 
official in the country. And how can they possibly have either if the 
Department of Justice is withholding documents?
  Madam Chairwoman, it did not have to come to this. It should not have 
come to this. But there are basic questions the public and Congress 
have a right to have answered, such as: Who in the Department of 
Justice approved the tactic of gun walking? Why was the criminal chief 
advocating for the tactic of gun walking on February 4, 2011, in 
Mexico, which is the very same day a demonstrably false letter was 
written to United States Senator Chuck Grassley denying the tactic. On 
the very same day Lanny Brewer is advocating for it, a letter is sent 
under Department of Justice letterhead denying the tactic. How did such 
a demonstrably false letter ever get drafted and sent on DOJ 
letterhead? Was gun walking alluded to in the wiretapping applications? 
And if so, who missed it? When the President said he did not approve of 
Fast and Furious and neither did Eric Holder, how did he know that? He 
said that in March of 2011.
  These are but five questions that we do not have the answer to 
despite one solid year of asking.
  So, Madam Chairwoman, this is not about politics to me. It's about 
respect for the rule of law. It's about answers. It's about 
accountability. It's about acceptance of responsibility. I will not, I 
cannot stand idly by while oversight of this body is ignored. It is 
time we did the jobs we swore allegiance to the Constitution to do, 
even if others will not.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I have had 
a difficult time getting answers out of the Justice Department. Many 
times before the Attorney General comes up, we have six or seven 
letters there, and the night before the hearing we get one letter that 
says, in answer to your letter of October 1, October 15, and October 
28--and so I completely support the amendment, and I urge Members to 
support this to send a message. I think it is important for the Justice 
Department to respond. Particularly, they are the Justice Department. 
So I thank the gentleman for the amendment and urge its support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Let me try to make a broader point here. We fund the 
Department of Justice to deal with crime and the protection of our 
country and our citizens. The crime rate has gone down each and every 
year of this administration. Violent crime is down. Homicides are down. 
The Department of Justice is intertwined in inextricable ways with the 
prevention of terrorist attacks on our homeland and on our citizens, 
and they have had an extraordinary record.
  Now there may be occasions in the House for committees to do whatever 
it is that they need to do. I know there have been seven hearings in 
which the Attorney General has testified. I know that thousands of 
pages of documents have been turned over. But the last thing we should 
be doing is stripping away resources from a department whose 
responsibility to all of its agencies is to protect the people who have 
elected us. They have a responsibility in terms of antiterrorism.
  I was out at the opening of the Terrorist Screening Center in 
Virginia, and to see the various organizations under the mantle of the 
Department of Justice working hand in hand to make sure that some 300-
plus million Americans are safe, I think it has been an extraordinary 
job done by Attorney General Holder. I think anyone in our country 
knows this is a political matter. What we need to do is to do our 
actual work here, and our work here is to deal with appropriations to 
figure out what the resources are that the Department of Justice needs 
to do its work.
  And yes, there will be a day for politics. That day is on the first 
Tuesday in November. Today is not the day for

[[Page H2377]]

that. Today is the day for this Congress to do its work. I oppose this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Schock). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Gowdy).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1710


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Runyan

  Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 21, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $22,418,000)''.
       Page 43, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $22,418,000)''.
       Page 43, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $22,418,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment transfers $22.418 million from 
the General Administration Fund to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 
Assistance Grant program, bringing the Byrne/JAG total to $392.48 
million, the same as the Senate mark.
  The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program provides 
valuable services to local police departments all around the United 
States. These grants help to enhance law enforcement capabilities by 
providing funding to local law enforcement agencies through improving 
officer safety via equipment, technology, and training. Better 
equipment and trained police officers are a necessity to keep our 
communities and our constituents safe.
  This amendment is deficit neutral, while increasing funding for 
support of local law enforcement organizations all over the United 
States. It is also supported by the Fraternal Order of Police.
  During tough fiscal times such as these, we must prioritize and 
ensure we are providing appropriate funding for those programs we need 
the most. The Byrne/JAG funding should be appropriated as mentioned 
above in an effort to best serve our constituents.
  I urge support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the ranking member.
  We rise in opposition because the offsets we think are ill-advised in 
terms of its cuts, particularly to the Civil Rights Enforcement Office, 
and a number of others. We request a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. And it's $22 million. This is a big-time cut, and this 
would affect sensitive civil rights cases. So I urge a ``no'' vote, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 justice information sharing technology

       For necessary expenses for information sharing technology, 
     including planning, development, deployment and departmental 
     direction, $33,426,000, to remain available until expended.

                   administrative review and appeals

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses necessary for the administration of pardon and 
     clemency petitions and immigration-related activities, 
     $313,438,000, of which $4,000,000 shall be derived by 
     transfer from the Executive Office for Immigration Review 
     fees deposited in the ``Immigration Examinations Fee'' 
     account.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $84,199,000, including not to exceed $10,000 to meet 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character.

                    United States Parole Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Parole 
     Commission as authorized, $12,772,000.

                            Legal Activities

            salaries and expenses, general legal activities

       For expenses necessary for the legal activities of the 
     Department of Justice, not otherwise provided for, including 
     not to exceed $20,000 for expenses of collecting evidence, to 
     be expended under the direction of, and to be accounted for 
     solely under the certificate of, the Attorney General; and 
     rent of private or Government-owned space in the District of 
     Columbia, $863,367,000, of which not to exceed $10,000,000 
     for litigation support contracts shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     not to exceed $9,000 shall be available to INTERPOL 
     Washington for official reception and representation 
     expenses: Provided further, That notwithstanding section 205 
     of this Act, upon a determination by the Attorney General 
     that emergent circumstances require additional funding for 
     litigation activities of the Civil Division, the Attorney 
     General may transfer such amounts to ``Salaries and Expenses, 
     General Legal Activities'' from available appropriations for 
     the current fiscal year for the Department of Justice, as may 
     be necessary to respond to such circumstances: Provided 
     further, That any transfer pursuant to the previous proviso 
     shall be treated as a reprogramming under section 505 of this 
     Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure 
     except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that 
     section: Provided further, That of the amount appropriated, 
     such sums as may be necessary shall be available to reimburse 
     the Office of Personnel Management for salaries and expenses 
     associated with the election monitoring program under section 
     8 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973f): 
     Provided further, That of the amounts provided under this 
     heading for the election monitoring program, $3,390,000 shall 
     remain available until expended.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 23, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $13,500,000)''.
       Page 25, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $21,500,000)''.
       Page 30, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $9,000,000)''.
       Page 61, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $44,000,000)''.
       Page 63, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $38,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to H.R. 5326 would fully fund 
the Department of Justice's financial and mortgage fraud enforcement 
activities as well as the new Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities 
Working Group.
  In announcing this initiative during the State of the Union, 
President Obama said that the new unit will ``hold accountable those 
who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the 
page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.'' President 
Obama recognized that additional resources were needed to prosecute 
crimes against homeowners and mortgage investors.
  Since the start of the financial crisis of 2008, there have been 3.5 
million foreclosures. While it's clear that there was extensive fraud 
in the origination and securitization of mortgage loans, these cases 
were complicated and time consuming. Without a coordinated task force 
with significant resources, the greatest crime in the history of our 
housing market will go unpunished. However, so far, the RMBS Working 
Group is off to a slow start.
  The RMBS Working Group cochair, New York Attorney General 
Schneidermann, all but affirmed my concerns when he essentially 
admitted to the Congressional Progressive Caucus during a special 
public forum that the RMBS Working Group does not yet have the 
resources it needs to establish a robust infrastructure commensurate 
with the charge of investigating the 2008 financial crisis.
  To fund this effort, the President requested a $55 million increase 
in the budget for the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to help 
facilitate an increase in staffing for the RMBS Working Group. However, 
as noted in the Minority Views, H.R. 5326 only provides a small portion 
of the increase that's needed. So I have worked to find additional 
funds from within the NASA appropriations that I don't anticipate

[[Page H2378]]

will endanger any program. Considering the retirement of the space 
shuttle program and a shift in NASA's priorities, I believe we should 
use the funds in these accounts to help bring justice to defrauded 
investors, homeowners, and consumers.
  My amendment pulls from NASA Aeronautics' budget of $569.9 million in 
appropriations--a fair target since NASA only requested $551.5 million. 
I am making up the other portion of the funds needed to neutralize the 
impact on budgetary outlays by pulling $38 million from NASA's Space 
Operations' $3.9 billion in appropriations.
  In subtracting from these accounts, my amendment would increase the 
FBI's budgets by $9 million, increase DOJ's legal activities 
appropriation by $13.5 million, and increase the appropriations for 
U.S. Attorneys by $21.5 million, all in efforts to fully comply with 
the Obama administration's $55 million request.
  The FBI needs the funding to increase its capacity to investigate 
financial and mortgage fraud schemes. The requested 40 new agents and 
four forensic accountants will create two hybrid squads to target the 
most significant, complex financial crimes, and remaining resources 
will be allocated to FBI field offices to increase financial and 
mortgage fraud efforts.
  The criminal division within DOJ needs additional resources to 
prosecute the most significant financial crimes--including mortgage 
fraud, corporate fraud, and sophisticated investment fraud--coordinate 
multi-district financial crime cases, and assist U.S. Attorneys offices 
in financial crime cases with significant money-laundering and asset-
forfeiture components.
  The civil division within DOJ needs funding to expand civil 
enforcement efforts to continue to obtain recoveries from individuals 
and companies who have defrauded the government by violating the terms 
of Federal contracts, grants, loans, and subsidies.

                              {time}  1720

  The Civil Rights Division within DOJ needs funding to expand civil 
enforcement efforts, including investigations of predatory lending, 
pricing discrimination, matters involving allegations of potentially 
fraudulent behavior.
  And lastly, the U.S. Attorneys need additional resources to expand 
criminal investigations and prosecutions of mortgage fraud.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  We share the gentlewoman's concern for the importance of 
investigating and prosecuting financial crime; however, the bill 
already includes a program increase of $6.6 million to the FBI for this 
purpose, one of the very few increases included under the Justice 
Department. The bill also includes the requested resources for the FBI 
to continue the additional positions provided in fiscal year 2009 to 
enhance the investigation of white collar and financial crimes.
  Further, the amendment's proposed offsets are a problem. The aviation 
industry is one of the few bright spots in our domestic manufacturing 
sector. It is a large source of high quality and one of the only 
American industrial sectors to report consistent trade surpluses. 
$14.44 million will be taken out of that.
  This success has been built on the back of NASA's aeronautics 
program, which develops new, cutting-edge technology for transfer to 
the industry. This technology makes American airplanes and airspace 
safer and more efficient, reliable, and sustainable. Pulling back from 
our aeronautics program today only ensures that we will fail to produce 
the innovation needed to fuel our exports in the next decade, which 
will, in turn, imperil America's leadership in industry, with major 
economic and national security implications.
  I'm also concerned about the amendment's proposed reductions to 
NASA's Space Operations account, which would affect our ability to 
effectively manage and utilize the $100 billion international space 
station. We have spent $100 billion on the space station, and I think 
to take this cut out of that would be a mistake.
  So, for all of those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I did not want to cut the 
spending for NASA either, but the financial crisis of 2008, from which 
we are still suffering, cost Americans trillions of dollars. And even 
more importantly, it has undermined deeply Americans' faith that our 
Nation really does believe in the rule of law, that the same laws apply 
to all of us equally. They have not seen anything that justifies a 
belief that that has happened in this case.
  What happened in the financial crisis was not a perfect storm of 
unforeseeable economic forces. What happened was a visible hand of 
fraud, or at least a hand that would be visible if anyone would just 
look.
  But despite the fact, the compelling evidence of real misconduct, 
fraud and probably criminal fraud, there has certainly not been an 
investigation. There certainly have not been prosecutions to reassure 
Americans that, yes, there is a rule of law, and those same laws apply 
to you no matter who you are, what your station in life is.
  If we seriously pursued those claims of fraud, those allegations of 
fraud, criminal fraud charges, every defendant would have a defense 
team that would make the O.J. defense team look like a public defender 
2 years out of law school handling 100 other cases. We would be swamped 
by the opposition.
  But that is certainly no reason not to pursue those charges. In fact, 
that is all the more reason to go forward and to pursue criminal fraud, 
to assure Americans that you do not get out of the rule of law; you do 
not get a ``get out of jail free'' card because you are rich and 
powerful.
  In contrast, the savings and loan crisis, which was nothing compared 
to the crisis that we are still in, there were 1,000 agents from the 
FBI who were assigned to investigate. There were ample lawyers to bring 
the claims; and, in fact, almost 1,000 figures from the savings and 
loan crisis, in fact, were criminally prosecuted and went to jail, with 
a 90 percent conviction rate.
  The current task force, the one the President announced at the State 
of the Union, has now, we understand, 50 to 60 lawyers and accountants 
working on the largest financial crisis in history since the Great 
Depression. The results of this are going to depend upon the kind of 
resources that that task force has.
  It is important that we compensate the people who were the victims of 
that fraud, and the task force will have the legal power to do that. 
Even more importantly, it will satisfy Americans' sense of justice, the 
sense of justice that has been offended, that the people who have 
suffered the most from the financial crisis really were blameless. And 
they do believe that there were people who were not blameless, whose 
misconduct, including criminal misconduct, caused it. We need to 
satisfy their sense of justice.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to satisfy my sense of justice. I support Ms. 
Waters' amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I totally support the efforts of this amendment to 
increase the resources we've put into mortgage fraud. And I've written 
to the Attorney General on this, and we have about $11 million, I 
think, appropriated in the bill in this regard. We need to find more.
  I'm opposed to these offsets, and the idea that they won't do damage 
to NASA programs, I think, is wrong. It's easy to go after NASA.
  I think that there's broad agreement, however, that the mortgage 
fraud that took place, as evidenced by the settlement that Attorney 
General Holder and attorney generals from dozens and dozens of States 
brought together with the largest banks that are helping to redress 
some of these problems. So we need to do more. We'll work together to 
try to find that.
  I am opposed to this amendment, as written.

[[Page H2379]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Runyan

  Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 23, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment transfers $5 million from the 
Department of Justice Legal Activities, Salaries and Expenses, General 
Legal Activities to the Office of Violence Against Women.
  The Office of Violence Against Women serves as an invaluable resource 
for battered and abused women in all of our communities. The office 
provides grants that have helped to enhance Federal, State, and local 
responses to sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking and dating 
violence, as well as providing domestic shelters and services to 
victims of domestic violence.
  Abused women in our communities frequently have nowhere and no one to 
turn to. The programs provided by the Violence Against Women Act and 
the Office of Violence Against Women are the only safe haven for many 
women. These programs must be funded at a level that ensures these 
vital services can continue.
  This amendment is deficit-neutral, while increasing funding for the 
Office of Violence Against Women.
  During this period of budgetary constraints, we must prioritize the 
programs we need the most. My amendment clearly states that the Office 
of Violence Against Women is a priority.
  I urge all of my colleagues' support on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       In addition, for reimbursement of expenses of the 
     Department of Justice associated with processing cases under 
     the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, not to 
     exceed $7,833,000, to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury 
     Compensation Trust Fund.

               salaries and expenses, antitrust division

       For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and 
     kindred laws, $159,587,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, fees collected for premerger notification filings 
     under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 
     1976 (15 U.S.C. 18a), regardless of the year of collection 
     (and estimated to be $115,000,000 in fiscal year 2013), shall 
     be retained and used for necessary expenses in this 
     appropriation, and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the 
     general fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections 
     are received during fiscal year 2013, so as to result in a 
     final fiscal year 2013 appropriation from the general fund 
     estimated at $44,587,000.

             salaries and expenses, united states attorneys

       For necessary expenses of the Offices of the United States 
     Attorneys, including inter-governmental and cooperative 
     agreements, $1,965,000,000: Provided, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, not to exceed $7,200 shall be available 
     for official reception and representation expenses: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $25,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided further, That each United 
     States Attorney shall establish or participate in a United 
     States Attorney-led task force on human trafficking.

                   united states trustee system fund

       For necessary expenses of the United States Trustee 
     Program, as authorized, $223,258,000, to remain available 
     until expended and to be derived from the United States 
     Trustee System Fund: Provided, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, deposits to the Fund shall be 
     available in such amounts as may be necessary to pay refunds 
     due depositors: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, $223,258,000 of offsetting 
     collections pursuant to section 589a(b) of title 28, United 
     States Code, shall be retained and used for necessary 
     expenses in this appropriation and shall remain available 
     until expended: Provided further, That the sum herein 
     appropriated from the Fund shall be reduced as such 
     offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 2013, 
     so as to result in a final fiscal year 2013 appropriation 
     from the Fund estimated at $0.

      salaries and expenses, foreign claims settlement commission

       For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the 
     Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, including services as 
     authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     $2,000,000.

                     fees and expenses of witnesses

       For fees and expenses of witnesses, for expenses of 
     contracts for the procurement and supervision of expert 
     witnesses, for private counsel expenses, including advances, 
     and for expenses of foreign counsel, $270,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which not to exceed $10,000,000 
     is for construction of buildings for protected witness 
     safesites; not to exceed $3,000,000 is for the purchase and 
     maintenance of armored and other vehicles for witness 
     security caravans; and not to exceed $11,000,000 is for the 
     purchase, installation, maintenance, and upgrade of secure 
     telecommunications equipment and a secure automated 
     information network to store and retrieve the identities and 
     locations of protected witnesses.

           salaries and expenses, community relations service

       For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service, 
     $11,456,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section 205 of 
     this Act, upon a determination by the Attorney General that 
     emergent circumstances require additional funding for 
     conflict resolution and violence prevention activities of the 
     Community Relations Service, the Attorney General may 
     transfer such amounts to the Community Relations Service, 
     from available appropriations for the current fiscal year for 
     the Department of Justice, as may be necessary to respond to 
     such circumstances: Provided further, That any transfer 
     pursuant to the preceding proviso shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming under section 505 of this Act and shall not be 
     available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.

                         assets forfeiture fund

       For expenses authorized by subparagraphs (B), (F), and (G) 
     of section 524(c)(1) of title 28, United States Code, 
     $20,948,000, to be derived from the Department of Justice 
     Assets Forfeiture Fund.

                     United States Marshals Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals 
     Service, $1,188,488,000, of which not to exceed $6,000 shall 
     be available for official reception and representation 
     expenses, and not to exceed $15,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended.

                              construction

       For construction in space controlled, occupied or utilized 
     by the United States Marshals Service for prisoner holding 
     and related support, $10,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                       federal prisoner detention

                      (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses related to United States prisoners 
     in the custody of the United States Marshals Service as 
     authorized by section 4013 of title 18, United States Code, 
     $1,647,383,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be considered ``funds 
     appropriated for State and local law enforcement assistance'' 
     pursuant to section 4013(b) of title 18, United States Code: 
     Provided further, That the United States Marshals Service 
     shall be responsible for managing the Justice Prisoner and 
     Alien Transportation System: Provided further, That any 
     unobligated balances available from funds appropriated under 
     the heading ``General Administration, Detention Trustee'' 
     shall be transferred to and merged with the appropriation 
     under this heading.

                       National Security Division

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the 
     National Security Division, $90,039,000, of which not to 
     exceed $5,000,000 for information technology systems shall 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding section 205 of this Act, upon a determination 
     by the Attorney General that emergent circumstances require 
     additional funding for the activities of the National 
     Security Division, the Attorney General may transfer such 
     amounts to this heading from available appropriations for the 
     current fiscal year for the Department of Justice, as may be 
     necessary to respond to such circumstances: Provided further, 
     That any transfer pursuant to the preceding proviso shall be 
     treated as a reprogramming under section 505 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.

                      Interagency Law Enforcement

                 interagency crime and drug enforcement

       For necessary expenses for the identification, 
     investigation, and prosecution of individuals associated with 
     the most significant drug trafficking, and affiliated money 
     laundering organizations not otherwise provided for, to 
     include inter-governmental agreements with State and local 
     law enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and 
     prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug 
     trafficking, $521,793,000, of which $50,000,000 shall remain 
     available until

[[Page H2380]]

     expended: Provided, That any amounts obligated from 
     appropriations under this heading may be used under 
     authorities available to the organizations reimbursed from 
     this appropriation.

                    Federal Bureau of Investigation

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation for detection, investigation, and prosecution 
     of crimes against the United States, $8,185,007,000, of which 
     not to exceed $216,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $184,500 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses.

                              construction

       For necessary expenses, to include the cost of equipment, 
     furniture, and information technology requirements, related 
     to construction or acquisition of buildings, facilities and 
     sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law; 
     conversion, modification and extension of Federally-owned 
     buildings; preliminary planning and design of projects; and 
     operation and maintenance of secure work environment 
     facilities and secure networking capabilities; $80,982,000, 
     to remain available until expended.

                    Drug Enforcement Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character pursuant 
     to section 530C of title 28, United States Code; and expenses 
     for conducting drug education and training programs, 
     including travel and related expenses for participants in 
     such programs and the distribution of items of token value 
     that promote the goals of such programs, $2,043,904,000; of 
     which not to exceed $75,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended and not to exceed $90,000 shall be available for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

          Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
     Firearms and Explosives, for training of State and local law 
     enforcement agencies with or without reimbursement, including 
     training in connection with the training and acquisition of 
     canines for explosives and fire accelerants detection; and 
     for provision of laboratory assistance to State and local law 
     enforcement agencies, with or without reimbursement, 
     $1,153,345,000, of which not to exceed $36,000 shall be for 
     official reception and representation expenses, not to exceed 
     $1,000,000 shall be available for the payment of attorneys' 
     fees as provided by section 924(d)(2) of title 18, United 
     States Code, and not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That, in the current 
     fiscal year and any fiscal year thereafter, no funds 
     appropriated under this or any other Act shall be used to pay 
     administrative expenses or the compensation of any officer or 
     employee of the United States to implement an amendment or 
     amendments to section 478.118 of title 27, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, or to change the definition of ``Curios or 
     relics'' in section 478.11 of title 27, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, or remove any item from ATF Publication 5300.11 
     as it existed on January 1, 1994: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated herein shall be available to 
     investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal 
     firearms disabilities under section 925(c) of title 18, 
     United States Code: Provided further, That such funds shall 
     be available to investigate and act upon applications filed 
     by corporations for relief from Federal firearms disabilities 
     under section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code: 
     Provided further, That no funds made available by this or any 
     other Act may be used to transfer the functions, missions, or 
     activities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
     Explosives to other agencies or Departments: Provided 
     further, That, in the current fiscal year and any fiscal year 
     thereafter, no funds made available by this or any other Act 
     shall be expended to promulgate or implement any rule 
     requiring a physical inventory of any business licensed under 
     section 923 of title 18, United States Code: Provided 
     further, That, in the current fiscal year and any fiscal year 
     thereafter, no funds authorized or made available under this 
     or any other Act may be used to deny any application for a 
     license under section 923 of title 18, United States Code, or 
     renewal of such a license due to a lack of business activity, 
     provided that the applicant is otherwise eligible to receive 
     such a license, and is eligible to report business income or 
     to claim an income tax deduction for business expenses under 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

                         Federal Prison System

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Prison System for the 
     administration, operation, and maintenance of Federal penal 
     and correctional institutions, and for the provision of 
     technical assistance and advice on corrections related issues 
     to foreign governments, $6,820,217,000: Provided, That the 
     Attorney General may transfer to the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration such amounts as may be necessary for 
     direct expenditures by that Administration for medical relief 
     for inmates of Federal penal and correctional institutions: 
     Provided further, That the Director of the Federal Prison 
     System, where necessary, may enter into contracts with a 
     fiscal agent or fiscal intermediary claims processor to 
     determine the amounts payable to persons who, on behalf of 
     the Federal Prison System, furnish health services to 
     individuals committed to the custody of the Federal Prison 
     System: Provided further, That not to exceed $5,400 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $50,000,000 shall remain 
     available for necessary operations until September 30, 2014: 
     Provided further, That, of the amounts provided for contract 
     confinement, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain available 
     until expended to make payments in advance for grants, 
     contracts and reimbursable agreements, and other expenses 
     authorized by section 501(c) of the Refugee Education 
     Assistance Act of 1980 (8 U.S.C. 1522 note), for the care and 
     security in the United States of Cuban and Haitian entrants: 
     Provided further, That the Director of the Federal Prison 
     System may accept donated property and services relating to 
     the operation of the prison card program from a nonprofit 
     entity which has operated such program in the past 
     notwithstanding the fact that such nonprofit entity furnishes 
     services under contracts to the Federal Prison System 
     relating to the operation of pre-release services, halfway 
     houses, or other custodial facilities.

                        buildings and facilities

       For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new 
     facilities; purchasing and acquiring facilities and 
     remodeling, and equipping of such facilities for penal and 
     correctional use, including all necessary expenses incident 
     thereto, by contract or force account; and constructing, 
     remodeling, and equipping necessary buildings and facilities 
     at existing penal and correctional institutions, including 
     all necessary expenses incident thereto, by contract or force 
     account, $90,000,000, to remain available until expended, of 
     which not less than $66,965,000 shall be available only for 
     modernization, maintenance and repair, and of which not to 
     exceed $14,000,000 shall be available to construct areas for 
     inmate work programs: Provided, That labor of United States 
     prisoners may be used for work performed under this 
     appropriation.

                federal prison industries, incorporated

       The Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available, and in accord with 
     the law, and to make such contracts and commitments, without 
     regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by section 9104 
     of title 31, United States Code, as may be necessary in 
     carrying out the program set forth in the budget for the 
     current fiscal year for such corporation, including purchase 
     (not to exceed five for replacement only) and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles.

   limitation on administrative expenses, federal prison industries, 
                              incorporated

       Not to exceed $2,700,000 of the funds of the Federal Prison 
     Industries, Incorporated shall be available for its 
     administrative expenses, and for services as authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, to be computed 
     on an accrual basis to be determined in accordance with the 
     corporation's current prescribed accounting system, and such 
     amounts shall be exclusive of depreciation, payment of 
     claims, and expenditures which such accounting system 
     requires to be capitalized or charged to cost of commodities 
     acquired or produced, including selling and shipping 
     expenses, and expenses in connection with acquisition, 
     construction, operation, maintenance, improvement, 
     protection, or disposition of facilities and other property 
     belonging to the corporation or in which it has an interest.

               State and Local Law Enforcement Activities

                    Office on Violence Against Women

       violence against women prevention and prosecution programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance for the prevention and prosecution of violence 
     against women, as authorized by the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) (``the 1968 
     Act''); the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 
     1994 (Public Law 103 322) (``the 1994 Act''); the Victims of 
     Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Public Law 101 647) (``the 1990 
     Act''); the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the 
     Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Public Law 108 
     21); the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 
     1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) (``the 1974 Act''); the Victims 
     of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public 
     Law 106 386) (``the 2000 Act''); and the Violence Against 
     Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 
     (Public Law 109 162) (``the 2005 Act''); and for related 
     victims services, $415,000,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That except as otherwise provided by law, 
     not to exceed 5 percent of funds made available under this 
     heading may be used for expenses related to evaluation, 
     training, and technical assistance: Provided further, That of 
     the amount provided--
       (1) $189,000,000 is for grants to combat violence against 
     women, as authorized by part T of the 1968 Act;
       (2) $25,000,000 is for transitional housing assistance 
     grants for victims of domestic violence, stalking or sexual 
     assault as authorized by section 40299 of the 1994 Act;

[[Page H2381]]

       (3) $3,500,000 is for the National Institute of Justice for 
     research and evaluation of violence against women and related 
     issues addressed by grant programs of the Office on Violence 
     Against Women, which shall be transferred to ``Research, 
     Evaluation, and Statistics'' for administration by the Office 
     of Justice Programs;
       (4) $10,000,000 is for a grant program to provide services 
     to advocate for and respond to youth victims of domestic 
     violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking; 
     assistance to children and youth exposed to such violence; 
     programs to engage men and youth in preventing such violence; 
     and assistance to middle and high school students through 
     education and other services related to such violence: 
     Provided, That unobligated balances available for the 
     programs authorized by sections 41201, 41204, 41303 and 41305 
     of the 1994 Act shall be available for this program: Provided 
     further, That 10 percent of the total amount available for 
     this grant program shall be available for grants under the 
     program authorized by section 2015 of the 1968 Act: Provided 
     further, That the definitions and grant conditions in section 
     40002 of the 1994 Act shall apply to this program;
       (5) $50,000,000 is for grants to encourage arrest policies 
     as authorized by part U of the 1968 Act;
       (6) $23,000,000 is for sexual assault victims assistance, 
     as authorized by section 41601 of the 1994 Act;
       (7) $36,500,000 is for rural domestic violence and child 
     abuse enforcement assistance grants, as authorized by section 
     40295 of the 1994 Act;
       (8) $9,000,000 is for grants to reduce violent crimes 
     against women on campus, as authorized by section 304 of the 
     2005 Act;
       (9) $41,000,000 is for legal assistance for victims, as 
     authorized by section 1201 of the 2000 Act;
       (10) $4,250,000 is for enhanced training and services to 
     end violence against and abuse of women in later life, as 
     authorized by section 40802 of the 1994 Act;
       (11) $11,500,000 is for the safe havens for children 
     program, as authorized by section 1301 of the 2000 Act;
       (12) $5,750,000 is for education and training to end 
     violence against and abuse of women with disabilities, as 
     authorized by section 1402 of the 2000 Act;
       (13) $4,500,000 is for the court training and improvements 
     program, as authorized by section 41002 of the 1994 Act;
       (14) $500,000 is for the National Resource Center on 
     Workplace Responses to assist victims of domestic violence, 
     as authorized by section 41501 of the 1994 Act;
       (15) $1,000,000 is for analysis and research on violence 
     against Indian women, including as authorized by section 904 
     of the 2005 Act, which may be transferred to ``Research, 
     Evaluation, and Statistics'' for administration by the Office 
     of Justice Programs; and
       (16) $500,000 is for the Office on Violence Against Women 
     to establish a national clearinghouse that provides training 
     and technical assistance on issues relating to sexual assault 
     of American Indian and Alaska Native women.

                              {time}  1730


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  An amendment by Mr. Peters of Michigan.
  The first amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
  An Amendment by Mr. McClintock of California.
  An Amendment by Mr. Michaud of Maine.
  An Amendment by Mr. Scalise of Louisiana.
  An Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Pompeo of Kansas.
  An Amendment by Mr. Quayle of Arizona.
  An Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Harris of Maryland.
  An Amendment by Mr. Grimm of New York.
  The second amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia0.
  An Amendment by Mr. Runyan of New Jersey.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Peters

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 141, 
noes 261, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 202]

                               AYES--141

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Benishek
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dold
     Ellison
     Engel
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hochul
     Holt
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schilling
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Watt
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--261

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Towns
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Becerra
     Bonner
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cardoza

[[Page H2382]]


     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Gibson
     Hirono
     Honda
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Kucinich
     Lee (CA)
     McHenry
     Moore
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1802

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Ms. EDWARDS, Messrs. GRIMM, DAVID SCOTT of 
Georgia, and CLYBURN, Ms. HAHN, Mr. HINOJOSA, Ms. FUDGE, Messrs. HOYER, 
CLEAVER, MEEKS, WAXMAN, DAVIS of Illinois, and Mrs. LUMMIS changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of 
California, Mrs. LOWEY, and Messrs. HANNA and CONYERS changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 202, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Broun) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 137, 
noes 270, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 203]

                               AYES--137

     Adams
     Akin
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Davis (KY)
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McClintock
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Olson
     Paul
     Petri
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Quayle
     Ribble
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Towns
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--270

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Becerra
     Bonner
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Hirono
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     Lee (CA)
     McHenry
     Moore
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1808

  Mr. AKIN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 203, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. McClintock) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 121, 
noes 287, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 204]

                               AYES--121

     Adams
     Akin
     Amash
     Amodei
     Barton (TX)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Culberson
     Denham
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Long
     Lummis
     Mack
     McClintock
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Ribble
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)

[[Page H2383]]


     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--287

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     West
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Becerra
     Bonner
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Hirono
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1813

  Mr. MULVANEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 204, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Michaud

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Michaud) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 218, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 205]

                               AYES--190

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dold
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Hurt
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Landry
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Noem
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Richardson
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (OH)
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--218

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capps
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Cravaack
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman

[[Page H2384]]


     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Waxman
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Becerra
     Bonner
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Hirono
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Whitfield


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1817

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 205, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Scalise

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Scalise) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174, 
noes 233, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 206]

                               AYES--174

     Adams
     Akin
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--233

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Becerra
     Bonner
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Hirono
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     Maloney
     McHenry
     Moore
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1820

  Mr. GRIMM changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 206, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Pompeo) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 129, 
noes 279, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 207]

                               AYES--129

     Adams
     Akin
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Farenthold
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Long
     Lummis
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Petri
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)

[[Page H2385]]


     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--279

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Becerra
     Bonner
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Hirono
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1824

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 207, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Quayle

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Quayle) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 147, 
noes 259, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 208]

                               AYES--147

     Adams
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Denham
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Petri
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--259

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nunes
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch

[[Page H2386]]


     Westmoreland
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Becerra
     Bonner
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Hirono
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     McHenry
     Moore
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1827

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 208, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Harris

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Harris) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219, 
noes 189, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 209]

                               AYES--219

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hochul
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--189

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Becerra
     Bonner
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Hirono
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1832

  Messrs. ROONEY and POSEY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 209, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Grimm

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Grimm) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209, 
noes 199, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 210]

                               AYES--209

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Bono Mack
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Capito
     Chabot
     Clarke (MI)
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (KY)
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emerson
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Himes
     Hochul
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Mica

[[Page H2387]]


     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tonko
     Towns
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--199

     Aderholt
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Brown (FL)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Flores
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Lankford
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lummis
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (IL)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Becerra
     Bonner
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Hirono
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1837

  Messrs. SCHOCK and CLARKE of Michigan changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 210, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168, 
noes 239, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 211]

                               AYES--168

     Adams
     Akin
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Berg
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--239

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleming
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kissell
     Kline
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H2388]]



                             NOT VOTING--24

     Becerra
     Bonner
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Hirono
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1841

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 211, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Runyan

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Runyan) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 325, 
noes 81, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 212]

                               AYES--325

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonamici
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                                NOES--81

     Ackerman
     Amash
     Baca
     Blumenauer
     Brown (FL)
     Burgess
     Campbell
     Capps
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Long
     Lowey
     Lummis
     Maloney
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     Meeks
     Miller (NC)
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Polis
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sarbanes
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Tonko
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Becerra
     Bonner
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Costa
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Hirono
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1846

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 212, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. I would like to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Wolf.
  There has been a dramatic increase in financial and mortgage fraud as 
a result of the recent economic crisis, and additional resources are 
needed to protect the American people and exact justice for them. The 
FBI is tasked with upholding and enforcing the criminal laws of the 
United States, but it has limited resources in the areas of financial 
and mortgage fraud.

                              {time}  1850

  In fiscal year 2011, the FBI had approximately 3,000 pending mortgage 
fraud investigations compared with roughly just 700 investigations in 
fiscal year 2005. Also, in fiscal 2011, the FBI had more than 2,500 
corporate and security fraud investigations, representing a 50 percent 
increase since fiscal year 2008. Nearly 70 percent of the pending 
investigations involve losses exceeding $1 million. And according to 
the Department of Justice, the average return on investment for one 
corporate fraud agent was approximately $54 million over the past 3 
years. That's an incredible return on investment.
  While I support hiring even more agents than the President does, the 
committee was only able to provide $6.61 million, less than half the 
request. During the Appropriations Committee markup, the chairman 
indicated he would be open to finding the necessary funds the President 
requested to protect the American people from financial and mortgage 
fraud, but the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation prevented him from 
doing so. The Senate version of this bill does fully fund the 
President's request.
  I ask the chairman to further elaborate on what was said in committee 
and inquire if the chairman is open to adding additional support should 
this bill go to conference.
  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. I would be very honored to yield to the gentleman from 
Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. The FBI was one of the few agencies in this bill to receive

[[Page H2389]]

funding above its requested level, and I've always been a strong 
proponent of providing the necessary resources for law enforcement 
personnel to protect the American people.
  As you noted, the bill includes a program increase of $6.6 million 
above the current level for agents and support personnel to combat 
financial fraud. The Senate has reported their CJS total a higher 
allocation. I think they were $781 million above us. As we go to 
conference with the Senate, the gentlelady can rest assured that we 
will work to ensure that the FBI has the resources that they need.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the chairman very 
much for trying so hard and urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to look at the return on investment in one agent exacting justice 
for the American people with a return of $54 million over 3 years per 
agent. That's an amazing figure. We owe so much to them.
  I thank the chairman very much for his openness, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my deep appreciation to 
the members of this committee who, in their wisdom, saw the ability to 
support the concept of veterans treatment courts.
  Many of our veterans are returning from commitments overseas in which 
they are having not just one, but two, three, and sometimes four tours 
of duty. By virtue of the nature of that duty, we're seeing an 
unusually high number of veterans that are returning with posttraumatic 
stress syndrome. Oftentimes that stress-related activity leads some of 
these veterans to act out in ways that sometimes cross the laws of our 
country. Somebody might get engaged in a fight in a bar. More 
frequently, we're seeing many of these veterans that are dealing with 
the issue by alcohol and drug addiction.
  There is an opportunity--and I say this as a former prosecutor at 
both the county and Federal level--to appropriately divert these cases 
to a place where they can be handled with the treatment that the 
veterans deserve. Veterans treatment courts are an obligation, in my 
mind, to these returning veterans to allow us to most effectively deal 
with the underlying issues that have come as a result of the commitment 
that they made to our Nation by their service.
  I want to express my deep appreciation to Chairman Wolf and to the 
members of the committee for their forward-thinking support and urge 
the support of all of the Members of this body for the appropriation in 
support of veterans treatment courts.
  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEHAN. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania for bringing the issue of funding for veterans treatment 
courts to the attention of the CJS Subcommittee for its assistance.
  At the behest of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, we had the honor of 
welcoming the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery to 
the subcommittee, where he testified about the importance of supporting 
veterans treatment courts.
  I also want to thank Mr. Fattah for being very supportive. Also, Mr. 
Yoder was very supportive. I'm not sure he is here, but he spoke out 
very much for it and the entire committee. So I want to thank the 
gentlemen again. I appreciate it very much.
  Mr. MEEHAN. I just want to take one second to express, as well, my 
appreciation to my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Fattah), who, from the outset, was one of the original cosponsors that 
helped to bring this concept to this body. I thank him for his support 
and encouragement.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       Office of Justice Programs

                  research, evaluation and statistics

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control 
     and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act''); the Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (``the 1974 
     Act''); the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5771 
     et seq.); the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end 
     the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Public Law 
     108 21); the Justice for All Act of 2004 (Public Law 108 
     405); the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109 162) (``the 2005 
     Act''); the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Public Law 
     101 647); the Second Chance Act of 2007 (Public Law 110 199); 
     the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (Public Law 98 473); the 
     Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Public 
     Law 109 248) (``the Adam Walsh Act''); the PROTECT Our 
     Children Act of 2008 (Public Law 110 401); subtitle D of 
     title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107 
     296) (``the 2002 Act''); the NICS Improvement Amendments Act 
     of 2007 (Public Law 110 180); and other programs; 
     $112,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which--
       (1) $45,000,000 is for criminal justice statistics 
     programs, and other activities, as authorized by part C of 
     title I of the 1968 Act;
       (2) $40,000,000 is for research, development, and 
     evaluation programs, and other activities as authorized by 
     part B of title I of the 1968 Act and subtitle D of title II 
     of the 2002 Act; and
       (3) $27,000,000 is for regional information sharing 
     activities, as authorized by part M of title I of the 1968 
     Act.

               state and local law enforcement assistance

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103 322) (``the 1994 
     Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (``the 1968 Act''); the Justice for All Act of 2004 
     (Public Law 108 405); the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 
     (Public Law 101 647) (``the 1990 Act''); the Trafficking 
     Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 
     109 164); the Violence Against Women and Department of 
     Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109 162) 
     (``the 2005 Act''); the Adam Walsh Child Protection and 
     Safety Act of 2006 (Public Law 109 248) (``the Adam Walsh 
     Act''); the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection 
     Act of 2000 (Public Law 106 386); the NICS Improvement 
     Amendments Act of 2007 (Public Law 110 180); subtitle D of 
     title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107 
     296) (``the 2002 Act''); the Second Chance Act of 2007 
     (Public Law 110 199); the Prioritizing Resources and 
     Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (Public 
     Law 110 403); the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (Public Law 98 
     473); the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction 
     Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110 
     416); and other programs, $962,500,000, to remain available 
     until expended as follows--
       (1) $370,000,000 for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 
     Assistance Grant program as authorized by subpart 1 of part E 
     of title I of the 1968 Act (except that section 1001(c), and 
     the special rules for Puerto Rico under section 505(g), of 
     title I of the 1968 Act shall not apply for purposes of this 
     Act), of which, notwithstanding such subpart 1, $5,000,000 is 
     for a Preventing Violence Against Law Enforcement Officer 
     Resilience and Survivability Initiative (VALOR), and 
     $4,000,000 is for use by the National Institute of Justice 
     for research targeted toward developing a better 
     understanding of the domestic radicalization phenomenon, and 
     advancing evidence-based strategies for effective 
     intervention and prevention;
       (2) $165,000,000 for the State Criminal Alien Assistance 
     Program, as authorized by section 241(i)(5) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)(5)): 
     Provided, That no jurisdiction shall request compensation for 
     any cost greater than the actual cost for Federal immigration 
     and other detainees housed in State and local detention 
     facilities;
       (3) $20,000,000 for competitive grants to improve the 
     functioning of the criminal justice system, to prevent or 
     combat juvenile delinquency, and to assist victims of crime 
     (other than compensation);
       (4) $13,500,000 for victim services programs for victims of 
     trafficking, as authorized by section 107(b)(2) of Public Law 
     106 386 and for programs authorized under Public Law 109 164;
       (5) $41,000,000 for drug courts, as authorized by section 
     1001(a)(25)(A) of title I of the 1968 Act;
       (6) $4,000,000 for a veterans treatment courts program;
       (7) $9,000,000 for mental health courts and adult and 
     juvenile collaboration program grants, as authorized by parts 
     V and HH of title I of the 1968 Act, and the Mentally Ill 
     Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and 
     Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110 416);
       (8) $15,000,000 for grants for Residential Substance Abuse 
     Treatment for State Prisoners, as authorized by part S of 
     title I of the 1968 Act;
       (9) $1,000,000 for the Capital Litigation Improvement Grant 
     Program, as authorized by section 426 of Public Law 108 405, 
     and for grants for wrongful conviction review;
       (10) $7,000,000 for economic, high technology and Internet 
     crime prevention grants, including as authorized by section 
     401 of Public Law 110 403;
       (11) $20,000,000 for implementation of the Adam Walsh Act 
     and related activities;

[[Page H2390]]

       (12) $20,000,000 for the matching grant program for law 
     enforcement armor vests, as authorized by section 2501 of 
     title I of the 1968 Act;
       (13) $1,000,000 for the National Sex Offender Public 
     Website;
       (14) $12,000,000 for grants to assist State and tribal 
     governments and related activities, as authorized by the NICS 
     Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (Public Law 110 180);
       (15) $6,000,000 for the National Criminal History 
     Improvement Program for grants to upgrade criminal records;
       (16) $125,000,000 for DNA-related and forensic programs and 
     activities, of which--
       (A) $117,000,000 is for a DNA analysis and capacity 
     enhancement program and for other local, State, and Federal 
     forensic activities, including the purposes authorized under 
     section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 
     (the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program);
       (B) $4,000,000 is for the purposes described in the Kirk 
     Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program (Public Law 
     108 405, section 412); and
       (C) $4,000,000 is for Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program 
     Grants, including as authorized by section 304 of Public Law 
     108 405;
       (17) $4,500,000 for the court-appointed special advocate 
     program, as authorized by section 217 of the 1990 Act;
       (18) $38,000,000 for assistance to Indian tribes;
       (19) $1,000,000 for the purposes described in the Missing 
     Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program (section 240001 of 
     the 1994 Act);
       (20) $7,000,000 for a program to monitor prescription drugs 
     and scheduled listed chemical products;
       (21) $12,500,000 for prison rape prevention and prosecution 
     grants to States and units of local government, and other 
     programs, as authorized by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 
     2003 (Public Law 108 79); and
       (22) $70,000,000 for offender reentry programs and 
     research, as authorized by the Second Chance Act of 2007 
     (Public Law 110 199), of which $6,000,000 is for a program to 
     improve State, local and tribal probation supervision efforts 
     and strategies:

      Provided, That, if a unit of local government uses any of 
     the funds made available under this heading to increase the 
     number of law enforcement officers, the unit of local 
     government will achieve a net gain in the number of law 
     enforcement officers who perform non-administrative public 
     sector safety service.


              Amendment No. 2 Offered by Davis of Illinois

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 44, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 47, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise to raise the awareness of 
a gradual but persistent scaling back of the Second Chance Act funding 
and urge my colleagues to support my amendment calling for a $10 
million increase in 2013 funding.
  As all of us know, States are facing historic fiscal challenges and 
are being forced to make difficult budget choices. These choices are 
only made more difficult when prisons are packed to capacity and 
communities lack effective resources for dealing with offenders who 
return.
  The number of individuals in prisons and jails remain unacceptable. 
As a matter of fact, our country, the United States of America, is the 
most incarcerated nation on the face of the Earth, not only in actual 
numbers, but also in proportion of population. If current projections 
continue, State and Federal prisons will grow another 13 percent in the 
next year, which will add an additional 192,000 prisoners at a cost of 
$27.5 billion. In light of these challenges, the need for the Second 
Chance Act is greater now than ever before.
  The Second Chance Act is a commonsense response to reduce recidivism 
and improve outcomes for people released from prisons, jails, juvenile 
facilities and returning to their communities. Research confirms that 
comprehensive coordinated services can help formerly incarcerated 
individuals find stable employment and housing, thereby reducing 
recidivism.
  Last month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued 
updated enforcement guidance on employers' use of arrest and conviction 
records when making employment decisions. In its guidance, the EEOC 
cited that hiring policies that include blanket exclusions of people 
with criminal records have a disparate ratio impact and therefore 
violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
  The new rules call for employers to assess applicants on an 
individual basis, rather than excluding everyone with a criminal record 
through a blanket policy. The new policy also encourages employers to 
give applicants a chance to explain their criminal record before they 
are rejected outright and marks a momentous advancement in the 
employment arena for individuals who have been incarcerated.
  In addition, the Second Chance Act grants are working in improving 
public safety. The Moms and Babies program in Illinois' Decatur 
Correctional Center, a Second Chance grantee, has served 34 women. To 
date, no program participants have returned to prison. That's a 0 
percent recidivism rate. In San Mateo, California, of the 224 
participants in their Second Chance program, 61 have been returned to 
jail. That's a recidivism rate of 28 percent, well below the statewide 
average of 58 percent.
  At the Federal level, reentry has become a high priority for many of 
the Cabinet agencies in President Obama's administration.

                              {time}  1900

  The Federal Interagency Reentry Council, established by Attorney 
General Holder in January of 2011, represents a significant executive 
branch commitment to coordinating reentry efforts and advancing reentry 
policies.
  If we don't know anything else, we do know one thing: We know that 
when individuals return home from jail and prison, if they don't get 
any help, chances are that 67 percent, or two-thirds of them, will have 
done what we call ``re-offend'' within a 3-year period of time. Those 
who get help oftentimes do not re-offend. And the more help they get, 
the less they will re-offend, thereby proving that the funds work. I 
urge passage of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Before I make a statement, I want to congratulate 
Congressman Davis for his work, and I see Congressman Bobby Scott 
there, too. I think this is very important. I support it completely. 
And I want to kind of put it in the framework of where we are.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bill represents the best 
efforts to thoughtfully and effectively fund the important programs 
under its jurisdiction. I am an ardent supporter of efforts to improve 
outcomes for people returning to communities from prisons and jails.
  The Second Chance Act grants help with employment assistance, 
substance abuse, and does a lot of good work, as Congressman Davis 
said. That is why this bill, our bill here, provides $70 million for 
Second Chance Act programs, $70 million, which is an increase of $7 
million above 2012. And interestingly enough, it's $45 million above 
the amount provided in the bill reported by the Senate Appropriations 
Committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee had 780 or $781 million 
greater allocation than we had, and yet we are $45 million above the 
amount provided.
  In addition to providing the necessary funds for Second Chance, the 
committee was also committed to recommending significant funding for 
the SCAAP program. This bill includes $165 million for SCAAP, which is 
still $75 million below the FY 2012 levels. So SCAAP was below it, and 
now we're taking more from it.
  So I oppose this $10 million reduction in SCAAP funding because SCAAP 
is an important program that assists State and local governments with 
the cost of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. The cost is a 
direct result of the Federal failure to control illegal immigration. So 
for that reason, we have an increase. We are at $70 million. We have an 
increase of $7 million over 2012. There are not many programs that are 
higher.
  But also, when you compare this with the Senate, which had a very 
high allocation, we are $45 million above the amount required. And I 
know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) is a strong supporter 
of this program too. So we can go to conference. But to take $10 
million out of SCAAP now would not be a good idea.
  So for that reason, I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance 
of my time.

[[Page H2391]]

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Davis 
amendment.
  The United States locks up a higher portion of its population than 
any country on Earth. And one of the contributing factors is the high 
rate of recidivism--people who get out of prison and then turn around, 
mess up, and return to prison.
  Before the Second Chance Act of 2008, the Department of Justice's 
statistics reflected that about two-thirds of the offenders released 
from prison--two-thirds--were re-arrested within 2 years. Now that's 
down in some States to one-half. In my home State of Virginia, which 
has taken full advantage of the Second Chance Act and has enacted 
additional initiatives, the rate is down in the 30 percent range. So 
additional funding of this amendment will be very useful, and it shows 
that you can save money and reduce crime.
  Now we need a lot more money than even this amendment would provide. 
Each year, 9 million individuals are released from jails, over 720,000 
are released from State and Federal prisons, and they need a lot more 
assistance than even this amendment would do. But this amendment is a 
major step in the right direction. At least 95 percent of State 
prisoners will be released at some point, and they have a myriad of 
needs which, if unmet, will contribute to the risk of re-incarceration.
  There are significant mental health problems that the Second Chance 
Act can address. Substance abuse is highly correlated with crime. 
Education--those who do not have adequate education will find 
themselves back in prison. And employment--those who, basically because 
they don't have an education, have trouble getting jobs, and having a 
felony record even exacerbates that problem. The Second Chance Act 
initiatives go a long way in helping. Basic secondary education, 
vocational training, and intense supervision all contribute to 
reductions in recidivism.
  So, Madam Chair, if we are to lower crime rates, you can't think of a 
better investment than this amendment that we're considering today. We 
can save money and reduce crime and reduce victims. Please support the 
Davis amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I rise to support the Second Chance 
amendment of the gentleman from Illinois and thank him for his long 
work and the work that he has done with many of us in this Congress on 
this issue. This has been a long journey. I think, if I recollect, it 
was 7 years in the making, I will say to Congressman Davis, before the 
bill itself was actually passed.
  I want to focus on two points: One, I understand the account of which 
this money is coming from, and I would make the argument that we have 
seen a sufficient decrease in the number of undocumented aliens coming 
across the border, and we've seen a greater handling of the 
individuals. And frankly, the question is whether these funds should be 
used in what is a strictly Federal issue, which is the control of 
immigration in this Nation.
  So I would make the argument that this is an appropriate utilization 
of these funds, these extra funds that would add to Second Chance 
because, one, it brings it to the President's mark, viewing this 
through the administration's eyes but really through the Department of 
Justice's eyes that the Second Chance legislation works. It does work.
  And I will tell you why it is enormously important. When I see those 
individuals who have had an experience in the criminal justice system, 
one of the things they ask about is, Can we go to work? Second Chance 
prepares these individuals for work. It helps them be responsible 
contributors to the workforce. It helps, if you will, shepherd them or 
give them a roadmap into the workforce. It provides the lifeline to 
staying out of trouble. Everyone that you come across says to anyone 
that will hear them, We want to work. Again, Second Chance creates the 
opportunity for them to work.
  And also, I think it assists the enforcement guidance on employers' 
use of arrest and conviction records when making employment decisions. 
Again, we understand that people who run afoul of the law must, in 
essence, pay the price. But when they seek to rehabilitate themselves, 
the Second Chance legislation has been a lifeline.
  I, myself, have had to discuss issues of discrimination against 
people who have rehabilitated themselves. One case comes to mind. A 
gentleman who was supporting his family had been out of trouble and had 
finished with his particular issue for 17 years.

                              {time}  1910

  He was still getting the response that they could not hire him 
because of an arrest and conviction record. The Second Chance steps in 
in a positive manner, gives these people the opportunity for just 
that--the second chance. The additional funding, I believe, would be 
the right direction to take, make us equal with the President's mark, 
still be fair to the account in which it comes from, allow that account 
to be preserved, but in fact gives the $10 million to help save and 
rehabilitate many more lives that really can make America better.
  I support Mr. Davis' amendment and the funding for the Second Chance 
program.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I'll be brief. Earlier on in the career of the gentleman 
from Chicago, I flew out to Chicago early one morning to meet with a 
whole host of people he had convened as he was developing the concept 
for this bill. I think the entire country is appreciative and has 
benefited from the work of Danny Davis and Bobby Scott on the Second 
Chance Act. I was one of the original cosponsors. It's a very 
significant statement.
  The chairman is right when he says that he's one of the bigger 
supporters of this effort. There's a confluence of energy around 
reentry, from the most conservative sides of the political spectrum to 
the most liberal. We all realize that some 90-plus percent of the 
people who are incarcerated are coming home, and the only question 
becomes: Are they going to come home in a position not to further 
victimize and end up being re-incarcerated?
  This is an important effort. This is a program that's probably one of 
less than a dozen in this bill that has gotten an increase in this 
bill, and the Senate is significantly lower, with a higher allocation. 
I guess preachers preach to the choir when only the choir shows up at 
church on Sunday. But I think the point has been made.
  The use of the program that we want to cut the money from is probably 
not one that we would support at the end of the day because it's also 
needed, but I think the spirit of this amendment will be reflected in 
our conference deliberations.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois 
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       juvenile justice programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (``the 1974 Act''); the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act''); the 
     Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109 162) (``the 2005 
     Act''); the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5771 
     et seq.); the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end 
     the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Public Law 
     108 21); the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Public Law 
     101 647) (``the 1990 Act''); the Adam Walsh Child Protection 
     and Safety Act of 2006 (Public Law 109 248) (``the Adam

[[Page H2392]]

     Walsh Act''); the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (Public 
     Law 110 401); and other juvenile justice programs, 
     $209,500,000, to remain available until expended as follows--
       (1) $33,000,000 for programs authorized by section 221 of 
     the 1974 Act, and for training and technical assistance to 
     assist small, nonprofit organizations with the Federal grants 
     process;
       (2) $90,000,000 for youth mentoring grants;
       (3) $18,000,000 for programs authorized by the Victims of 
     Child Abuse Act of 1990;
       (4) $67,000,000 for missing and exploited children 
     programs, including as authorized by sections 404(b) and 
     405(a) of the 1974 Act (except that section 102(b)(4)(B) of 
     the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (Public Law 110 401) 
     shall not apply for purposes of this Act); and
       (5) $1,500,000 for child abuse training programs for 
     judicial personnel and practitioners, as authorized by 
     section 222 of the 1990 Act:

      Provided, That not more than 10 percent of each amount may 
     be used for research, evaluation, and statistics activities 
     designed to benefit the programs or activities authorized: 
     Provided further, That not more than 2 percent of each amount 
     may be used for training and technical assistance: Provided 
     further, That the previous two provisos shall not apply to 
     grants and projects authorized by sections 261 and 262 of the 
     1974 Act.


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Wasserman Schultz

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 48, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $30,000,000)(increased by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 49, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $30,000,000)(increased by $30,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Madam Chair.
  I rise to ask for my colleagues' support for an amendment to protect 
our most vulnerable constituents--our children. This bipartisan 
amendment is a simple one. It says that child victims of sexual 
predators should not be forced to fight for funding scraps if deep cuts 
to the Department of Justice occur.
  This amendment fences off $30 million within the Department of 
Justice's Juvenile Justice Missing and Exploited Children Programs 
account for Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces. It ensures 
that even in this time of painful budget cuts, we will protect the most 
precious and most vulnerable among us.
  Over the last decade, child pornography trafficking has exploded into 
a multibillion-dollar global industry. The majority of both demand and 
supply is based in the United States and, sadly, most often involves 
parents or adults that the victim knows and trusts. Tragically, the 
demand for images of young children being sexually exploited, raped, 
and even tortured can only be supplied through the continued sexual 
abuse of more children. Literally every image of child pornography is a 
crime scene photo.
  Several years ago, law enforcement informed Congress that it could 
identify hundreds of thousands of individuals perpetrating child 
exploitation offenses online, but admitted and acknowledged that it was 
investigating fewer than 2 percent of these known individuals because 
of a lack of resources that left them outnumbered and overwhelmed. The 
vast majority of these identifiable sexual predators remained at large 
and their young victims beyond rescue.
  Congress and the President responded by passing and signing into law 
the PROTECT our Children Act, which provides desperately needed 
resources for the vital Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces. 
These task forces are teams of local, State, and Federal law 
enforcement agencies and prosecutors that lift the digital 
fingerprints, rescue the children, and hold perpetrators accountable.
  The ICAC task forces rescue child victims in real time--victims like 
Alicia Kozakiewicz, who was sexually assaulted at age 13 by a man who 
befriended her online and abducted her from her Pittsburgh home. She 
was rescued by the FBI and the Virginia ICAC task force.
  Congress is already funding this effort at only half of its 
authorization. Yet the law is making a difference.
  So please join Congressman Shuler, Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith, 
and me in supporting this important amendment that will give State, 
local, and Federal law enforcement the resources they need to protect 
our most vulnerable.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I support the amendment. We accept the amendment. The 
Internet Crimes Against Children program is one of several programs 
funded under the Missing and Exploited Children activities account. 
This program helps State and local law enforcement agencies develop an 
effective response to cyber-enticement and child pornography cases.
  So I commend the gentlelady and accept it and yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Assuming this role from my caucus, the first visit I made 
was to the Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Virginia. This 
work is very, very important that the gentlelady from Florida has 
pointed out because of the pervasiveness of the Internet and the need 
for more resources.
  The Senate bill has a carve-out of some $21 million. This would be a 
carve-out of $30 million. I rise to say that I also support this 
amendment, and I thank the chairman for his agreement.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, I had submitted an amendment which I was 
going to move to withdraw. Instead of adding complication, I'll just 
discuss the amendment that I would have introduced and try to be right 
to the point.
  My colleague Raul Grijalva and I and several Members of the Congress 
are concerned about the impact of the ``stop shoot first laws'' 
amendment. That's what we call it because we're concerned about the 
shoot first amendments.
  This amendment would have encouraged States to repeal shoot first 
laws by imposing a 20 percent penalty on Byrne/JAG grants for States 
with these laws. The shoot first laws make our country less safe, 
undermine our criminal justice system, and encourage vigilantism. These 
laws allow armed individuals to confront unarmed people in public and, 
in some tragic cases, even shoot them in cases where such a 
confrontation could have been avoided.

                              {time}  1920

  Ten years ago, State shoot first laws were basically unknown. Then 
groups like the National Rifle Association and the American Legislative 
Exchange Council (ALEC) began promoting shoot first laws in States 
around the country. ALEC is an organization that ghost-writes bills for 
State legislators who hold a certain political perspective. And their 
efforts are paid for by and large by global corporations and are spread 
in States across the country.
  In 2005, ALEC and the NRA convinced Florida to pass the first shoot 
first law. And since then, they have convinced 23 more States to enact 
similar laws. The shoot first laws are unnecessary. Americans already 
have the right to self-defense. Even more, as the Trayvon Martin has 
tragically highlighted, shoot first laws make it harder for law 
enforcement to do their job. Despite what was a clear case for trial, 
George Zimmerman's statement that he had shot in self-defense was 
enough to prevent prosecution.
  Shoot first laws make prosecutions harder because they presume that 
the use of deadly force is reasonable and put the burden of proof on a 
prosecutor. With shoot first laws, individuals need only claim that 
they believed that they were threatened, and the only person who can 
dispute that is the person who was killed.

[[Page H2393]]

  These laws also make our States less safe. After Florida enacted its 
law, the number of justifiable homicide cases in the State per year 
increased by three times.
  While I urge States to repeal these laws, I understand that a point 
of order could have lied against the amendment, and, therefore, I won't 
offer it in order to have it withdrawn, but I would like to say, Madam 
Chair, that these shoot first laws are not good. I wish we could take 
an approach similar to the .08 law, where the Federal Government would 
actually withhold financial funds until States complied with .08; .08 
actually made our country safer on the roads, and I think repeal of 
these shoot first laws would do the same.
  I wish I could offer this amendment today, but we will do it some 
other time at a more appropriate place, and with that, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise to strike the last word 
in support of the Ellison amendment.
  I would also like to respond to what my colleague from Minnesota 
(Congressman Ellison) spoke about in terms of the amendment that he was 
going to offer which he decided not to offer, but it would have imposed 
a 20 percent penalty to Byrne/JAG grants for States with shoot first 
laws. Shoot first laws are also known as ``stand your ground'' laws.
  In 2005, Florida passed the first State law explicitly expanding an 
armed person's right to use deadly force against an unarmed person in 
``any place where he has a right to be,'' even if the confrontation 
could be safely avoided. Florida's law, like so many similar laws in 
other States, was the result of collusion by some of the Nation's 
wealthiest corporations, along with the National Rifle Association, 
through a secretive organization called the American Legislative 
Exchange Council, or ALEC.
  ALEC promotes model legislation written by its corporate members and 
disseminated to conservative State lawmakers around the country. In 
fact, about 60 percent of all State legislators are members of ALEC. 
The Florida stand your ground law was written by an NRA lobbyist. After 
the law passed in 2005, the NRA presented the bill to ALEC's Criminal 
Justice Task Force and boasted that the presentation was well received. 
The corporations and State legislators on the task force voted 
unanimously to approve the bill as an ALEC model. And as a result, more 
guns are being sold.
  Now 24 States have similar sweeping laws like Florida. Membership 
fees are not public, but reports do show that the NRA was a cochair of 
a recent seminar that ALEC held. This is a group that will do anything 
to help corporate sponsors accomplish their legislative objectives 
regardless of the value that it has towards regular citizens. They are 
just interested in profits. So ALEC, along with NRA, has supported 
these shoot to kill laws, and they are something that needs to be 
avoided.
  And so with that, I will end my remarks, ask for passage of the 
pending amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Obviously we are dealing with some fairly sensitive 
matters in terms of the Justice Department appropriations. There is an 
ongoing case somewhat related to--and I think directly related to--the 
spirit of the comments of the last two gentlemen. So I don't want to 
comment on the actual case at hand, but I think that there is a great 
deal of concern in many sections of the country about what the 
circumstances are under which a shooting and a killing can take place 
when you have an unarmed teenager. So this is an issue that is being 
handled in our court of law. We are a country of laws, and we need to 
let the judicial process take its appropriate course.
  But I thank the two gentlemen for offering their points of view and 
for withdrawing the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     public safety officer benefits

       For payments and expenses authorized under section 
     1001(a)(4) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968, such sums as are necessary (including 
     amounts for administrative costs), to remain available until 
     expended; and $16,300,000 for payments authorized by section 
     1201(b) of such Act and for educational assistance authorized 
     by section 1218 of such Act, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That notwithstanding section 205 of this 
     Act, upon a determination by the Attorney General that 
     emergent circumstances require additional funding for such 
     disability and education payments, the Attorney General may 
     transfer such amounts to ``Public Safety Officers Benefits'' 
     from available appropriations for the Department of Justice 
     as may be necessary to respond to such circumstances: 
     Provided further, That any transfer pursuant to the previous 
     proviso shall be treated as a reprogramming under section 505 
     of this Act and shall not be available for obligation or 
     expenditure except in compliance with the procedures set 
     forth in that section.

                  Community Oriented Policing Services

             community oriented policing services programs

       For activities authorized by the Violent Crime Control and 
     Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103 322); the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 
     Act''); and the Violence Against Women and Department of 
     Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109 162) 
     (``the 2005 Act''), $72,500,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That any balances made available through 
     prior year deobligations shall only be available in 
     accordance with section 505 of this Act: Provided further, 
     That of the amount provided--
       (1) $12,500,000 is for anti-methamphetamine-related 
     activities, which shall be transferred to the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration upon enactment of this Act;
       (2) $20,000,000 is for improving tribal law enforcement, 
     including hiring, equipment, training, and anti-
     methamphetamine activities; and
       (3) $40,000,000 is for grants under section 1701 of title I 
     of the 1968 Act (42 U.S.C. 3796dd) for the hiring and 
     rehiring of additional career law enforcement officers under 
     part Q of such title notwithstanding subsection (i) of such 
     section: Provided, That, notwithstanding section 1704(c) of 
     such title (42 U.S.C. 3796dd 3(c)), funding for hiring or 
     rehiring a career law enforcement officer may not exceed 
     $125,000 unless the Director of the Office of Community 
     Oriented Policing Services grants a waiver from this 
     limitation.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Grimm

  Mr. GRIMM. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 50, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $126,000,000)''.
       Page 51, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $126,000,000)''.
       Page 65, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $126,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIMM. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer a truly bipartisan 
amendment with my good friends, Representatives Pierluisi, King, and 
Pascrell. This amendment is to fund the highly successful COPS hiring 
program at the fiscal year 2012 level. This will ensure that we have 
sufficient police officers on our streets to prevent and to respond to 
crime and to keep our neighborhoods safe.
  Our local police departments count on the COPS hiring program to help 
them hire additional officers to combat crime in our local communities 
and to provide true community policing. The money to fund the COPS 
hiring program comes from reducing in a corresponding amount the 
appropriation for cross-agency support within NASA, an approach that 
was adopted by the House in February 2011. Although we do not in any 
way oppose the work of NASA that is funded through this offsetting 
account, we are determined to offer a budget-neutral amendment and to 
give the House an opportunity to work for robust funding for COPS in an 
eventual conference with the Senate.
  In this tough economic time, our officers understand the need for 
sacrifices and for cutbacks. However, during these trying times we 
often see increases in crime. Therefore, I feel, and my colleagues 
agree, that it is essential that law enforcement agencies across the 
Nation have the necessary resources to protect the American people. I 
encourage strong support for the Grimm-Pierluisi-King-Pascrell 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H2394]]

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Puerto Rico is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PIERLUISI. Madam Chair, along with my colleagues--Mr. Grimm, a 
former FBI agent; Mr. Pascrell, the cochair of the Law Enforcement 
Caucus; and Mr. King, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee--
I'm offering this bipartisan amendment to increase funding for the COPS 
hiring program in order to bring such funding in line with the fiscal 
year 2012 enacted level of $166 million.
  The base bill provides only $40 million for this program, which is 
clearly not sufficient. Forty million dollars is $126 million below the 
fiscal year 2012 enacted level, over $217 million below the President's 
request, and $175 million below the amount proposed by the Senate 
companion bill.
  The COPS program was created by title I of the Violent Crime Control 
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. I was Attorney General of Puerto Rico 
at the time, and I'm proud to have worked with my fellow AGs to help 
secure passage of that bill.
  As someone whose own family has been deeply touched by violent crime 
and who has spent countless hours talking with families that have been 
similarly affected, I am unyielding in my belief that the most solemn 
duty of government is to safeguard its citizens. Whether you live in 
Staten Island, South Orange or San Juan, you deserve to feel safe in 
your home and in your community. The COPS program is rooted in this 
simple premise and has done much to make it a reality.
  The mission of the COPS program is to enhance the security of our 
citizens. Under the program, the Federal Government awards grants to 
State and local law enforcement agencies so they can hire and train 
police officers, purchase and use new crime-fighting technologies, and 
develop innovative policing strategies.
  To date, over 160 million in COPS grants have been awarded to law 
enforcement agencies in Puerto Rico, which, unfortunately, has the 
highest homicide rate in the country. These grants have put more than 
3,500 new police officers on Puerto Rico's streets. Over $6 million has 
gone to improve safety for students and teachers in the island's 
schools. And about $9 million has been awarded for crime-fighting 
technology. Nearly every one of Puerto Rico's municipalities has 
benefited from COPS grants.
  Each of my colleagues could no doubt cite similar statistics, but 
even these numbers cannot adequately capture the impact that COPS 
funding has had in the communities we represent. The number of lives 
saved, the number of crimes prevented, and the number of families 
spared the pain of losing a loved one, these numbers are simply beyond 
calculation.
  To increase funding for the COPS hiring program by $126 million, our 
amendment reduces funding for the NASA cross-agency support account by 
an equivalent amount. In the fiscal year 2010 cycle, the House, in a 
strong bipartisan vote of 228 203, adopted an amendment that followed 
this same approach.
  I respectfully urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan 
amendment, which is supported by the International Brotherhood of 
Police Officers, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The cross-agency support account is not free money. It's not a place 
that you can just--I think they ought to change the name, ``cross-
agency support.'' That's like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, it's kind of cheap 
grace; you can just kind of go someplace and get some money there 
because it's just a cross-agency support account.
  Why don't we want to cut this cross-agency support account? Because 
NASA will not be able to absorb this. They will literally not be able 
to absorb this. This deals with safety, it deals with security, and the 
mission's success. Cybersecurity measures defend off relentless attacks 
by China and others. While NASA is a civil Agency, much of its 
technology has military applications.
  But let's get it from the cross-agency support account. What does it 
mean? It doesn't mean anything. Yes, it does. It is a very important 
function with regard to NASA. Human space flight safety oversight, it 
comes partly out of that. We have learned the hard way from the 
Challenger and the Columbia tragedies that relentless attention to 
safety is necessary.
  Cuts to this account will hamstring NASA's efforts to minimize the 
risk of loss of life and property. But, hey, let's go to the cross-
agency support account. It doesn't mean anything because nobody cares. 
Yet it does; it's validation and mission critical software.
  Medical support services keep astronauts and ground-crew workers 
healthy. Many NASA employees work regularly with regard to hazardous 
issues. Procurement support. This account is a question of a lot of 
jobs. I can go on and on and on.
  If you wanted to kind of find it, maybe you should have gone some 
other place; but to take it out of NASA and to put a spear right at 
NASA's heart, I think, is a mistake.
  If you want to be for this--and my father was a Philadelphia 
policeman, the City of Philadelphia, 21 years--if you want to be for 
this, fine. I think you should have found another spot. And we would 
have been trying to work with you once we get to conference because the 
Senate, what is it, $781 million off? But I'll tell you, if you care 
about NASA--well, maybe they don't care about NASA. So if you don't 
care about NASA, I urge strong support for this. If you do care about 
NASA, I urge you to reject the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, of which 
I am a cosponsor.
  Over the last several years, we've watched the majority attempt to 
eliminate--and actually eliminate at least temporarily--the most 
successful crime-fighting program in the last 20 years, the Community 
Oriented Policing Services, or COPS, program.
  Since this program's creation under President Clinton, it has 
literally put tens of thousands of police on the beat around the 
Nation, and it has promoted sensitive, effective policing across 
America.
  The benefits are real. Crime rates in every category decreased as a 
result of this program. And when this program is gutted, communities 
feel the effects directly and immediately. The committee should have 
found the money to keep the COPS program strong, but evidently they 
gave it lower importance, which is why we are here with this amendment.
  Last fall, the city of Trenton was forced to lay off nearly a third 
of its uniformed officers. It's been reported that our State's capital 
now has the same number of police on its rolls as it did in 1932. The 
city had hoped to soften the blow of the budget-driven layoffs through 
a COPS grant that would have allowed Trenton to hire back at least 18 
officers; but unfortunately, because this Congress failed to fund the 
COPS program, Trenton got no money to hire the laid-off officers, and 
the people of Trenton are paying the price in a very real way.
  Last year, something on the order of 150 people were shot within the 
city--more than twice, way more than twice the previous year. Street 
robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries up alarmingly. And people in 
the community tell me these trends are continuing to this day.
  We need more money to rehire more police. We need it now before more 
Trentonians and other Americans lose their lives or suffer injury or 
property loss.
  Now, I support NASA. I don't like the offset that we're using for 
this, but we can't allow the COPS program to wither. I wish the 
committee had funded this program--as it should be funded--with enough 
money to meet the legitimate needs of Trenton and other municipalities 
around America.
  Every time I talk with law enforcement officials, I ask: How great is 
the need? How much can you actually do?

[[Page H2395]]

And every time they tell me the need vastly exceeds the resources; and 
with the resources, they could do a better job.
  This past grant cycle, the COPS office received $2 billion in 
requests for assistance from around the country, but they only had 
about 200 million on hand. That's unacceptable. Crime doesn't take a 
holiday. We need to fully fund the COPS program in order to beat back 
violent crime around America to make cities more livable, to make 
America the place where we all want to live. My hope is that we'll be 
able to meet that goal during the appropriations conference process 
because the subcommittee didn't do it, which is why we're here now.
  This amendment is a step in that direction. And I thank my 
colleagues--Representative Pascrell, Representative Grimm, 
Representative Reichert, who is not able to be here tonight--and the 
other sponsors for their strong leadership in this effort.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. PASCRELL. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I must say, Chairman Wolf, you've always been a 
sensitive person--I don't say this to blow smoke; I really mean this--
and it's a tough decision when you have to make priorities. We come to 
the floor to fight for what we believe in, and I think you respect 
that, and I'm sure the gentleman from Staten Island respects that as 
well, and we all do here, my good friend from Philadelphia, Congressman 
Fattah. We'd like to do all of these things and more. But not only did 
we run out of applications--think about that. People, we said, stop, 
don't apply any longer. You've got 11,000, 12,000 cops laid off, police 
officers in this country. Tell me that doesn't have consequences.
  Tell me, what are those consequences? Smaller warrant squads. The 
last two police officers killed in North Jersey, killed by two guys on 
the lam. We didn't have enough people to go look for them. That's not 
acceptable in a society which depends upon law and order. So you can't 
talk out of both sides of your mouth about law and order.
  We need police on the streets. This is about community policing. And 
I would say to my good friend from Virginia, these are two programs 
that, tonight, we're speaking about one of the police, the COPS 
Program, and the Fire Act. Leader Hoyer could tell us about that. But 
they're two bills that are run--no other bills are run better in the 
Federal Government. I think we would want to duplicate that. Having 
provided a huge cut in the past, from $166 million all the way down to 
$40 million, we can't do that with 11,000 and 12,000 police officers 
laid off.
  Our amendment would restore the program. Of course, this is really 
just a drop in the bucket because it only really hires close to 1,000 
police officers. We've already laid off 12,000. And a lot of positions 
have not been filled. There was no one in that position to begin with.
  So, look, the program, the account that we're talking about in NASA I 
think is $2.8 billion. This is a small part of it. I would rather do it 
some other way, Mr. Chairman, through the Chair. I would rather do it 
another way.
  My hometown laid off 125 police officers. Same story in other towns 
in New Jersey. Fewer cops on the beat means more crime on our streets, 
plain and simple.
  If I can't come up here and fight for the guys and gals who defend us 
day in and day out, and if there is an attack, be it a natural disaster 
or some man-made disaster, it's the police and firefighters and EMTs 
who are going to be there long before the Federal Government. We need 
to protect them.
  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. WOLF. My dad was a policeman in the city of Philadelphia. 
Actually, you know, with my dad, I couldn't say they were cops because 
it was a derogatory term. My dad was a policeman, and I loved my 
father.
  And when we go to conference, we will attempt to really deal with 
this. And I think Mr. Fattah and I agree. NASA's not the place to go.
  I'm very sympathetic. We're given a budget that many of these guys, 
some guys over on our side want to take the budget down even more. The 
Republican Study Committee wanted to take it down even more. I mean, 
will some guys who voted for the Republican Study Committee come down 
here and be for this?
  So, listen, I am committed to do everything we can when we go to 
conference. The allocation was different.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand what 
you're saying.
  Mr. WOLF. Just let me say, I will do everything we can as we go to 
conference, depending on how the allocation is, to see what we can 
really do, because I want to do everything we can.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, it cannot be depending on the allocation. 
We've got to fight for the allocation. We've got to fight for what we 
want.
  I want us all to listen on both sides of the aisle. What is dragging 
down the economy at this section, at this point, when you look at it 
objectively, if you try to look at it objectively, is that we have lost 
between 600,000 and 700,000 public sector jobs.
  So we are adding private sector jobs, even though we only added 
116,000 last year, and we've got to do a little bit better than that so 
we can catch up for people that are coming into the market, and defend 
and go after those people who want to drop out and become phantoms and 
then they don't exist at all on the numbers. That doesn't help us 
either.
  But we've got to stop this trend down to the bottom. We're losing 
teachers, police officers, and firefighters at an unprecedented rate. 
And if you think that's going to solve our problems, nationally or 
locally, I don't think that that's the route to go.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I join the chairman in saying that there are two things 
that are going to happen when this bill becomes the law of the land. 
There's going to be additional dollars for COPS, and NASA's not going 
to be cut.
  So I understand that the makers of the amendment have to find an 
offset. It's an offset that's not going to be acceptable when we come 
to a final resolution on this bill, but you need an offset to come to 
the floor.
  And you came to the floor to make a point that needs to be made, 
which is that when people call 911, there needs to be a cavalry on the 
way and not just the hope that there might be some help. So we thank 
you for bringing the amendment forward.
  When we finalize this bill, there will be additional dollars for the 
COPS program.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIMM. I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               General Provisions--Department of Justice

       Sec. 201.  In addition to amounts otherwise made available 
     in this title for official reception and representation 
     expenses, a total of not to exceed $50,000 from funds 
     appropriated to the Department of Justice in this title shall 
     be available to the Attorney General for official reception 
     and representation expenses.
       Sec. 202.  None of the funds appropriated by this title 
     shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the 
     life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were 
     carried to term, or in the case of rape: Provided, That 
     should this prohibition be declared unconstitutional by a 
     court of competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null 
     and void.
       Sec. 203.  None of the funds appropriated under this title 
     shall be used to require any

[[Page H2396]]

     person to perform, or facilitate in any way the performance 
     of, any abortion.
       Sec. 204.  Nothing in the preceding section shall remove 
     the obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to 
     provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to 
     receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided, 
     That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect 
     of section 203 intended to address the philosophical beliefs 
     of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
       Sec. 205.  Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation 
     made available for the current fiscal year for the Department 
     of Justice in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any 
     transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 206.  The Attorney General is authorized to extend 
     through September 30, 2014, the Personnel Management 
     Demonstration Project transferred to the Attorney General 
     pursuant to section 1115 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
     (Public Law 107 296; 28 U.S.C. 599B) without limitation on 
     the number of employees or the positions covered.

  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Chair, over two decades ago, the first President 
Bush signed into law the bipartisan and historic Americans with 
Disabilities Act. I was proud to sponsor that legislation and have 
worked over the last 20 years to make sure that it was effective and 
strengthened.
  Contained in the bill before us in an unprecedented measure that 
would significantly erode the Justice Department's authority to protect 
access for those with disabilities to swimming pools.
  Now, one might say, Access to swimming pools? But I want my 
colleagues to think about, if you have a mobility impairment, if you 
have some neurological impairment, that swimming is one of the most 
effective activities in which you can participate to get your motor 
skills back in an environment that will not allow you to sink. 
Therefore, you have an environment in which you can exercise your 
muscles. So many of you have seen that and know that to be the case.

                              {time}  1950

  This is an incredibly important accessible facility for those with 
disabilities. In any event, those with disabilities ought to have 
access, certainly, to public facilities; and we can make it so.
  Now, I'm not going to offer an amendment to strike this language; but 
I hope, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, that this will be struck. 
I hope that we will listen to the literally tens of letters that you've 
gotten and that I've gotten.
  For many Americans with disabilities, swimming pools are an important 
source of physical activity and emotional comfort. The provision in 
question would roll back the Justice Department's 2010 accessibility 
regulations, undermining standards for new pool construction and for 
the upgrading of existing facilities. This would constitute a serious 
setback to Americans with disabilities, including many of our 
veterans--and I want you to think about this--many of our veterans 
wounded while serving our Nation overseas. As all of you know, many of 
these injuries they've received are to their limbs. Again, their 
exercise programs are facilitated in swimming pools, supported by 
water. So this would constitute, as I said, a serious setback.
  The 2010 accessibility regulations this provision would eliminate do 
not place an undue burden on pool operators who cannot afford to make 
their facilities accessible. Some of you will remember Steve Bartlett, 
who was a Member of this Congress, a mayor of Dallas, still in town--a 
wonderful friend of mine--and a conservative Republican from Texas. He 
and I spent literally hundreds of hours working on this legislation 
together. One of the things we did was to make sure that businesses 
would know that what they were asked to do was affordable and that they 
could do it with relative ease, realizing full well that one can't 
expect a small business, in particular, to incur a large expense 
notwithstanding the objective is a worthy one. So we had a practical 
approach to this, and we had language that said it had to be readily 
achievable and affordable for the enterprise. Certainly, we can 
continue to do that for these facilities which are so important to so 
many people with disabilities.
  I want to say that Mr. Wolf is one of the most conscientious Members 
of this House and one of the most courageous Members of this House. He 
and I have had the opportunity to work together for over three decades 
on legislation.
  I hope, Mr. Chairman, the House and Senate conferees will look 
carefully at the damage this provision will cause in the lives of so 
many Americans with disabilities and will strike it from the final 
version.
  I commend my colleagues who have come here to draw attention to it, 
and I thank them for continuing to stand up for those with 
disabilities, including veterans and their right to equal access and 
opportunity.
  When George Bush signed on July 26, 1990, the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, he said it was the most significant civil rights act 
in over a quarter of a century, since the sixties. He said it ensured 
that all individuals would have access to the full enjoyment of 
facilities in this country of opportunity and of freedom.
  This amendment may be well intended, but its effect would be very 
detrimental. Again, I urge the chairman and the ranking member--and I 
will certainly be working with my Senate colleagues as well--to make 
sure this language is not in the final bill because this would be 
detrimental. As I will remind you once again, so many veterans are 
coming back in need of this kind of access.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
                                                  National Council


                                        on Independent Living,

                                      Washington, DC, May 8, 2012.
     Trent Franks, Chairman,
     Subcommitee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member,
     Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Franks and Ranking Member Nadler: These 
     comments are submitted by the National Council on Independent 
     Living (NCIL) for the record of the April 24, 2012 hearing on 
     ``The Department of Justice's Guidance on Access to Pools and 
     Spas Under the ADA.''
       NCIL is the longest-running national, cross-disability, 
     grassroots organization run by and for people with 
     disabilities. Founded in 1982, NCIL represents thousands of 
     organizations and individuals including: Centers for 
     Independent Living (CILs), Statewide Independent Living 
     Councils (SILCs), individuals with disabilities, and other 
     organizations that advocate for the human and civil rights of 
     people with disabilities throughout the United States. There 
     are currently over 700 physical locations across America 
     actively providing Independent Living services to people with 
     disabilities.
       This hearing was held to address the proposed legislation 
     in the House that is set to address the concerns of the DOJ's 
     decision to extend the rule RIN 1190 NYD Delaying the 
     Compliance Date for Certain Requirements of the Regulations 
     Implementing Titles II and III of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act. We have serious concerns with Congress 
     preventing an executive branch agency from enforcing its own 
     regulations such as what is written in H.R. 4256 and H.R. 
     4200. We must let you know that we find both these bills to 
     be intrusive.
       We disagree with both bills. They try to accomplish giving 
     the hospitality and hotel industry an opportunity to provide 
     accessibility to the public in the least efficient manner or 
     even at all. H.R. 4256 attempts to address technical 
     requirements that have been negotiated over years in the 
     rulemaking process that has worked well for all other aspects 
     of accessibility. This bill is broader than H.R. 4200 because 
     it prohibits any court enforcement of the new regulations for 
     a year (while DOJ is changing the standards, as required by 
     this bill), including enforcement by private plaintiffs.
       To include Title II in the language of the resolution, even 
     though it would appear by the rest of the language that the 
     resolution concerns Public Accommodations only, under 28 CFR 
     Part 36; creates confusion and uncertainty about exactly how 
     far this resolutions impact and jurisdiction could be 
     interpreted to go. The resolution calls for a one year 
     extension to the effective date, which we in the community 
     disagree with its necessity.
       The ADA has been in effect for 21 years, and all the ADA 
     pool rules have undergone extensive review for more than 10 
     years, with multiple comment periods and many opportunities 
     for hotels to learn about their responsibilities. The new 
     requirements already had a generous phase-in period of 18 
     months. Congress should not restrict enforcement of these, or 
     any, ADA requirements.

[[Page H2397]]

       In response to comments that referred to the hospitality 
     industry not having adequate time to implement this rule, the 
     burden of providing access to swimming pools and the cost for 
     implementing this rule, we strongly disagree with all of 
     these claims. Providing access to swimming pools is 
     achievable and not burdensome. The ADA's accessibility 
     requirements for barrier removal in existing facilities are 
     very reasonable--they only require what is ``easily 
     accomplishable'' and able to be carried out without much 
     difficulty or expense. The rules are carefully crafted to 
     take the needs of covered entities, such as small businesses 
     including hotels, into account. In other words, hotel owners 
     need not comply with the standards in the new regulations 
     unless doing so would be inexpensive and simple. No extension 
     or enforcement ban is needed.
       We also believe that it is not acceptable for the 
     Department of Justice to backtrack on ADA requirements 
     because an industry exerts pressure. To do so is an 
     invitation to other industries to say, ``Roll back our 
     requirements, too.'' Today it's the hotel industry. What 
     weakening changes will come tomorrow? What other human and 
     civil rights laws will be adjusted? In reference to the 
     expense this would cause for the hospitality industry, there 
     are Tax Incentives which have always been available and 
     under-utilized by businesses. IRS Tax code 44 and 190 provide 
     generous credits (dollar for dollar) and deductions 
     (reduction in gross reported to IRS) that let the hotel owner 
     get the money back (1/2 in credit the rest in deductions) so 
     cost should not be an issue.
       The Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers 
     (DBTACs) has done a targeted education project for the 
     ``hospitality'' industry for several years now and have 
     repeatedly reached out to the organizations representing 
     hotels. They can be reached at 800 949 4232 anywhere in the 
     country.
       The House bill H.R. 4256 represents an extraordinarily 
     prejudicial precedent. This bill would deny any federal 
     official, which can include judges, U.S. attorneys, and other 
     enforcing authorities, any power to administer or enforce the 
     new DOJ ADA regulations regarding pools. It removes the 
     waiting period and adds a clause that dismisses any suits 
     filed after March 15, 2012. It also tries to clarify their 
     portable vs. fixed lifts concern, something that should be 
     done by DOJ.
       The amendment would affect Title II State and Local 
     Governments, which have been covered for access into the 
     water since 1990. This is seen as a targeted process to 
     undermine the strong federal enforcement role urgently needed 
     and sometimes reached under the ADA. Passage of this bill 
     could initiate a trend to render civil rights laws completely 
     powerless and ineffective, even though they remain public 
     law. This amendment would firmly take this part of the ADA 
     backward. It is our belief that congress should craft strong 
     civil rights protections to end discrimination, not remove 
     the government's enforcing authority.
       In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Department of 
     Justice requested comments on extending the compliance date 
     ``in the interest of promoting clear and consistent 
     application of the ADA's requirements to existing 
     facilities.'' The NCIL community has serious concerns with 
     the number of years it has taken to explain ``readily 
     achievable barrier removal''. Extensive technical assistance 
     has been provided to explain to many public accommodation 
     pool owners that the requirements are based on what they can 
     afford to do today on their existing structures, with an 
     obligation to provide better access when it can be afforded. 
     Nothing has changed with that concept since the ADA was 
     passed in 1990. It should not take another 6 months to 
     ``understand''.
       To include Title II entities in this extension is a huge 
     step backward! Program access has been a requirement all 
     along, and most state and local government-run pools and 
     swimming facilities should already have addressed access into 
     to the water for their programs. An extension is 
     inappropriate as they have already been responsible for equal 
     access to the water for years.
       The part that is confusing is not for new construction and 
     altered facilities having pools and spas, but at existing 
     pools there is some confusion that has been partly created by 
     the DOJ, as the Department responded in a letter February 
     21st to the American Hotel and Lodging Association (AHLA) 
     when they asked for clarification on the provision of pool 
     lifts. In that letter, the Department addresses several 
     concerns raised in the ``eleventh hour'' of the rulemaking 
     process by AHLA representatives--including some regarding 
     ``fixed'' pool lifts versus ``portable'' pool lifts. The 
     Department has created part of the problem in its convoluted 
     definition of why a pool lift must be ``fixed'' which is not 
     addressed in the rule, the scoping, or in the technical 
     requirements of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.
       In addressing concerns by AHLA regarding existing hotels, 
     the DOJ stated that where it is not readily achievable for a 
     hotel owner to install a fixed pool lift, that a portable 
     pool lift may be used if it can be attached to the pool deck 
     while in use. That seems like a good idea to reduce liability 
     for the hotel owner, and makes the unit more stable for the 
     user, who also must be able to use the unit independently. 
     However, it is a matter of technical assistance advice that, 
     with additional helpful information could be given without an 
     extension in the effective date for compliance. Many of these 
     discussions should have already taken place multiple times, 
     given the length of time this rulemaking has taken, and to 
     reiterate the principles of readily achievable barrier 
     removal once again to the organizations pleading ignorance 
     should not take an additional 6 months.
       The NCIL membership is very disappointed that an exception 
     was made in the rulemaking process by the current 
     Administration, and strongly objects to the proposed rule 
     extending the compliance date for public accommodations and 
     effectively abolishing the program access requirements 
     including pool lifts at swimming pools, parks, and resorts 
     run with State funds through yet another swimming season--to 
     September 2012. We insist the rulemaking proceed and become 
     effective immediately following the 60 day extension.
       Submitted by: L. Dara Baldwin, MPA--Policy Analyst, The 
     National Council on Independent Living.
       Submitted For: Mark Derry--Chair of the ADA/Civil Rights 
     Committee for The National Council on Independent Living.
                                  ____


     Submitted Testimony of the National Disability Rights Network


 Hearing on ``The Department of Justice's Guidance on Access to Pools 
                        and Spas Under the ADA''

  House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution 
                        Tuesday, April 24, 2012

       As the nonprofit membership organization for the federally 
     mandated Protection and Advocacy (P&A) Systems and Client 
     Assistance Programs for people with disabilities, the 
     National Disability Rights Network (NDRN) would like to thank 
     Chairman Franks, Ranking Member Nadler and the Subcommittee 
     for the opportunity to submit written testimony for today's 
     hearing on the Department of Justice's Guidance on Access to 
     Pools and Spas under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
     Over twenty years after the passage of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act (ADA), the accessibility of swimming pools 
     and other recreational facilities remains a problem for 
     people with disabilities around the country. NDRN encourages 
     the Judiciary Committee to work with the Department of 
     Justice and with swimming pool owners to ensure that people 
     with disabilities are able to enjoy swimming pools and other 
     recreational facilities to the same extent as others in our 
     society.
       As a part of the training and technical assistance that 
     NDRN provides to the Protection and Advocacy agencies, NDRN 
     holds many face-to-face meetings in hotels throughout the 
     country. As such, NDRN routinely books hotel rooms and wants 
     our staff, the staff of the P&A agencies, and other 
     participants to have the opportunity to enjoy all the 
     amenities provided by the hotels. As a disability rights 
     organization whose staff and membership include people with 
     disabilities, we are committed to holding our conferences and 
     meetings at locations that provide full accessibility.
       The effective date for swimming pool owners to become 
     compliant with ADA standards was originally March 15, 2012, 
     but the Department on its own chose to extend that time until 
     May 21, 2012. Based on the history of these standards 
     discussed below, NDRN believes that this first extension was 
     unnecessary and sees no reason (politically, practically, or 
     in the furtherance of public policy) to extend this 
     compliance date any longer. The 2010 ADA Accessibility 
     Standards did not create the requirement for accessibility 
     for pools and spas; it only provides more detailed 
     specifications of how to provide that accessibility.
       Protection and Advocacy programs across the country have 
     represented people with disabilities seeking access to public 
     swimming pools. For example, P&As in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and 
     Colorado have successfully negotiated agreements with owners 
     of pools to provide pool lifts to allow individuals with 
     disabilities to use those pools. Despite these modest 
     successes, most people with disabilities throughout the 
     country continue to be unable to access swimming pools on the 
     same basis as their non-disabled peers.
       The Department's process to develop accessibility 
     guidelines for swimming pools began over 7 years ago on 
     September 30, 2004, when the Department published an Advance 
     Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), 69 FR 58768. This 
     ANPRM requested feedback about the Department's proposal to 
     adopt the Access Board's 2004 revisions to the ADA 
     Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), which included provisions 
     for swimming pool accessibility. The Department then 
     published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking almost 4 years ago 
     on June 17, 2008 seeking public comment, 73 FR 34508. The 
     Final Rule was formally published in the Federal Register on 
     September 15, 2010, 75 FR 56254, and gave owners and 
     operators of existing pools 18 months before the specific 
     regulations became enforceable.
       Enough time has passed to allow swimming pool owners to 
     make their pools comply with the ADA. Over 18 months has 
     passed from the date the final rule was announced, over 4 
     years has passed from first proposal of a final rule, and 
     over 7 years has passed from first the first proposal to 
     adopt the ADAAG standards for pools and spas. Moreover, the 
     requirement to remove barriers to accessibility to swimming 
     pools for people with disabilities has been part of the 
     statutory requirement under the Americans with Disabilities 
     Act since it was passed in 1990, almost 22 years ago. The 
     need for pools and spas to be accessible for people with a 
     disability is not some new idea, but one that has been in 
     federal law for more than 2 decades.
       Additionally, the Department's regulations provide more 
     than sufficient flexibility since the requirement is removal 
     of physical barriers that is ``readily achievable,'' or 
     easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much 
     difficulty or expense.
       The swimming pool owners have raised concerns about the 
     Department of Justice

[[Page H2398]]

     requirement that they install fixed rather than portable 
     lifts. The Americans with Disability Act Accessibility 
     Guidelines, or ADAAG, include specific guidelines regarding 
     the installation of pool lifts. See http://www.access-
     board.qov/ada-aba/final.cfm#a1009. Generally, portable pool 
     lifts cannot meet the ADAAG standards, because they cannot be 
     installed or independently operated by people with 
     disabilities. As the Department of Justice has indicated, 
     however, if an entity chooses to use a lift complying with 
     the ADAAG standards that is removable or otherwise designated 
     as ``portable,'' it may do so, as long as while the lift is 
     provided at the pool, it is affixed in some manner to the 
     pool deck or apron.
       NDRN is pleased that some members of the hotel industry 
     have realized that over the course of 22 years the ADA 
     applies to the accessibility of their pools and have taken a 
     proactive approach and installed pool lifts. For example, in 
     recent negotiations with a hotel chain to hold a conference, 
     NDRN raised the issue of whether the swimming pools were 
     accessible for people with disabilities, and were assured 
     that all the hotels were in compliance with all current ADA 
     laws and regulations concerning the pool and had a pool lift. 
     In addition, they were prepared to comply with any and all 
     revisions to Title 3 of the ADA that may occur, and took, 
     ``great pride in ensuring . . . our properties meet and 
     exceed any government regulation.''
       As NDRN continues to contract for our business meetings as 
     well as our staff making their own personal summer travel and 
     vacation plans, we believe that people with disabilities 
     should be able to enjoy the same recreational amenities and 
     opportunities as every other American. Delaying the effective 
     date of the regulations any further will mean another season 
     where people with disabilities will be denied the opportunity 
     to use pools when they travel on vacations with their 
     families or on business. This is unacceptable.

  Mr. FLAKE. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. To the gentleman's point, the minority whip, I think all 
of us want to protect the ADA and the goals of the ADA. That's why this 
amendment was offered in the committee. It was to strike this language.
  What will happen--I think we can all see it--is if these new 
regulations are allowed to go into effect--at the end of this month, I 
believe, it will come--there isn't the equipment even available to put 
it into use. The liability issues are so huge to have a stanchion, 
basically, with a lift at every pool and a power source right by the 
water, in every body of water. If there is a resort with 10 pools, 10 
lifts. If there are three Jacuzzis, three more lifts. If it's an 
apartment complex with a small, little pool, they'll still have to do 
it. Municipalities that have public pools will have to do that as well. 
What will happen is too many of them will say, We can't expose 
ourselves to the cost or the liability, and so we'll simply close our 
pools.
  Whether they be military or anyone else, what does that do to access 
for the disabled? What good is it if a pool is closed down because the 
owner simply can't deal with the cost or the liability? I guarantee 
you, if this happens, if this goes into effect, then you're just going 
to be granting waivers based on some kind of spoil system or on whether 
or not they think they can afford it. It's just not workable. What we 
need is a workable regulation.
  Mr. NADLER. Will the gentleman yield on this point?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from New York for a very brief 
time.
  Mr. NADLER. Is the gentleman aware that, if the equipment is not 
ready, then under the law it is not readily achievable and that it 
doesn't have to be done at that point and that the DOJ has already met 
with the industry and has told them this?
  Mr. FLAKE. In reclaiming my time, it's all well and good to say that; 
but what these owners will say is their liability comes as soon as the 
lawyer walks by and the pool doesn't have it. They're not going to risk 
having the liability. They're not going to risk doing that. So you'll 
have less access because it's simply not ready. Having this go into 
effect in less than a month from now, at the end of this month, is 
simply not reasonable.
  What we're about is trying to find a solution that is reasonable and 
affordable and that will increase accessibility for the disabled. This 
doesn't do it. That's why the amendment was offered in the committee. 
It was to take this back and have something reasonable.
  All of us have the same goal here; but the regulations, as they're 
put forward, are not reasonable. Think about that for a minute: a small 
apartment complex that has a pool open to the public and then imposing 
that kind of cost and liability on them. Even with the equipment, when 
it does become available, it's more likely that they will simply shut 
the pool down because they won't want to deal with that liability. We 
have resorts in Arizona that have had portable lifts available for 
years and years. Some of them inform us that they've never been asked 
once--or one time in 10 years.
  There are ways to do this. It's reasonable and prudent to say you 
ought to have a portable lift available; but a fixed stanchion, or a 
lift, for every body of water? It just is unreasonable and too costly. 
So that's why the amendment was offered, and that's why the language is 
in this bill. I would urge that it be retained.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. We had this discussion in the full committee.
  You have on one side the Paralyzed Veterans Association and the 
National Association of Blind Veterans--every veterans group you can 
imagine. On the other side, you have hotel owners, who say, Look, we 
either can't afford it or nobody will ever want to use it or we can't 
get the equipment. What we have in the middle is a set of facts, which 
is that this regulation has been developed over a long period of time, 
starting back in 2004, in that, if you have a financial hardship and if 
you can't do it, you can waive it. If the equipment is not available, 
if it's not achievable, there are tax credits for it.
  The issue here is really whether there is enough heart among the 
hotel owners to make sure that Americans who are disabled have the same 
opportunities. That's the real question here. So we don't have a vote 
on this. There is no amendment pending. I just want the House to be 
clear that one of the reasons you don't authorize on an appropriations 
bill is that this is a matter for the Judiciary Committee. They've held 
a hearing on it.
  There is a set of facts that gets kind of bottled up when we're 
dealing with this spending of dollars; but there is no reason here for 
a country as big as ours and as wealthy as ours to have so little heart 
and compassion for those who are less fortunate, who are disabled, so 
that they can have access as they travel and deal with public 
accommodations.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUNNELEE. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. NUNNELEE. Madam Chair, this measure is not about undermining the 
Americans with Disabilities Act. This measure is not about denying 
access. If it were, I would be part of leading the charge to defend 
that access in the Americans with Disabilities Act. The reason for that 
is because when I was in college, I lost my eyesight. When I graduated 
from college, I was blind. I'd been denied a job because of my 
blindness. I would defend every person's right to access, and I would 
defend the Americans with Disabilities Act. But this proposal is about 
finding a reasonable solution to a problem rather than imposing a one-
size-fits-all dictate from the bureaucracy of Washington.
  There seems to be a serious disconnect between the people that are 
writing the regulations and those that have to comply with them. 
Portable lifts accomplish the same access, and they are much easier to 
install and can be installed at a lower cost. These fixed lifts are 
much more costly to install, and the net effect is that hotels and 
municipalities will simply close their swimming pool rather than comply 
with this new regulation. Many hotels have already begun to comply by 
ordering portable lifts and making those available, but that money and 
effort will be wasted because the Department of Justice has decided 
that only fixed lifts will meet the regulation.
  The problem here is that the bureaucrats who don't have to live with 
the consequences of the rules they write

[[Page H2399]]

really don't care how much it costs the small business owners. They 
just want to tell other people what to do, no matter what the real 
world consequences are.
  Our goal is not to deny access. Our goal is to find a reasonable way 
for businesses to comply with this new regulation in a fair and 
reasonable manner and in a cost-effective manner that will ensure 
access to every American.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, I rise to speak against an amendment added 
during committee markup of the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations 
bill, the one that we've been talking about, that would prevent the 
Department of Justice from enforcing regulations regarding access to 
swimming pools under the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  Since passage of the ADA in 1990, Congress has never acted to weaken 
the ADA's promise of increased opportunity and access for our 
neighbors, friends, family, and colleagues with disabilities. Today, 
however, this House is poised to strip the Justice Department of its 
ability to enforce certain accessibility rules. We are at this 
unfortunate and unwarranted juncture because of an aggressive 
advertising and lobbying campaign that misrepresents what the ADA is 
and what the Department of Justice rules require.
  Congress should not roll back reasonable, balanced, and negotiated 
civil rights standards that have long enjoyed bipartisan support based 
on an alarming misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the ADA and 
Department of Justice regulations, nor should we override a nearly 
decade-long regulatory process that began under the administration of 
President George W. Bush and concluded after extensive public notice 
and comment by adopting the guidelines that the United States Access 
Board developed in 2004 during the George W. Bush administration.
  Certain members of the hotel industry and their lawyers have claimed 
that Department of Justice rules require all pool owners to install 
fixed lifts in every pool, that this is costly and burdensome, and that 
owners who cannot afford to install lifts will have to shut down their 
pools or face civil penalties. These claims are simply false.
  As required by Congress when it passed the ADA in 1990, the Justice 
Department has now issued rules to increase access to newly constructed 
and existing swimming pools, rules that have been under development for 
almost 15 years. New pools must be built with either a sloped entry 
into the pool or a pool lift, under these new rules. For existing 
pools, owners will have to do what is ``readily achievable'' based on 
the size and resources of the owner's business and the prospective cost 
of the improvement.
  If it is readily achievable, which is defined in the ADA as ``easily 
accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or 
expense,'' a business should take the same steps to improve an existing 
pool that it would take if it were building a new pool. This means that 
if a fixed lift can be installed easily and inexpensively, it should 
be. If installing a fixed lift is too expensive and difficult, it is 
not legally required. The law did not impose a one-size-fits-all 
requirement. The law is quite flexible.
  Fixed lifts are superior to portable lifts because a fixed lift 
provides a safer and more independent means of getting in and out of a 
pool for a person with a disability. A fixed lift is available whenever 
a pool is open without the need for staff to locate the lift, ensure it 
is in proper operating condition, and provide timely and safe 
installation while the disabled person waits. This allows a person with 
a disability to swim whenever a pool is open, just like everybody else.
  While those pushing this amendment have raised concerns about lift 
safety, the United States Access Board has found no evidence of 
increased safety risks from pool lifts. The same measures already in 
place at a hotel's pool, such as prohibiting unsupervised children from 
using a pool, should prevent misuse of a pool lift as for other pool 
equipment like diving boards, slides, deck chairs, or tables.
  This unnecessary amendment will harm countless Americans and veterans 
who rely upon the ADA. And we have heard from a number of organizations 
and individuals who oppose legislation prohibiting DOJ from enforcing 
its regulations. I would like to include some of the letters and 
testimony sent to the House Judiciary Committee's Constitution 
Subcommittee, where I serve as ranking member, in the Record.
  Opposition to the amendment comes from organizations that work with a 
broad spectrum of persons with disabilities, including the National 
Center for Independent Living, the Association of University Centers on 
Disabilities, the American Association of People with Disabilities, and 
the National Disability Rights Network, to name a few.
  A father and swim coach in Georgia wrote that swimming has helped his 
son--a medalist at the Athens and Beijing Paralympics--make friends, 
earn respect, achieve goals, and make the best of his disability.
  A dozen veteran organizations wrote similarly of the benefit of 
rehabilitation and recreational opportunities for wounded and disabled 
veterans and servicemembers. These Americans have paid a high price in 
service to their country. They should be able to count on the ADA to 
ensure equality and opportunity here at home.
  Before today, our commitment to the ADA was a shared one. It would be 
unfortunate if that were to change under Republican leadership in the 
House. I call upon my colleagues to ensure that this ill-advised 
amendment is not included in any bill sent to the President for his 
signature. These regulations which have not yet been imposed, which the 
Justice Department has said may be postponed another few months if 
necessary, are in the spirit of the ADA--they are proper; they are well 
considered; and they oughtn't to be set aside by lobbyist-driven 
amendments.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
                                                      May 4, 2012.
       Dear Senator/Representative: We the undersigned veterans 
     organizations are writing in support of the Department of 
     Justice's (DOJ) final rule detailing requirements for 
     accessible entry and exit for pools and spas under the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
       Our organizations strongly support the principles of the 
     ADA, because they ensure independence and reintegration for 
     wounded servicemembers and disabled veterans. After a decade 
     of war, we must ensure that the ADA continues to stand for 
     equal treatment and non-discrimination in access to 
     rehabilitation, employment, educational, and recreational 
     opportunities.
       Specifically, Congress must not weaken the principles of 
     the ADA by delaying or otherwise inhibiting DOJ's enforcement 
     of the pool and spa accessibility regulatory requirements. 
     DOJ published the final rule on accessibility in September 
     2010 after engaging in six years of public outreach, which 
     included multiple opportunities for all stakeholders to 
     provide comments. Although the final rule was to go into 
     effect on March 15, 2012, DOJ delayed compliance until May 
     21.
       We believe that our nation's disabled veterans and wounded 
     warriors have waited long enough for access to pools and 
     spas. The January 2012 guidance issued by DOJ clarifying the 
     intent of the final rule for existing pools and spas did not 
     change the requirements DOJ published in September 2010. The 
     gold standard for new construction is a fixed pool lift. It 
     is logical that fixed pool lifts would be required for 
     existing pools and spas if ``readily achievable.'' Readily 
     achievable means that an existing pool or spa would only need 
     to have a fixed pool lift if it was not costly or burdensome.
       Readily achievable is the flexibility that was built into 
     the ADA to ensure that a one-size-fits-all approach would not 
     be required. Thus, if it is not readily achievable for a 
     small, family-owned business to install a fixed lift for a 
     pool or spa, then they are not required to under the ADA. The 
     ADA's inclusion of the readily achievable standard represents 
     the compromise between the needs of people with disabilities 
     and the costs of accommodations.
       If Congress intercedes by delaying implementation or 
     hindering enforcement of DOJ's final rule, we fear that a 
     dangerous precedent will have been set for the future of the 
     ADA. The final rule was the result of an extensive regulatory 
     process that provided ample opportunity for participation. It 
     is now time for Congress to step back and let the regulatory 
     process function as was envisioned when the ADA was passed by 
     a bipartisan Congress 22 years ago.
       If you have any questions, please contact Heather Ansley, 
     Vice President of Veterans Policy for VetsFirst, a program of 
     United

[[Page H2400]]

     Spinal Association, at (202) 556 2076, ext. 7702 or by e-mail 
     at [email protected].
           Sincerely,
         Blinded Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, 
           Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Jewish War 
           Veterans, National Association for Black Veterans, 
           Paralyzed Veterans of America, Veterans for Common 
           Sense, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Veterans of Modern 
           Warfare, VetsFirst, a program of United Spinal 
           Association, Vietnam Veterans of America.
                                  ____

                                                      May 7, 2012.
     Hon. Trent Franks,
     Chairman, Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the 
         Constitution, Rayburn House Office Building, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
     Ranking Member, Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the 
         Constitution, Rayburn House Office Building, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.

       Dear Chairman Franks and Ranking Member Nadler: I write to 
     you today as a swimming coach with twelve years of experience 
     working with disabled swimmers of whom my son, Lantz, is one. 
     I respectfully request that my son and my athletes and all 
     individuals with disabilities have access to aquatic 
     recreational opportunities just as individuals without 
     disabilities. I have recently been informed that Congress is 
     considering legislation that would prevent the Department of 
     Justice from enforcing its own regulations and keep public 
     pools from being accessible as required by the ADA. I am very 
     concerned about this legislation. I strongly encourage you 
     and your colleagues to act to ensure that individuals with 
     disabilities have the ability to access swimming pools and 
     other facilities.
       My son has swum since he was nine years old. Swimming has 
     provided him a way to make friends, earn respect, achieve 
     goals and make the best of his disability (cerebral palsy). 
     He has progressed to the highest level of disability swimming 
     having swum and medaled in the Athens, Greece and Beijing, 
     China Paralympics. Swimming has enabled him to develop a more 
     positive image of himself as well as provide a role model for 
     other children with disabilities.
       I have coached swimmers with all kinds of disabilities, 
     from amputees to swimmers with cerebral palsy, as well as my 
     son, to traumatic brain injuries, to swimmers paralyzed from 
     the waist down, to blind swimmers, to gunshot and shrapnel 
     injuries and all sorts of hip and shoulder injuries. The 
     swimmers who need the lifts the most are the ones who have no 
     use of their legs since it is dangerous for the swimmers and 
     their assistants who help them in and out of the pool. 
     Without the lifts most of these swimmers will not try to 
     transfer themselves out of their wheel chair and into the 
     pool because of the risk of further injury.
       It is critical that all individuals, including individuals 
     like my son with a disability, have the opportunity to 
     participate in physical activity and sport. Research has 
     shown that physical activity significantly enhances the 
     physical, mental, social, and emotional wellbeing of an 
     individual with a disability. I have seen this numerous times 
     as an individual with a disability realizes that they can 
     participate in physical activity and achieve goals and 
     benefits by their efforts. The pride of self returns when the 
     swimmer sees that he or she can get better, swim faster and 
     most of all achieve! Yet many individuals with disabilities 
     face barriers to accessing physical activity opportunities 
     and the result is that obesity rates for adults and children 
     with disabilities are 57% and 38% higher, respectively, than 
     rates for adults and children without disabilities (Centers 
     for Disease Control and Prevention). Swimming is a beneficial 
     activity for many people with mobility impairments (more than 
     13 million Americans who use a wheelchair, walker, cane or 
     other aid to assist in mobility), as it enables individuals 
     with disabilities to be active with fewer limitations (U.S. 
     Census).
       Our program provides access to adapted swimming for many 
     individuals. Regrettably too many families, do not have the 
     same opportunities. Please, do not limit the ability of the 
     Department of Justice to ensure full access to swimming pools 
     and spas for individuals with disabilities.
       Thank you for considering this request.
           Sincerely,
     Fred Lamback.
                                  ____

                                         Association of University


                                      Centers on Disabilities,

                                                      May 7, 2012.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Association of 
     University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD), I am writing to 
     urge you to oppose Representative Carter's amendment to the 
     Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill that would 
     prevent the Justice Department from using its funds to 
     enforce the ADA regulations to increase access for people 
     with disabilities to swimming pools.
       On March 15, the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design went 
     into effect, setting accessibility requirements for built-in 
     facilities including swimming pools. These standards were 
     adopted as part of the revised regulations for Title II and 
     Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (ADA). Unfortunately, the regulations were met with strong 
     opposition by the hotel industry due to a misunderstanding as 
     to what they require and the ``readily achievable'' standard 
     the ADA applies to ensure reasonable enforcement.
       The readily achievable standard has been supported and 
     recognized by the business community since the passage of the 
     ADA in 1990. The standard, since its inception twenty-two 
     years ago, provides the Justice Department with flexibility 
     to determine what is achievable based on a covered entity's 
     particular circumstances, and to prevent the Department from 
     applying a rigid one-size-fits-all standard. In the case of 
     the accessibility regulations for pool lifts, therefore, if 
     it is too costly or burdensome for a small, family-owned 
     business to install a fixed pool lift at their facility, the 
     new regulations do not require that they do so. Furthermore, 
     pool owners that fail to comply with the regulations are not 
     subject to large damage awards largely in part to the fact 
     that individuals cannot obtain money damages against hotels 
     for violations of ADA's accessibility requirements.
       The hotel industry has known about this issue for a decade, 
     and has participated in every step of the way. They were 
     given 18 additional months (past the publication of the 
     finalized rules in September 2010) to prepare before the 
     standards went into effect. As a result of the forgoing built 
     in protections in the ADA, this amendment is not needed to 
     protect small hotel owners.
       Additionally, it is crucial to understand, that access to 
     swimming pools is important for people with disabilities--it 
     helps them participate in their communities, spend time with 
     their families and, for many, is a critical means of exercise 
     and maintaining good health.
       If Congress intercedes by passing this amendment, we fear a 
     dangerous precedent will have been set that could chip away 
     at other provisions of the ADA. The final rule was the result 
     of an extensive regulatory process that provided ample 
     opportunity for participation. Accordingly, AUCD urges you to 
     protect the ADA by opposing amendments that will take away 
     the right of the Department to enforce such critical 
     regulations.
           Sincerely,

                                            A. Anthony Antosh,

                              President, Association of University
     Centers on Disabilities.
                                  ____

                                           Consortium for Citizens


                                            With Disabilities,

                                                      May 8, 2012.
     Hon. Trent Franks,
     Chairman, Subcommitee on the Constitution Commitee on the 
         Judiciary, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
     Ranking Member Subcommittee on the Constitution Committee on 
         the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.

       Dear Chairman Franks and Ranking Member Nadler: The 
     undersigned members of the Consortium of Citizens with 
     Disabilities (CCD) submit these comments for the record of 
     the April 24, 2012 hearing on ``The Department of Justice's 
     Guidance on Access to Pools and Spas Under the ADA.'' CCD is 
     a coalition of national disability-related organizations 
     working together to advocate for public policy that ensures 
     full equality, self-determination, independence, empowerment, 
     integration and inclusion of children and adults with 
     disabilities in all aspects of society.
     1. The Justice Department acted entirely within its authority 
         in conducting its rulemaking process and interpreting its 
         own regulations concerning swimming pool access.
       We submit this statement to respond to arguments made at 
     the hearing by the hotel industry that the Justice 
     Department's rulemaking concerning swimming pool access and 
     its interpretation of its own regulations constituted a 
     lawless process that violated the Administrative Procedures 
     Act, that the Department issued ``new and arbitrary rules'' 
     in 2012 that circumvented the regulatory process, and that 
     congressional action is necessary to ``restore order to the 
     regulation-making process.''
       These claims are unfounded. That the Justice Department 
     reached different conclusions than those that the industry 
     might have preferred does not render the process illegal or 
     improper. On the contrary, the Justice Department's swimming 
     pool regulations were the product of a years-long, fair, 
     considered, and objective process that included the 
     consideration and conclusions of the U.S. Access Board under 
     President George Bush.

The Justice Department's Rulemaking Process Was Thorough, Extensive and 
                                  Fair

       The Justice Department's rulemaking concerning pool lifts 
     involved a lengthy and considered process that involved all 
     stakeholders, including the hotel industry, throughout. The 
     regulations at issue implement a law that was passed nearly 
     22 years ago. The U.S. Access Board began looking at the 
     issue of pool access in 1996, adopted standards concerning 
     pool access under President Bush in 2002, and incorporated 
     those standards into its ADA Accessibility Guidelines in 
     2004. In 2004, the Justice Department issued an Advance 
     Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning the extent to which 
     the Access Board's accessibility guidelines should be adopted 
     as part of the Department's own regulations. As 
     Representative Nadler noted at the hearing, the hotel 
     industry's comments submitted in response to that ANPRM 
     contemplated, even then,

[[Page H2401]]

     the possibility that fixed pool lifts would be required. The 
     Access Board's pool access requirements formed the basis for 
     the Justice Department proposed regulations in 2008, and its 
     final regulations in 2010.
       The Access Board's extensive consideration of pool access 
     included a detailed research study undertaken on its behalf 
     by the National Center on Accessibility (NCA) in 1996. The 
     study evaluated different methods and standards for their 
     appropriateness, facilitation of independent use, degree of 
     consistency with existing building standards, level of 
     safety, and impact on pool design. With the assistance of a 
     national advisory panel, the NCA undertook a comprehensive 
     review of literature, a national survey of hundreds of people 
     with disabilities, a national survey of hundreds of swimming 
     pool operators, managers, aquatic directors, and adaptive 
     aquatic instructors, and actual on-site pool testing of 
     identified designs and devices by people with disabilities. 
     This on-site testing examined the appropriateness, 
     independent use, and safety of the identified means of pool 
     access by people with diverse disabilities.
       The extensive process of deliberation by the Access Board, 
     and subsequent deliberations by the Justice Department, took 
     into account the interests of all stakeholders, including 
     cost and safety concerns. If there was anything extraordinary 
     about this rulemaking process, it was the thorough and 
     detailed consideration involved. In light of this extensive 
     process, the idea that it was somehow improper for the 
     Justice Department to issue standards without further study 
     is absurd.

 The Department's Interpretation of its Own Regulations was Eminently 
                  Reasonable and Entitled to Deference

       The hotel industry's biggest complaint is that in January 
     2012, the Justice Department clarified in a technical 
     assistance document that covered entities may have to install 
     a ``fixed'' pool lift in existing pools if doing so is 
     readily achievable. The industry claims that this was a ``new 
     and arbitrary'' standard, since the regulations themselves do 
     not explicitly state that pool lifts must be fixed rather 
     than portable.
       The Department's accessibility standards, however, have 
     always applied to fixed or ``built-in'' elements. Any doubt 
     about this is resolved by the Department's own regulations, 
     which explicitly state: ``The 1991 Standards and the 2010 
     Standards apply to fixed or built-in elements of buildings, 
     structures, site improvements, and pedestrian routes or 
     vehicular ways located on a site.''
       Far from being unlawful, the Department's interpretation of 
     its own regulations is perfectly permissible and eminently 
     reasonable. Agencies have the authority to interpret their 
     own regulations and routinely do so. In fact, agencies 
     receive deference in resolving ambiguities in their own 
     regulations. See Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 63 
     (1999). An agency's interpretation of its own regulations is 
     controlling unless ``plainly erroneous or inconsistent with 
     the regulation.'' Id. at 461. Nothing about the Department's 
     interpretation of its regulations to require fixed pool lifts 
     where readily achievable is ``plainly erroneous'' or in any 
     way inconsistent with the regulation itself
     2. The Justice Department's regulations do not impose high 
         cost burdens on hotels.
       Despite the hotel industry's allegations that compliance 
     with the regulations would be so costly and burdensome that 
     pools will shut down rather than comply, the regulations 
     require the installation of a fixed pool lift in existing 
     pools only where it is ``readily achievable''--that is, where 
     it can be accomplished ``without significant difficulty or 
     expense.'' If installing a fixed lift is not affordable and 
     easy, it is not required. The idea that this requirement is 
     so burdensome that it will shut down pools is entirely 
     unfounded.
       The ``readily achievable'' standard was imposed by Congress 
     in the ADA itself, and has been used for nearly 22 years. In 
     fact, this standard was sought by business leaders in order 
     to avoid a ``one size fits all'' standard for existing 
     facilities and have instead a more flexible, individualized 
     standard that would take into account factors such as the 
     size, nature, and resources of a particular business. 
     Business owners benefit from this flexible test, but must of 
     course make the determination about whether it is readily 
     achievable to meet accessibility standards. That is hardly 
     unreasonable, much less unlawful.
     3. The Justice Department's regulations do not create 
         particular safety risks.
       The U.S. Access Board concluded after extensive 
     investigation that pool lifts pose no greater safety risks 
     than any other pool equipment. In studying this issue, the 
     Access Board consulted with hundreds of swimming pool 
     operators, managers, aquatic directors, adaptive aquatic 
     instructors, and people with disabilities, and conducted on-
     site testing of all types of pool access methods by people 
     with different disabilities. Based on this extensive 
     evidence, the Board rejected the hotel industry's speculation 
     about safety concerns. If Congress intervened every time a 
     trade association hired its own expert to disagree with the 
     experts whose conclusions formed the basis for a regulation, 
     the entire federal regulatory process--which already provides 
     for ample stakeholder involvement--would be threatened.
       Moreover, the hotel industry's suggestion that the Justice 
     Department cannot require fixed lifts until it has studied 
     the safety issues further, and that those safety issues 
     cannot be fully understood as long as fixed lifts are not 
     required, appears intended to prevent the Justice Department 
     from ever acting on this issue. In her testimony on behalf of 
     the American Hotel and Lodging Association, Ms. Vu stated 
     that the Justice Department's finding that there is no 
     evidence of child safety risks reflects the fact that there 
     has never before been a requirement to have permanent pool 
     lifts, and the issue must be studied further before the 
     Justice Department can act. Yet Ms. Vu and her client 
     vigorously oppose the imposition of any requirement to 
     install permanent pool lifts. If Congress were to grant their 
     request, according to Ms. Vu's logic, there would never be a 
     sufficient basis for the Justice Department to act on this 
     issue; absent any requirement to install permanent lifts, 
     further study would always be needed. We urge you to see past 
     this specious reasoning.
     4. Access to swimming pools is important for people with 
         disabilities.
       The opportunity to swim is important for people with 
     disabilities, as it is for everyone. Ensuring that people 
     with disabilities have access to everyday activities and can 
     participate in all aspects of society has always been a core 
     civil right promoted by the ADA. The April 24th testimony of 
     Ms. Camacho and Ms. Cody confirmed the experiences of so many 
     people with disabilities: swimming is not only a means of 
     recreation and relaxation, but also an important avenue for 
     children and adults with disabilities to interact with their 
     peers and their families, and participate in their 
     communities. In addition, swimming is a critical way for many 
     people with disabilities to exercise and gain strength in 
     order to facilitate greater independence. This point is 
     illustrated well by Ms. Camacho's testimony that swimming 
     helped her to gain the strength she needed to get in and out 
     of a car independently, to transfer in and out of bed on her 
     own, and to go to the bathroom by herself.
     5. People with disabilities attended the hearing due to their 
         own interest and well-founded concern, rather than as a 
         consequence of exploitation.
       We were troubled by Chairman Franks' remarks that the 
     numerous individuals with disabilities who came to the 
     hearing had been ``exploited'' into taking actions that were 
     against their own interests. People with disabilities deserve 
     more credit than is suggested by the presumption that the 
     individuals who attended the hearing lacked the ability to 
     think for themselves and were simply pawns in the schemes of 
     others. We are quite confident that the individuals with 
     disabilities who chose to attend the hearing did so of their 
     own accord, out of deep and abiding concerns about the 
     legislation's potential consequences for their lives.
       Those concerns go far beyond the desire for access to 
     swimming pools. As many of the individuals who attended the 
     hearing made clear, the Justice Department's ADA regulations 
     and its interpretations of those regulations have played an 
     extremely significant role in promoting their rights to live 
     in their homes and communities rather than institutions, and 
     to participate fully in society. Individuals with 
     disabilities are deeply and rightfully concerned about 
     efforts to undermine the Justice Department's authority to 
     interpret and enforce its ADA regulations.
       Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
           Sincerely yours,
         ACCSES, American Association of People with Disabilities, 
           American Foundation for the Blind, The Arc of the 
           United States, Association of University Centers on 
           Disabilities, Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, Bazelon 
           Center for Mental Health Law, Disability Rights 
           Education and Defense Fund, Easter Seals, National 
           Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities, 
           National Council on Independent Living, Paralyzed 
           Veterans of America, United Cerebral Palsy, United 
           Spinal Association.
                                  ____

                                                  National Council


                                        on Independent Living,

                                                      May 8, 2012.
     Hon. Trent Franks,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the 
         Judiciary, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Jerrold Nadler,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee 
         on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Rayburn House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Franks and Ranking Member Nadler: These 
     comments are submitted by the National Council on Independent 
     Living (NCIL) for the record of the April 24, 2012 hearing on 
     ``The Department of Justice's Guidance on Access to Pools and 
     Spas Under the ADA.''
       NCIL is the longest-running national, cross-disability, 
     grassroots organization run by and for people with 
     disabilities. Founded in 1982, NCIL represents thousands of 
     organizations and individuals including: Centers for 
     Independent Living (CILs), Statewide Independent Living 
     Councils (SILCs), individuals with disabilities, and other 
     organizations that advocate for the human and civil rights of 
     people with disabilities throughout the United States. There 
     are currently over 700 physical locations across America 
     actively providing Independent Living services to people with 
     disabilities.

[[Page H2402]]

       This hearing was held to address the proposed legislation 
     in the House that is set to address the concerns of the DOJ's 
     decision to extend the rule RIN 1190 NYD Delaying the 
     Compliance Date for Certain Requirements of the Regulations 
     Implementing Titles II and III of the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act.
       We have serious concerns with Congress preventing an 
     executive branch agency from enforcing its own regulations 
     such as what is written in H.R. 4256 and H.R. 4200. We must 
     let you know that we find both these bills to be intrusive.
       We disagree with boyh bills. They try to accomplish giving 
     the hospitality and hotel industry an opportunity to provide 
     accessibility to the public in the least efficient manner or 
     even at all. H.R. 4256 attempts to address technical 
     requirements that have been negotiated over years in the 
     rulemaking process that has worked well for all other aspects 
     of accessibility. This bill is broader than H.R. 4200 because 
     it prohibits any court enforcement of the new regulations for 
     a year (while DOJ is changing the standards, as required by 
     this bill), including enforcement by private plaintiffs.
       To include Title II in the language of the resolution, even 
     though it would appear by the rest of the language that the 
     resolution concerns Public Accommodations only, under 28 CFR 
     Part 36; creates confusion and uncertainty about exactly how 
     far this resolution's impact and jurisdiction could be 
     interpreted to go. The resolution calls for a one year 
     extension to the effective date, which we in the community 
     disagree with its necessity.
       The ADA has been in effect for 21 years, and all the ADA 
     pool rules have undergone extensive review for more than 10 
     years, with multiple comment periods and many opportunities 
     for hotels to learn about their responsibilities. The new 
     requirements already had a generous phase-in period of 18 
     months. Congress should not restrict enforcement of these, or 
     any, ADA requirements.
       In response to comments that referred to the hospitality 
     industry not having adequate time to implement this rule, the 
     burden of providing access to swimming pools and the cost for 
     implementing this rule, we strongly disagree with all of 
     these claims. Providing access to swimming pools is 
     achievable and not burdensome. The ADA's accessibility 
     requirements for barrier removal in existing facilities are 
     very reasonable--they only require what is ``easily 
     accomplishable'' and able to be carried out without much 
     difficulty or expense. The rules are carefully crafted to 
     take the needs of covered entities, such as small businesses 
     including hotels, into account. In other words, hotel owners 
     need not comply with the standards in the new regulations 
     unless doing so would be inexpensive and simple. No extension 
     or enforcement ban is needed.
       We also believe that it is not acceptable for the 
     Department of Justice to backtrack on ADA requirements 
     because an industry exerts pressure. To do so is an 
     invitation to other industries to say, ``Roll back our 
     requirements, too.'' Today it's the hotel industry. What 
     weakening changes will come tomorrow? What other human and 
     civil rights laws will be adjusted?
       In reference to the expense this would cause for the 
     hospitality industry, there are Tax Incentives which have 
     always been available and underutilized by businesses. IRS 
     Tax code 44 and 190 provide generous credits (dollar for 
     dollar) and deductions (reduction in gross reported to IRS) 
     that let the hotel owner get the money back (1/2 in credit 
     the rest in deductions) so cost should not be an issue.
       The Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers 
     (DBTACs) have done a targeted education project for the 
     ``hospitality'' industry for several years now and have 
     repeatedly reached out to the organizations representing 
     hotels. They can be reached at 800 949 4232 anywhere in the 
     country.
       The House bill H.R. 4256 represents an extraordinarily 
     prejudicial precedent. This bill would deny any federal 
     official, which can include judges, US attorneys, and other 
     enforcing authorities, any power to administer or enforce the 
     new DOJ ADA regulations regarding pools. It removes the 
     waiting period and adds a clause that dismisses any suits 
     filed after March 15, 2012. It also tries to clarify their 
     portable vs. fixed lifts concern, something that should be 
     done by DOJ.
       The amendment would affect Title II State and Local 
     Governments, which have been covered for access into the 
     water since 1990. This is seen as a targeted process to 
     undermine the strong federal enforcement role urgently needed 
     and sometimes reached under the ADA. Passage of this bill 
     could initiate a trend to render civil rights laws completely 
     powerless and ineffective, even though they remain public 
     law. This amendment would firmly take this part of the ADA 
     backward. It is our belief that Congress should craft strong 
     civil rights protections to end discrimination, not remove 
     the government's enforcing authority.
       In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Department of 
     Justice requested comments on extending the compliance date 
     ``in the interest of promoting clear and consistent 
     application of the ADA's requirements to existing 
     facilities.'' The NCIL community has serious concerns with 
     the number of years it has taken to explain ``readily 
     achievable barrier removal''. Extensive technical assistance 
     has been provided to explain to many public accommodation 
     pool owners that the requirements are based on what they can 
     afford to do today on their existing structures, with an 
     obligation to provide better access when it can be afforded. 
     Nothing has changed with that concept since the ADA was 
     passed in 1990. It should not take another 6 months to 
     ``understand''.
       To include Title II entities in this extension is a huge 
     step backward! Program access has been a requirement all 
     along, and most state and local government-run pools and 
     swimming facilities should already have addressed access into 
     the water for their programs. An extension is inappropriate 
     as they have already been responsible for equal access to the 
     water for years.
       The part that is confusing is not for new construction and 
     altered facilities having pools and spas, but at existing 
     pools there is some confusion that has been partly created by 
     the DOJ, as the Department responded in a letter February 
     21st to the American Hotel and Lodging Association (AHLA) 
     when they asked for clarification on the provision of pool 
     lifts. In that letter, the Department addresses several 
     concerns raised in the ``eleventh hour'' of the rulemaking 
     process by AHLA representatives--including some regarding 
     ``fixed'' pool lifts versus ``portable'' pool lifts. The 
     Department has created part of the problem in its convoluted 
     definition of why a pool lift must be ``fixed'' which is not 
     addressed in the rule, the scoping, or in the technical 
     requirements of the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.
       In addressing concerns by AHLA regarding existing hotels, 
     the DOJ stated that where it is not readily achievable for a 
     hotel owner to install a fixed pool lift, that a portable 
     pool lift may be used if it can be attached to the pool deck 
     while in use. That seems like a good idea to reduce liability 
     for the hotel owner, and makes the unit more stable for the 
     user, who also must be able to use the unit independently. 
     However, it is a matter of technical assistance advice that, 
     with additional helpful information could be given without an 
     extension in the effective date for compliance. Many of these 
     discussions should have already taken place multiple times, 
     given the length of time this rulemaking has taken, and to 
     reiterate the principles of readily achievable barrier 
     removal once again to the organizations pleading ignorance 
     should NOT take an additional 6 months.
       The NCIL membership is very disappointed that an exception 
     was made in the rulemaking process by the current 
     Administration, and strongly objects to the proposed rule 
     extending the compliance date for public accommodations and 
     effectively abolishing the program access requirements 
     including pool lifts at swimming pools, parks, and resorts 
     run with State funds through yet another swimming season--to 
     September 2012. We insist the rulemaking proceed and become 
     effective immediately following the 60 day extension.
       Submitted by: L. Dara Baldwin, MPA--Policy Analyst, The 
     National Council on Independent Living.
       Submitted for: Mark Derry--Chair of the ADA/Civil Rights 
     Committee for The National Council on Independent Living, 
     President/CEO.

  Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I rise in opposition because I know what it's like to live with and 
to travel with a disabled person--my brother-in-law, a very 
distinguished retired lawyer who actually was injured in a diving 
accident and is paralyzed from the waist down.
  I never fully had an appreciation for ADA until I started living with 
him and realized, as he said, that the ADA was not a zoning ordinance 
about construction; the ADA is a civil right that this Congress enacted 
22 years ago. It was remarkable legislation. And to govern that 
legislation, we have an access board who are not made up of, as someone 
said, bureaucrats, but they're made up of citizens who are appointed, I 
guess, all by the President.
  And I watched, because my brother-in-law was appointed to that board 
under President Clinton. I've watched that board as they go through all 
kinds of issues dealing with people with disabilities very 
conscientiously, thorough hearings, lots of discussions about how to 
implement it, and I'm just shocked that Congress would think that we 
ought to take away an access.
  I'm sure these same debates were given when people said, well, we 
shouldn't do curb cuts; they cost money, and there is nobody standing 
on that curb that needs it. Ladies and gentlemen, curb cuts make a big 
difference not just for people that are disabled, but just for elderly 
people who can't be that lift.
  By the way, you and I are all, as my friends like to say, temporarily 
able-bodied persons, because you never know when you're going to be in 
the next accident.

[[Page H2403]]

                              {time}  2010

  So I think that the statements that were made are right on on this 
side. There is a lot of misinformation going on about these proposed 
regulations.
  I represent the Tourism Caucus. I'm the chair of the bipartisan 
caucus on tourism. And, yes, a lot of my hoteliers have come in and 
said, You can't do this. But you know what? There's an exemption in 
there. For small hotels for whom the pool lift is too expensive to buy 
it, they're exempted. The regulation also allows hoteliers to do either 
a permanent or portable lift. There is a lot of discussion here that 
says, It's all portable. It's mandatory.
  By the way, the disability community is a big traveling community. 
There is a lot of money in that community. And I will just give a kudo, 
because one of the hotels that is very conscientious about this and has 
a reputation for being extremely well-suited for disabilities is the 
Four Seasons Hotel. That is not a cheap hotel.
  So there are conscientious hoteliers out there that want to reach 
this market. There are people that want to get access, and we should 
never, never take away something that is so essential to quality of 
life. Indeed, I think our role here is to protect the domestic 
tranquility of this country. And a lot of that domestic tranquility is 
people with disabilities, including many of our soldiers.
  I want to make sure that we defeat this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Chairman, this is one of those moments in 
Congress where I swear we are almost talking about completely different 
things and the reality that I live in. I am blessed to represent 
Scottsdale, Arizona, one of the resort centers of the country. Come 
visit us. It's a wonderful place.
  About a month and a half ago, I went and visited one of the resorts 
right down the street from where I grew up. They have seven pools, when 
you count the Jacuzzis. And I am walking through the resort with the 
manager, who I've known since high school, and he is just looking at me 
with these huge eyes saying, Have they lost their minds?
  The first thing he points out to me is they've had a portable lift 
for a decade, and no one's ever asked for it. The second point he 
made--and he was emphatic on this--20 years ago, because of their tort 
liability, the insurance on their pools, they got rid of all of their 
diving boards. And now we're going to demand that they build fixed 
structures up against a Jacuzzi? I can't wait to see who is going to be 
standing there monitoring the beer drinking and not climbing on top of 
those and leaping into the Jacuzzi, using it as a swimming pool diving 
board.
  Is anyone familiar with the concept of ``attractive nuisance''? Those 
who oppose the amendment, are you going to also step up and say, Well, 
we're going to provide you tort liability when someone jumps off and 
ends up in horrible shape? Because 20 years ago, we made a point to 
remove these types of hazards from the sides of pools and Jacuzzis.
  But the third thing--and he was just livid on the point, saying, I 
have seven pools in my resort. We're barely making it today, and you're 
telling me that I am going to grind through my concrete, grind through 
my cool decking, grind through my patios to put power extension, build 
fixed lifts near every pool and Jacuzzi when no one's even asked for 
the portable one for 10 years?
  What's wonderful about the amendment, if you actually read it and 
move away from some of the rhetoric, is it makes it very clear that 
this is about building permanent structures next to those pools and 
Jacuzzis. If they're going to mandate a portable with the other 
caveats, okay, fine. Live with that. We already have lots of experience 
with that. And that way you avoid the attractive nuisance near every 
pool--not the cost, not the tearing up, not the everything else that 
goes along with this.
  At some point, our love and respect and wanting to help our brothers 
and sisters, particularly those that have mobility issues, we're there 
for them. We love them. We want to help. But we also have to have some 
bit of rationality. Let's actually step up and deal with this 
rationally, because I fear that the law of unintended consequences is 
going to be that some of my resorts are going to close down those 
Jacuzzis, close down those pools for access from anyone when there was 
a pragmatic solution, which is embracing the portable lifts. That was 
from every call I have made, up and down through Scottsdale. And if you 
have been there, you know we have resorts everywhere. I have not had a 
single manager of a resort call me back and say, Yes, we even use our 
portable one.
  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield for a moment?
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Absolutely.
  Mr. FATTAH. Have you called the Paralyzed Veterans of America or any 
of those types of organizations? Did you just call the hoteliers?
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Reclaiming my time, yes, we actually had a whole 
meeting in my office with them and actually had the whole discussion 
about both the attractive hazard of what happens when, you know, 
because of this, we create the next paralyzed American, and they looked 
at me with their eyes and said, You know, we hadn't thought about that. 
And as long as that resort has that portable one, we get our need taken 
care of. There is that pragmatic reality.
  Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman would continue to yield, so you are 
saying that the groups that have been identified as being for these 
regulations, you have convinced them to the contrary?
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. No. No. We sat down and had a wonderful conversation. 
I believe they left understanding how impractical what was happening 
here, also how there is a much more pragmatic, much more cost-
effective, and a much safer solution for the community.
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The last I heard, the Paralyzed Veterans were for these provisions.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I met with actual people from Scottsdale with 
mobility issues. So I actually met with real constituents that are real 
people, not some organization.
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. I want to join my colleagues in speaking in favor of 
enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act regulations, 
particularly my colleague Steny Hoyer from Maryland, one of the authors 
of the ADA. And I rise to oppose any efforts to strip the Department of 
Justice's enforcement of these regulations.
  My friend from Arizona is correct. It sounds as if we're in parallel 
universes talking about different things here, but let me tell you what 
we are talking about.
  We are talking about equality of opportunity in America. Yes, we want 
to do all we can to give all possible access to swimming. It is 
important for all sorts of reasons.
  We have, in this country, more and more people with disabilities, 
veterans returning from Afghanistan, people living to older ages. There 
are many people who can benefit greatly from access to swimming pools. 
And what we're talking about here is that principle of access, not just 
what it means for an individual with disabilities but what it means for 
the American ideal of equality of access.
  The regulation and the law, itself, talk about a standard of readily 
achievable steps. ``Readily achievable,'' that's the key point here. 
Fixed lifts in a swimming pool, for example, are required only where 
installation is easy and inexpensive.
  The readily achievable standard has been the governing legal 
principle for increasing access to facilities since the ADA's passage 
22 years ago. These particular regulations have gone through extensive 
review to be consistent with that standard of ``readily achievable.''

                              {time}  2020

  For an existing pool, it means removing barriers that, to the extent 
that it is readily achievable, to do so. Let me continue on that point. 
A small, family-owned hotel, for example, does not

[[Page H2404]]

have to take the same steps as a large commercial hotel. And some 
businesses complain that, Well, hardly anyone has ever used the access 
accommodations they have made. That's like saying, well, the public 
accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act needn't apply because 
an African American or a Muslim hardly ever comes to this restaurant.
  We're talking about civil rights here--the American ideal of equal 
access for all.
  I could go over and over again what this regulation actually says, 
but I will place in the Record what the Consortium for Citizens With 
Disabilities has said. They write in opposition to any congressional 
effort to roll back, or prevent enforcement of, the Justice 
Department's regulations about swimming pool access for people with 
disabilities.
  The Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities includes a myriad of 
organizations, such as the American Association for People With 
Disabilities, the American Foundation for the Blind, the Brain Injury 
Association of America, the National Council on Independent Living, the 
National Disability Rights Network, the National Multiple Sclerosis 
Society, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America, I tell my colleague. 
These are just some of the organizations that say this is an important 
principle of civil rights. And yes, also it will allow lots of 
individuals to have healthier lives and to be able to cope with their 
disabilities.
  I would also include in the Record a letter from the Disability 
Rights Education and Defense Fund, where they, too, urge Members of 
Congress to oppose any effort to prevent using the funds to enforce the 
Americans with Disabilities Act regulations for greater access for 
people with disabilities to swimming pools.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
                                       Disability Rights Education


                                                 Defense Fund,

                                         Berkley, CA, May 8, 2012.
       Dear Representative: The Disability Rights Education and 
     Defense Fund (DREDF) is a leading national law and policy 
     center that advances the civil and human rights of people 
     with disabilities through legal advocacy, training, education 
     and public policy and legislative development.
       On behalf of the DREDF, I am writing to urge you to oppose 
     Representative Carter's amendment to the Commerce, Justice, 
     and Science Appropriations Bill, H.R. 5326. This bill would 
     prevent the Department of Justice from using its funds to 
     enforce the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) 
     regulations related to greater access for people with 
     disabilities to swimming pools. The Department of Justice 
     must have the authority to enforce the ADA, which is crucial 
     to protecting core civil rights principles and ensuring 
     people with disabilities have access to all activities 
     allowing them to participate in all aspects of society. 
     Weakening civil rights enforcement of the DOJ sets a 
     dangerous precedent.
       The ADA was enacted over 21 years ago, and all the new ADA 
     rules have undergone extensive review for more than 10 years, 
     with multiple comment periods and many opportunities for 
     hotels and other facilities with swimming pools to learn 
     about their responsibilities. The new requirements set by the 
     2010 Standards for Accessible Design went into effect on 
     March 15 and already included a generous phase-in period of 
     18 months, which has been extended already by two months. 
     These standards were adopted as part of the revised 
     regulations for Title II and Title III of the ADA. 
     Unfortunately, the regulations were met with strong 
     opposition by the hotel industry due to a misunderstanding as 
     to what they require and the ``readily achievable'' standard, 
     which is carefully crafted to take the needs of covered 
     entities large and small, such as hotels, into account.
       The readily achievable standard has been supported and 
     recognized by the business community since the passage of the 
     ADA in 1990. The standard, since its inception twenty-two 
     years ago, provides the Justice Department with flexibility 
     to determine what is achievable based on a covered entity's 
     particular circumstances, and to prevent the Department from 
     applying a rigid one-size-fits-all standard. In the case of 
     the accessibility regulations for pool lifts, therefore, if 
     it is too costly or burdensome for a small, family-owned 
     business to install a fixed pool lift at their facility, the 
     new regulations do not require that they do so. Furthermore, 
     pool owners that fail to comply with the regulations are not 
     subject to large damage awards largely in part to the fact 
     that individuals cannot obtain money damages against hotels 
     for violations of ADA's accessibility requirements.
       The hotel industry has known about this issue for a decade, 
     and has participated in every step of the way. They were 
     given 18 additional months (past the publication of the 
     finalized rules in September 2010) to prepare before the 
     standards went into effect. As a result of the foregoing 
     built-in protections in the ADA, this amendment is not needed 
     to protect small hotel owners.
       Additionally, it is crucial to understand that access to 
     swimming pools is important for people with disabilities--it 
     helps them participate in their communities, spend time with 
     their families and, for many, is a critical means of exercise 
     and maintaining good health and physical rehabilitation.
       ADA accessibility requirements providing access to swimming 
     pools and spas is doable, not burdensome and are, in fact, 
     reasonable. If Congress intercedes by passing this amendment, 
     we fear a dangerous precedent will have been set that could 
     chip away at other provisions of the ADA and other civil 
     rights legislation. The final rule was the result of an 
     extensive regulatory process that provided ample opportunity 
     for participation. DREDF urges you to protect the ADA by 
     opposing amendments that will take away the right of the 
     Department to enforce such critical regulations.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Susan Henderson,
                                               Executive Director.
                                      Consortium for Citizens with


                                                 Disabilities,

                                   Washington, DC, April 23, 2012.
       Dear Representative: The undersigned members of the 
     Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), representing 
     people with disabilities, family members, and professionals 
     in the disability field, write in opposition to any 
     Congressional effort to roll back, or prevent enforcement of, 
     the Justice Department's September 15, 2010 regulations 
     setting forth requirements to ensure that swimming pools are 
     accessible to people with disabilities. These regulations, 
     the product of an extensive and considered process of 
     deliberation, were originally scheduled to go into effect on 
     March 15, 2012 and are now slated to take effect in May 2012.
       H.R. 4200, introduced on March 16, 2012, would deprive the 
     Justice Department of the authority to enforce its own 
     regulations implementing the ADA with respect to the 
     accessibility of swimming pools. H.R. 4256, introduced on 
     March 26, 2012, would prohibit any court enforcement of the 
     Justice Department's new regulations concerning pool 
     accessibility for a period of one year from enactment of the 
     bill and require the Justice Department to issue new 
     regulations with weaker substantive standards (permitting 
     portable pool lifts even where installing a permanent lift 
     would be readily achievable). These bills present a number of 
     serious concerns.
       First, the prospect of Congress preventing an executive 
     branch agency from enforcing its own regulations is very 
     troubling. The regulations at issue were promulgated by the 
     Department of Justice--the agency charged by Congress with 
     enforcement of the ADA--and based on standards issued by the 
     United States Access Board, a federal agency devoted to 
     developing and maintaining standards to ensure accessibility 
     for individuals with disabilities. The ADA requires the 
     Justice Department's accessibility regulations to be 
     consistent with Access Board standards. Both the Access Board 
     and the Justice Department have extensive expertise in 
     setting appropriate accessibility standards that take into 
     account the needs of people with disabilities as well as 
     those of business owners. Congress need not and should not 
     step in to deprive the agencies it designated to issue 
     accessibility standards of the authority to enforce those 
     standards.
       Moreover, the opportunity to swim is important to 
     individuals with disabilities just as it is to everyone else. 
     People with disabilities should be able to enjoy swimming 
     pools for recreation and exercise. If enacted, H.R. 4200 and 
     H.R. 4256 would deprive many people with disabilities of 
     access to swimming pools, and would create uncertainty among 
     pool owners about the standards with which they must comply 
     in order to meet the ADA's requirements with respect to pool 
     access.
       The regulations at issue do not present a significant 
     burden to hotels or other pool owners. For pools already 
     built when the new regulations take effect, the regulations 
     do not require owners to satisfy the new accessibility 
     requirements. If doing so is not ``readily achievable''--that 
     is, ``easily accomplishable and able to be carried out 
     without much difficulty or expense''--they need not do so.
       In addition, individuals with disabilities are not entitled 
     to damages in ADA lawsuits challenging the inaccessibility of 
     public accommodations.
       The hotel industry has been aware of--and involved with--
     the development of the new pool accessibility standards for a 
     decade. The Access Board initially issued standards for pool 
     accessibility in 2002 guidelines for recreational facilities. 
     In 2004, the Access Board incorporated those standards into 
     its new Accessibility Guidelines. The new regulatory 
     standards come directly from those 2004 guidelines. The 
     Justice Department first published an Advance Notice of 
     Proposed Rulemaking requesting feedback concerning the Access 
     Board standards in 2004, followed by a second Advance Notice 
     of Proposed Rulemaking in 2008. The final rule was adopted on 
     September 15, 2010, and gave existing pools another eighteen 
     months to comply with the new requirements.
       In conclusion, we oppose any effort to roll back 
     regulations providing accessible swimming pools for people 
     with disabilities. These places of public accommodation have 
     had

[[Page H2405]]

     years of notice and substantial opportunity to prepare for 
     these requirements.
           Sincerely,
       ACCSES, American Association of People with Disabilities; 
     American Foundation for the Blind; American Network of 
     Community Options and Resources; Association of University 
     Centers on Disabilities; The Arc of the United States; 
     Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Brain Injury 
     Association of America; Council of Parent Attorneys and 
     Advocates, Inc.; Daniel Jordan Fiddle Foundation; Disability 
     Rights Education and Defense Fund; Easter Seals; Epilepsy 
     Foundation; Helen Keller National Center; Mental Health 
     America; National Association of Councils on Developmental 
     Disabilities; National Council on Independent Living; 
     National Disability Rights Network; National Down Syndrome 
     Society; National Multiple Sclerosis Society; Paralyzed 
     Veterans of America; United Cerebral Palsy; United Spinal 
     Association.

  Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. I am the person who introduced this language. At the time 
that I introduced it, I started my conversation by saying I am not 
opposed to--in fact, I am in favor of--access to swimming facilities 
and hot tubs and other bodies of water by the disabled in this country. 
But the facts are in this case that, yes, this has been looked at for a 
long time and everybody recognizes the fact that access to swimming 
pools and possibly hot tubs or therapeutic facilities is important for 
the people who are disabled. I agree. I agree with everything my 
colleagues have said on the other side of the aisle. Sometimes, when 
you're dealing with bureaucrats, you cannot get their attention to have 
a little bit of common sense. And you have to get their attention. And 
the purpose behind this is to get the Justice Department to back off 
until they can listen to some common sense.
  My colleague on this side of the aisle has tried to point out that 
what the Justice Department has said, and has not been willing to 
clarify otherwise, is, regardless of what the regulation which was 
passed originally says, their ruling in January of this year was that 
it would be a fixed facility. That means it has to be placed 
permanently by the side of the body of water. That means it would be 
placed permanently beside every hot tub, placed permanently beside 
every kiddie pool, placed permanently beside every swimming pool that 
anybody has at any location. That would be a fixed device.
  I don't know how big this device is, but I would assume it's taller 
than I am because it has to lift someone and put them somewhere. And I 
also happen to know that there are 13-year-old kids around every 
swimming pool in the country that figure if there's something you can 
climb up on and dive off of, you're going to do it.
  So the swimming pool people, both publicly and privately--and let me 
tell you that lots of communications from public pool managers in my 
district, say, We don't want to close our pool this summer, but they've 
set a deadline we can't meet. They've required something that we cannot 
physically get because the manufacturers are not prepared to do it. And 
even though they're willing to push the deadline down the line, they're 
setting up a situation of danger which could easily be resolved by what 
we've been using already in many of the pools in our area of Texas, and 
that is a portable device that does exactly the same thing, but when it 
is not in use it is moved away from the side of the pool to a safe 
place where someone cannot harm themselves.
  What if a child climbed up on the one fixed next to the hot tub which 
is 3-feet deep and dove into it? He may be stupid, but kids are stupid 
sometimes. We would have another disabled person.
  And so the consequences of this and the cost are something that we 
should say, How about a little common sense, Justice Department, and 
answer the question: Can we use a portable device? And so far they have 
not answered, because they wrote the last thing in January. They set 
the deadline of May 15 and extended it. And all we want is an answer to 
that question.
  I want everyone to have access to a swimming pool, and I want the 
disabled to have a device that's safely able to locate them there and 
that can safely be put away when there's no one in need of that device 
so that nobody else can be hurt by false use of that device.
  I'm not against the disabled, and nobody on our side of the aisle is, 
even though our colleagues seem to accuse us of that. But I started 
this conversation--and my colleague on my committee knows this--and I 
finished the conversation by saying: All I want is to allow them to 
have access and let the Justice Department say something besides 
``fixed device'' so that we can go forward. If we can get that, we 
solve this issue. It's not about putting aside the ADA. It's not about 
being against the disabled. It's about common sense. And the folks that 
have five pools can have a device to sit around in a safe place to be 
moved out to accommodate whoever needs this device.
  It's common sense, it's good judgment, and it's a safety issue for 
children. And nobody wants to deprive anybody of going swimming.
  So to make this very clear, I think this is something that I agree 
with, my opponents on the other side of the aisle agree with, and we 
should be in agreement and bipartisan in trying to get a commonsense 
resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the proposed 
amendment. *
  Mr. Nunnelee from Mississippi and Mr. Flake from Arizona are 
cosponsors of this amendment.


                           Opening Statement

  My amendment prohibits the DOJ from using funds to implement the 
regulation and guidance that would require every public pool and spa in 
America to have a permanent pool lift. This would not only affect 
hotels and resorts, but governmental entities such as public pools as 
well.
  Let me make this clear, I am not against disabled Americans having 
access to pools and spas. But what I am against is unreasonable 
regulations that don't pass the common sense test.
  Over the past year, hotel owners and city managers asked the 
Department of Justice to clarify the accessible means of entries for 
swimming pools and spas. This past January, the Justice Department 
responded to this request by issuing revised guidance. The guidance 
that was issued is alarming, to say the least.
  The revised guidance only allows a place of accommodation to have a 
portable pool lift under a very narrow set of circumstances. The 
guidance also doesn't allow a city or place of accommodation to share a 
pool lift between multiple pools and hot tubs. Furthermore, the revised 
guidance requires a pool lift to be pool side and fully operational 
during all pool hours, but does not address the safety risks posed by 
children playing on and climbing on the pool lift, which I imagine 
would make a pretty good climb and dive target for a 13 year old.
  It just doesn't make sense that if a hotel owner or city pool has 
multiple pools and hot tubs in one location that you would have to 
purchase a permanent lift for each pool and spa. Doesn't it make more 
sense to allow for one portable lift per location?
  A major concern is the cost of purchasing and installing permanent 
pool lifts. In speaking with hotel owners and pool lift manufacturers 
in recent weeks, the costs of pool lifts can range from $2,500 to over 
$9,700. The cost of installation can range from $500 to over $3,000 in 
States such as California. If a hotel owner with a small pool and hot 
tub in California needs to install two (2) permanent lifts (one at each 
body of water), the costs for purchasing and installing the two lifts 
could range from $11,000 at the low end to $25,400 at the high end.
  It is significant to note that for hotels that have had pool lifts in 
place for years; we have reports that guests with disabilities have not 
been using the lifts. A hotel owner very close to my district, in 
Austin, Texas, reported that twelve (12) years ago he constructed a 
pool at his hotel. At that time, Austin had a requirement that all 
hotels must have a lift for their guests with disabilities. During the 
12 years that he has maintained the pool lift at the hotel, he never 
had a guest request or use the pool lift. Based on his information and 
belief, none of the hotels in Austin has ever had a guest use their 
pool lifts. (See attached Affidavit of Hitesh ``H.P.'' Patel.)
  And we haven't even discussed how in six weeks, approximately 309,000 
pools or spas would have to purchase and install their own individual 
permanent lift. According to the Association of Pool and Spa 
Professionals, while present production capacity by pool lift 
manufacturers is a transient figure, greatly affected by many factors, 
it is reported that the manufacturers can produce between 2,500 and 
5,000 lifts a month at this time. Can you believe that a bureaucrat in 
the Justice Department really thinks that 309,000 facilities can become 
compliant by May 15th, when production can't support that?
  Mr. Chairman there is a little something called common sense that is 
missing here in Washington DC. My amendment will only prohibit the 
Department of Justice from requiring

[[Page H2406]]

a permanent point of entry, not a portable one, and will buy time for 
the Authorizing committee to pass the Pool Safe Act and bring some 
common sense back to this city. Let's send a clear message to the 
Justice Department that this regulation and guidance is not acceptable 
and that if they won't listen to the American people, then the Congress 
will act.


                       Additional Talking Points

  Hotels with fewer than 100 rooms are most negatively impacted by the 
pool lift mandate. The high costs of purchase and installation, along 
with the non-use by guests, makes it economically unrealistic for these 
small business owners. The end result will be that many simply close 
their pools, which is not a benefit to anyone.
  In its comments submitted to the DOJ, the Association of Pool & Spa 
Professionals (APSP) cited reports by P.K. Data Inc. that there are 
approximately 310,000 public pools, 85,000 of which are classified as 
``lodging'' and 30,000 classified as ``clubs.'' It is estimated that 
approximately 33% or 38,000 of these pools are accompanied by a spa, 
for a total estimate of 153,000 pools or spas likely to fall under 
Title III, the majority of which are hotel pools and spas. The other 
public pools such as ``community,'' Parks and Recreation, and Schools 
likely fall under Title II.
  In 2010, the Department of Justice (``D0J'') adopted updated 
standards for accessible design to replace the 1991 standards. These 
updated standards included requirements for hotels to make pools and 
spas accessible for our guests with disabilities. The deadline for 
compliance was March 15, 2012.
  On January 31, 2012--only six (6) weeks before this deadline--the DOJ 
issued a new Guidance Document on the 2010 ADA standards for pools. 
This new Guidance Document contained significant revisions to the 2010 
ADA Standards concerning existing swimming pools. This was done without 
providing advance notice to pool owners. The January 31 changes in the 
ADA requirements included:
  (a) For all existing, altered and newly constructed pools, they must 
install a ``fixed'' pool lift. If installation of a fixed lift is not 
readily achievable, the owner may only then consider alternatives such 
as use of a portable pool lift that complies with the 2010 Standards.
  (b) Pool lifts must be at poolside and fully operational during all 
open pool hours.
  (c) Sharing of accessible equipment between pools is not permitted.
  As a result of these rules, there was confusion in the hotel industry 
and among the pool lift manufacturers.


                AFFIDAVIT OF HITESH (HP) PATEL, CHA, CHO

                                   1

       I am Hitesh (HP) Patel. I am over the age of 21 and suffer 
     no legal disability. I am competent in all respects to 
     testify as to the statements contained herein. My statements 
     set forth below are based upon my personal knowledge, and I 
     authorize the use of this Affidavit for any and all purposes 
     allowed by law.


                                   2

       I am a Board member of the Asian American Hotel Owners 
     Association (AAHOA). I am a resident of the City of Austin, 
     Texas. I own and operate a Holiday Inn Express hotel in 
     Austin, Texas.


                                   3

       Twelve (12) years ago when we constructed the pool at our 
     Holiday Inn Express hotel, the City of Austin had a 
     requirement that all hotels must have a portable lift for 
     their guests with disabilities.


                                   4

       During the 12 years that I have had a portable pool lift at 
     my Holiday Inn Express hotel, we have never had a guest 
     request or use the pool lift.


                                   5

       I am a Board Member of the Austin Hotel Lodging 
     Association. Based on my information and belief, none of the 
     hotels in Austin has ever had a guest use their pool lift.
       I affirm, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of my 
     State, that the foregoing is true and correct.
       Signed Hitesh Patel, 4/24/12.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 207.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     during the current fiscal year and any fiscal year 
     thereafter, section 102(b) of the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102 395) shall extend to 
     the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in 
     the conduct of undercover investigative operations and shall 
     apply with respect to any undercover investigative operation 
     by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 
     that is necessary for the detection and prosecution of crimes 
     against the United States.
       Sec. 208.  None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Justice in this Act may be used for the purpose 
     of transporting an individual who is a prisoner pursuant to 
     conviction for crime under State or Federal law and is 
     classified as a maximum or high security prisoner, other than 
     to a prison or other facility certified by the Federal Bureau 
     of Prisons as appropriately secure for housing such a 
     prisoner.
       Sec. 209. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used by Federal prisons to purchase cable television 
     services, to rent or purchase videocassettes, videocassette 
     recorders, or other audiovisual or electronic equipment used 
     primarily for recreational purposes.
       (b) Subsection (a) does not preclude the rental, 
     maintenance, or purchase of audiovisual or electronic 
     equipment for inmate training, religious, or educational 
     programs.
       Sec. 210.  None of the funds made available under this 
     title shall be obligated or expended for any new or enhanced 
     information technology program having total estimated 
     development costs in excess of $100,000,000, unless the 
     Deputy Attorney General and the investment review board 
     certify to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate that the information 
     technology program has appropriate program management 
     controls and contractor oversight mechanisms in place, and 
     that the program is compatible with the enterprise 
     architecture of the Department of Justice.
       Sec. 211.  The notification thresholds and procedures set 
     forth in section 505 of this Act shall apply to deviations 
     from the amounts designated for specific activities in this 
     Act and accompanying statement, and to any use of deobligated 
     balances of funds provided under this title in previous 
     years.
       Sec. 212.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used to plan for, begin, continue, finish, process, or 
     approve a public-private competition under the Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A 76 or any successor 
     administrative regulation, directive, or policy for work 
     performed by employees of the Bureau of Prisons or of Federal 
     Prison Industries, Incorporated.

                              {time}  2030


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Strike section 212.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my 
amendment to strike section 212 of this bill, H.R. 5326.
  Madam Chair, Congress should be taking steps to encourage the 
creation of more private sector jobs, not growing government. 
Legislative provisions that prohibit, impede, interfere, obstruct, 
encumber, or delay contracting out opportunities, or even require in-
sourcing, require these things to be done, are counterproductive to 
reducing the deficit, limiting the size of government, and creating 
private sector jobs.
  Madam Chair, I was one of the founding members of what has been 
dubbed the Yellow Pages Caucus, a group of people who came to 
Washington and said, hey, if the private sector can go out and do this, 
maybe we need to think about whether the government should be doing it 
and taking those opportunities away from those people who are 
advertising in the Yellow Pages or in the modern equivalent, on those 
Google searches that might be on people's iPads.
  Well, not only do Federal Agencies duplicate oftentimes private 
business, but many engage in unfair government competition with the 
private sector. This amendment would allow A 76 competition within the 
Bureau of Prisons for the performance of commercial activities within 
the organization. By allowing the private sector to compete for these 
services, it forces the Bureau of Prisons to take a hard look at the 
things that it is currently doing and find savings for us hardworking 
taxpayers. It is only common sense that these A 76 provisions force 
government to be more efficient.
  Now, what is an A 76? An A 76 is a circular or a letter that is 
produced by the Office of Management and Budget. And in this it says 
that whenever possible, and to achieve greater efficiency and 
productivity, the Federal Government should conduct competition between 
public Agencies and the private sector to determine who should perform 
the work.
  We are going out and saying, hey, where does it make sense to go do 
this? Who can go and do this cheaper and deliver a better product?
  It requires these executive Agencies to annually prepare lists of 
activities considered both commercial and inherently governmental. All 
we're doing with this amendment is to say that the Bureau of Prisons 
ought to be holding

[[Page H2407]]

to the exact same requirements that all of the other Departments and 
all of the other Bureaus must do in the Federal Government. A 76 forces 
government Agencies to keep up with the lowest bid the private sector 
can offer, and it forces government to cut costs and increase 
efficiencies.
  Now the other interesting thing is that with this section 212, we 
wonder oftentimes what does section 212 do. Section 212 exempts the 
Bureau of Prisons from doing this activity. This makes no sense to me, 
Madam Chair. This makes no sense to me that we would take an 
organization like the Bureau of Prisons and say don't worry about it 
folks, we trust you. We think you're doing this as efficiently as 
possible.
  Well, Madam Chair, I believe in that old idiom that Ronald Reagan 
came up with: trust, but verify. I would like to see the Bureau of 
Prisons do that exact thing. I think they ought to go out and 
demonstrate that they can in fact and should in fact be doing these 
activities that they are.
  It's estimated, and this is from the Office of Management and Budget 
from July 2003, page 2 of a report that they have, ``Competitive 
Sourcing Conducting Public-Private Competition in a Reasonable and 
Responsible Manner,'' is the title of that, they estimate that this act 
of competition alone generates cost savings from 10 40 percent on 
average. So what we are really talking about is we cannot even ask 
about or study how we can save the hardworking taxpayers of America 
these moneys in the Bureau of Prisons. If it is good enough for the 
Department of Defense, if it's good enough for Treasury, if it's good 
enough for all of these other Departments and all these other areas, 
why can't it be an option to save those same dollars in the Bureau of 
Prisons.
  I ask you, Madam Chair, does this make sense to you? It sure doesn't 
to me.
  Well, during this continued period of economic uncertainty and 
unsustainable Federal spending, Americans are looking to Congress for 
commonsense, taxpayer-first solutions to reduce the cost of services 
provided by their Federal Government. This amendment allows our 
Nation's free market system to fairly compete. The role of government 
should be to govern, not to operate businesses inside of the 
government.
  And with that, Madam Chair, I ask for my colleagues to support my 
amendment to section 212.
  And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 213.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     funds shall be available for the salary, benefits, or 
     expenses of any United States Attorney assigned dual or 
     additional responsibilities by the Attorney General or his 
     designee that exempt that United States Attorney from the 
     residency requirements of section 545 of title 28, United 
     States Code.
       Sec. 214.  At the discretion of the Attorney General, and 
     in addition to any amounts that otherwise may be available 
     (or authorized to be made available) by law, with respect to 
     funds appropriated by this title under the headings 
     ``Research, Evaluation, and Statistics'', ``State and Local 
     Law Enforcement Assistance'', and ``Juvenile Justice 
     Programs''--
       (1) up to 3 percent of funds made available to the Office 
     of Justice Programs for grant or reimbursement programs may 
     be used by such Office to provide training and technical 
     assistance; and
       (2) up to 2 percent of funds made available for grant or 
     reimbursement programs under such headings, except for 
     amounts appropriated specifically for research, evaluation, 
     or statistical programs administered by the National 
     Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 
     shall be transferred to and merged with funds provided to the 
     National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice 
     Statistics, to be used by them for research, evaluation or 
     statistical purposes, without regard to the authorizations 
     for such grant or reimbursement programs.
       Sec. 215.  The Attorney General may, upon request by a 
     grantee and based upon a determination of fiscal hardship, 
     waive the requirements of sections 2976(g)(1), 2978(e)(1) and 
     (2), and 2904 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797w(g)(1), 3797w-
     2(e)(1) and (2), 3797q-3) and section 6(c)(3) of the Prison 
     Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (42 U.S.C. 15605(c)(3)) with 
     respect to funds appropriated in this or any other Act making 
     appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2013 for Adult 
     and Juvenile Offender State and Local Reentry Demonstration 
     Projects and for State, Tribal, and Local Reentry Courts 
     authorized under part FF of title I of such Act of 1968, and 
     for the Prosecution Drug Treatment Alternatives to Prison 
     Program authorized under part CC of such Act of 1968, and 
     Grants to Protect Inmates and Safeguard Communities under 
     such Act of 2003.
       Sec. 216.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     section 20109(a) of subtitle A of title II of the Violent 
     Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 
     13709(a)) shall not apply to amounts made available by this 
     or any other Act.
       Sec. 217.  None of the funds made available under this Act, 
     other than for the national instant criminal background check 
     system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun 
     Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note), may be used by 
     a Federal law enforcement officer to facilitate the transfer 
     of an operable firearm to an individual if the Federal law 
     enforcement officer knows or suspects that the individual is 
     an agent of a drug cartel unless law enforcement personnel of 
     the United States continuously monitor or control the firearm 
     at all times.
       Sec. 218.  None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Justice in this Act may be used for the purpose 
     of implementing the requirement for public entities, places 
     of public accommodation, and commercial facilities to provide 
     a permanent means of accessible entry to pools and spas under 
     the revised regulations for titles II and III of the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (28 CFR 35.101 et 
     seq.; 36.101 et seq.).
       Sec. 219.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to require a person licensed under section 923 of 
     title 18, United States Code, to report information to the 
     Department of Justice regarding the sale of multiple rifles 
     or shotguns to the same person.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice 
     Appropriations Act, 2013''.

                               TITLE III

                                SCIENCE

                Office of Science and Technology Policy

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the 
     National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and 
     Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.), hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by 
     section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, not to exceed 
     $2,250 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     and rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia, 
     $5,850,000.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration

                                science

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of science research and development 
     activities, including research, development, operations, 
     support, and services; maintenance and repair, facility 
     planning and design; space flight, spacecraft control, and 
     communications activities; program management; personnel and 
     related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as 
     authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United 
     States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, 
     and operation of mission and administrative aircraft, 
     $5,095,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014, 
     of which up to $14,500,000 shall be available for a 
     reimbursable agreement with the Department of Energy for the 
     purpose of re-establishing facilities to produce fuel 
     required for radioisotope thermoelectric generators to enable 
     future missions: Provided, That not less than $150,000,000 
     shall be for Mars Next Decade: Provided further, That no 
     funds shall be obligated for Mars Next Decade unless and 
     until the National Research Council has certified to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that the chosen mission concept 
     will lead to the accomplishment of Mars sample return as 
     described in the most recent planetary science decadal 
     survey: Provided further, That, in the event that the 
     National Research Council determines that the Mars Next 
     Decade mission concept will not lead to the accomplishment of 
     Mars sample return, all funding provided for Mars Next Decade 
     shall be reallocated to the development of a Jupiter Europa 
     orbiter, consistent with the priorities established in the 
     aforementioned decadal survey: Provided further, That the 
     formulation and development costs (with development cost as 
     defined under section 30104 of title 51, United States Code) 
     for the James Webb Space Telescope shall not exceed 
     $8,000,000,000: Provided further, That should the individual 
     identified under subsection (c)(2)(E) of section 30104 of 
     title 51, United States Code, as responsible for the James 
     Webb Space Telescope determine that the development cost of 
     the program is likely to exceed that limitation, the 
     individual shall immediately notify the Administrator and the 
     increase shall be treated as if it meets the 30 percent 
     threshold described in subsection (f) of section 30104.

[[Page H2408]]

                              aeronautics

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of aeronautics research and development 
     activities, including research, development, operations, 
     support, and services; maintenance and repair, facility 
     planning and design; space flight, spacecraft control, and 
     communications activities; program management; personnel and 
     related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as 
     authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United 
     States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, 
     and operation of mission and administrative aircraft, 
     $569,900,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014.

                            space technology

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of space research and technology 
     development activities, including research, development, 
     operations, support, and services; maintenance and repair, 
     facility planning and design; space flight, spacecraft 
     control, and communications activities; program management; 
     personnel and related costs, including uniforms or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, 
     United States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, 
     maintenance, and operation of mission and administrative 
     aircraft, $632,500,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2014.

                              exploration

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of exploration research and development 
     activities, including research, development, operations, 
     support, and services; maintenance and repair, facility 
     planning and design; space flight, spacecraft control, and 
     communications activities; program management; personnel and 
     related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as 
     authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United 
     States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, 
     and operation of mission and administrative aircraft, 
     $3,711,900,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014: 
     Provided, That not less than $1,024,900,000 shall be for the 
     Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle: Provided further, That not 
     less than $1,857,000,000 shall be for the Space Launch 
     System, which shall have a lift capability not less than 130 
     metric tons and which shall have an upper stage and other 
     core elements developed simultaneously: Provided further, 
     That of the funds made available for the Space Launch System, 
     $1,454,200,000 shall be for launch vehicle development and 
     $402,800,000 shall be for exploration ground systems: 
     Provided further, That funds made available for the Orion 
     Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and Space Launch System are in 
     addition to funds provided for these programs under the 
     ``Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration'' 
     heading.

                            space operations

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of space operations research and 
     development activities, including research, development, 
     operations, support and services; space flight, spacecraft 
     control and communications activities, including operations, 
     production, and services; maintenance and repair, facility 
     planning and design; program management; personnel and 
     related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as 
     authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United 
     States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and 
     operation of mission and administrative aircraft, 
     $3,985,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2014.

                               education

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in 
     carrying out aerospace and aeronautical education research 
     and development activities, including research, development, 
     operations, support, and services; program management; 
     personnel and related costs, including uniforms or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, 
     United States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, 
     maintenance, and operation of mission and administrative 
     aircraft, $100,000,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2014, of which $9,000,000 shall be for the Experimental 
     Program to Stimulate Competitive Research and $24,000,000 
     shall be for the National Space Grant College program.

                          cross agency support

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of science, aeronautics, exploration, 
     space operations and education research and development 
     activities, including research, development, operations, 
     support, and services; maintenance and repair, facility 
     planning and design; space flight, spacecraft control, and 
     communications activities; program management; personnel and 
     related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as 
     authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United 
     States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; not to exceed $63,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses; and purchase, lease, charter, 
     maintenance, and operation of mission and administrative 
     aircraft, $2,843,500,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2014.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 65, line 1, insert ``(reduced by $26,000,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.
       Page 73, line 17, insert ``(increased by $7,143,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Chair, our country is emerging from the 
worst recession in generations. Million of Americans, our neighbors, 
friends and constituents, are still out of work. Millions of those we 
represent have been out of work for more than 99 weeks. It's difficult 
for anyone who has not experienced long-term unemployment to fully 
understand the economic and emotional hardship caused by long-term 
unemployment.
  We all agree that we must help these Americans who are too often 
unemployed due to no fault of their own. That's why I have serious 
concerns regarding the recent news reports about blatant discrimination 
against the unemployed. According to news reports, employers are 
posting job advertisements stating ``must be currently employed'' or 
``no unemployed candidates will be considered at all.''

                              {time}  2040

  This, Madam Speaker, is unacceptable. A policy where employers 
discriminate against the unemployed is unfair, unreasonable, and 
callously ignores the effects of the recession on millions of highly 
qualified workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own. 
Such a policy also disproportionately hurts minorities, as we suffer 
from higher unemployment rates.
  If this trend of employers discriminating against the unemployed 
continues, it will only prolong the suffering of people victimized by 
the unemployment crisis. Discriminating against the unemployed will not 
help America on its path to economic recovery.
  My amendment is simple. It will increase funding for the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission to the President's budget request 
level so the commission can adequately investigate discrimination 
against the unemployed and other victims of discriminatory hiring 
practices. My amendment is supported by the National Employment Law 
Project, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American 
Federation of Government Employees, the Asian American Justice Center, 
the American Association of University Women, the National Employment 
Lawyers Association, and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
  This amendment is just common sense, and I ask all of my colleagues 
to support this amendment. With these funds, the commission will be 
able to more effectively fight discriminatory hiring practices.
  We can and will debate the value of different job-creation proposals, 
but ending discrimination against the unemployed is beyond debate. 
Being unemployed is a status that should not disqualify anyone from a 
job.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to provide a needed 
boost to millions of Americans, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment. The bill already 
includes a $7 million increase for the EEOC, which will allow the 
agency to continue making progress in addressing its backlog with 
discrimination complaints. And in a context of a reduced total 
allocation in which many agencies and accounts in this bill have been 
level funded or even cut, that $7 million increase is a substantial 
show of support.
  Lastly--and I'm not going to go into detail--this again cuts NASA by 
$26 million. NASA has gradually been cut down and down, in addition to 
where it takes it from.
  I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H2409]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I rise in support of the amendment being offered by my 
colleague from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  I rise in support of this amendment to restore funding for the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission to the President's budget request 
level.
  We all know that while we have had 26 straight months of private 
sector growth, we are still facing a very tough economy right now. The 
unemployment rate is still unacceptably high at over 8 percent, and 
more than 5 million Americans have been out of work for more than 6 
months. But now the deck is stacked even further against them. 
Companies across the country have begun to require current employment 
to be considered for available positions, and these discriminatory 
practices are eliminating employment opportunities.
  Very simply stated, what has happened here is if you are unemployed, 
what you are being told is you need not apply for a job. It is really 
incredulous to think about, in this economy today, people looking for a 
job want to work, and they are being told that, since you don't have a 
job, we're not going to give you an opportunity to apply for a job. No 
one is saying give the person the job, but at least level the playing 
field and let someone apply for the job because they are unemployed and 
if they are unemployed.
  A National Unemployment Law Project survey of four of the top search 
Web sites--Careerbuilder.com, Indeed.com, Monster.com, and 
Craigslist.com--found over 150 job advertisements that specified 
applicants must be currently employed, and that no one who is 
unemployed will be considered. My God, when did we deny opportunity for 
people to make their way in the United States of America? It is unjust. 
It's unfair for employers to discriminate against those looking for 
work like this. And that's why we need to really fully fund an Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission.
  All Americans, regardless of their employment status, should have the 
same opportunities for employment. That is why we need to make sure 
that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has the necessary 
funding to investigate and to fight discrimination against the 
unemployed.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in standing up for the millions of 
qualified Americans who want to work again, but who are being denied 
that opportunity, being denied the opportunity to find a good job and 
the chance to find that good job.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       construction and environmental compliance and restoration

       For necessary expenses for construction of facilities 
     including repair, rehabilitation, revitalization, and 
     modification of facilities, construction of new facilities 
     and additions to existing facilities, facility planning and 
     design, and restoration, and acquisition or condemnation of 
     real property, as authorized by law, and environmental 
     compliance and restoration, $598,000,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2018: Provided, That hereafter, 
     notwithstanding section 315 of the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Act of 1958 (51 U.S.C. 20145), all proceeds from leases 
     entered into under that section shall be deposited into this 
     account: Provided further, That such proceeds shall be 
     available for a period of 5 years and in amounts as provided 
     in annual appropriations Acts: Provided further, That such 
     proceeds referred to in the two preceding provisos shall be 
     available for obligation for fiscal year 2013 in an amount 
     not to exceed $3,791,000: Provided further, That each annual 
     budget request shall include an annual estimate of gross 
     receipts and collections and proposed use of all funds 
     collected pursuant to section 315 of the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Act of 1958 (51 U.S.C. 20145).

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, 
     $38,000,000, of which $500,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2014.

                       administrative provisions

       Funds for announced prizes otherwise authorized shall 
     remain available, without fiscal year limitation, until the 
     prize is claimed or the offer is withdrawn.
       Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available 
     for the current fiscal year for the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration in this Act may be transferred between 
     such appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent (or, in the case of ``Construction and 
     Environmental Compliance and Restoration'', 15 percent) by 
     any such transfers. Balances so transferred shall be merged 
     with and available for the same purposes and the same time 
     period as the appropriations to which transferred. Any 
     transfer pursuant to this provision shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Section 1105 of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration Authorization Act of 2010 (42 U.S.C. 18431) is 
     amended by striking ``The Administrator may not'' and all 
     that follows through ``inefficiency.''.
       The National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall 
     submit a spending plan, signed by the Administrator, to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate within 45 days after the enactment of this 
     Act. This spending plan shall be provided at the theme, 
     program, project and activity level. The spending plan, as 
     well as any subsequent change of an amount established in 
     that spending plan that meets the notification requirements 
     of section 505 of this Act, shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming under section 505 of this Act and shall not be 
     available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Section 30102(c) of title 51, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (3) by striking the period at the end 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) refunds or rebates received on an on-going basis from 
     a credit card services provider under the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration's credit card 
     programs.''.

                      National Science Foundation

                    research and related activities

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.), and Public 
     Law 86 209 (42 U.S.C. 1880 et seq.); services as authorized 
     by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; maintenance 
     and operation of aircraft and purchase of flight services for 
     research support; acquisition of aircraft; and authorized 
     travel; $5,942,693,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2014, of which not to exceed $500,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for polar research and operations 
     support, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies for 
     operational and science support and logistical and other 
     related activities for the United States Antarctic program: 
     Provided, That receipts for scientific support services and 
     materials furnished by the National Research Centers and 
     other National Science Foundation supported research 
     facilities may be credited to this appropriation.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 68, line 14, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,089,453,000)''.
       Page 69, line 8, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $29,320,000)''.
       Page 69, line 19, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $109,350,000)''.
       Page 70, line 6, after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $17,360,000)''.
       Page 70, line 20, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $620,000)''.
       Page 71, line 1, after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,370,000)''.
       Page 101, line 10, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $1,248,473,000)''.

  Mr. FLAKE (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent to dispose of 
the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chair, this amendment would return National Science 
Foundation funding to its pre-stimulus level, and it would save the 
taxpayers about $1.2 billion.
  Just before voting against the stimulus bill a while ago, I stood in 
this same Chamber and stated what I thought was pretty obvious at that 
time: that the only thing that this stimulus bill would stimulate is 
more spending later, and I think we have found that to be the case.

[[Page H2410]]

                              {time}  2050

  Leave it to the NSF, an agency that doles out billions of dollars 
testing theories, to prove me right on this.
  In the 4 years leading up to the stimulus bill, funding for the NSF 
averaged more than $5.7 billion. That's not exactly a drop in the 
bucket, even by Washington standards. By comparison, in the 4 years 
since the stimulus bill passed, NSF average spending has climbed 31 
percent to a staggering $7.6 billion.
  For whatever reason, rather than draw down from this inflated level, 
Congress appears content to maintain it. The bill before us today funds 
the NSF at $7.3 billion for fiscal year 2013. That's $300 million more 
than last year.
  While I acknowledge that the NSF does some noble work, it also has 
drawn its fair share of criticism. Notably, there was a recent 
investigation by our colleague in the Senate, Senator Tom Coburn. He 
identified $3 billion in mismanagement by the agency. The report 
uncovered a lot of highly questionable research projects that would be 
laughable if the taxpayers weren't paying the tab. Just a few of them 
here:
  $755,000 to find out how rumors start. Again, $755,000 to find out 
how rumors start;
  $315,000 to answer if playing FarmVille on Facebook helps people make 
friends;
  And then there's the infamous $559,000 for a project to have shrimp 
run on a treadmill.
  To me, that hardly sounds like justification to give the NSF more 
money. Rather, Congress ought to make the necessary commonsense cuts to 
programs like the NSF that have been far too long bloated from the 
stimulus legislation.
  This amendment would employ a reasonable approach to do that. It 
would simply reduce NSF funding to the highest pre-stimulus level of $6 
billion. This would save the taxpayers, again, more than $1 billion.
  I think we have to remember that this discretionary budget that we 
are dealing with this year, we'll do 12 appropriation bills for 
somewhere just over $1 trillion. Our deficit is more than that, meaning 
that everything we consider in our process this year, the 
appropriations process, is money we are borrowing from our kids and our 
grandkids. When that is the case, I think that we need to be a little 
more prudent about the programs that we increase funding for. I don't 
think there's a justification to increase funding for the National 
Science Foundation this year.
  And when you look back to 2008, which is where this would bring us 
back to if this amendment passes, as I said before, that wasn't the 
year where ``Grapes of Wrath'' music was exactly playing in the 
background. That was a year that we spent a lot of money. But we're 
spending more now, even given the current deficit that we're running 
and the current debt that we've piled up.
  So I would urge support for the passage of this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Even though I agree with my colleague from Arizona about 
some of the issues related to trade embargoes with neighboring 
countries, in this matter I absolutely oppose him.
  Now, he says that the National Science Foundation, we should cut it; 
we should cut it to some mathematical certainty to the 2008 number. Let 
me just take a minute because I don't want the House to act without 
information.
  This is the premiere science research agency in the world. It is not 
the only one. We are not shadowboxing with ourselves. We have a country 
of 309 million people. Singapore, which is a country of 4.8, less than 
5 million people, probably less people than in the Phoenix area alone, 
invests some $7 billion in their National Science Foundation. They're 
stealing talent from us today, hired away some of our top cancer 
researchers and other scientists, right? We have China, a much larger 
country. It's built over the last 5 years 100 science-only 
universities.
  The nation that leads in innovation and science will lead the world 
economically and militarily. The notion that we can unilaterally 
retreat in terms of investments and the development of future 
generation of scientists--now, the gentleman and I agreed in committee 
that when we have nonnative-born students here who are foreigners but 
who are in school here who get terminal degrees, we should invite them 
to stay. If we follow through with his cuts at the National Science 
Foundation, what we're saying to American-born students is, if you're 
pursuing terminal degrees in the hard sciences, that somehow we're 
going to cut the legs from up under you.
  I think this works at cross purposes. The idea that we would retreat 
in any respect, in terms of scientific research, should be rejected by 
this House if what we're trying to do is to ensure America's global 
leadership.
  Now, if this is a math exercise, we should just zero out the National 
Science Foundation. If we're just trying to save money, then let's zero 
it out. If we're trying to lead the world, as we have, in science, then 
we have to make these investments. We should even do more.
  I thank the chairman for where he set the bar, and I hope that the 
House, on a bipartisan basis, rejects this notion that we should cede 
to our economic competitors scientific superiority for our children and 
grandchildren and their generations that will follow.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake). He's a good 
Member and very consistent in trying to cut, but I rise in opposition 
to this amendment, which would reduce NSF funding by $1.2 billion from 
the levels provided in the bill.
  This amendment challenges broad, long-standing, bipartisan agreement 
on the needs to prioritize Federal investments in basic research, math 
and science and physics and chemistry and biology in order that America 
can be number one. This agreement is based on a strong and unambiguous 
link between investments in research and development and growth and 
employment and productivity and GDP. This link has been documented 
repeatedly by expert researchers, economists, and analysts working in 
administrations and congressional majorities in both parties, as well 
as private and nonprofit entities.
  The link is also well-known and understood internationally, where 
major foreign competitors, including the European Union, China, and 
South Korea are investing strongly, are investing much higher, at a 
much higher level than we are, at a much higher level than we are in 
research, in the hopes of producing or attracting high-value economic 
activity. We have already lost a good deal of competitive advantage 
that we previously held over those countries, and if we fail to keep 
pace with them in research and development, our situation will only 
worsen.
  Unfortunately, this amendment would contribute to precisely that 
scenario by not only eliminating any potential growth in NSF basic 
research next year, but actually reducing basic research expenditures 
by nearly $1 billion.
  As a father of five kids, my wife and I, we have 16 grandkids. I want 
the 21st century to be the American century and not the Chinese 
century.
  I urge strongly, I urge a ``no'' vote for this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

          major research equipment and facilities construction

       For necessary expenses for the acquisition, construction, 
     commissioning, and upgrading

[[Page H2411]]

     of major research equipment, facilities, and other such 
     capital assets pursuant to the National Science Foundation 
     Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.), including authorized 
     travel, $196,170,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the funds may be used to reimburse the 
     Judgment Fund established under section 1304 of title 31, 
     United States Code.

                     education and human resources

       For necessary expenses in carrying out science, mathematics 
     and engineering education and human resources programs and 
     activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 
     1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861 et seq.), including services as 
     authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     authorized travel, and rental of conference rooms in the 
     District of Columbia, $875,610,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2014.

                 agency operations and award management

       For agency operations and award management necessary in 
     carrying out the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 
     U.S.C. 1861 et seq.); services authorized by section 3109 of 
     title 5, United States Code; hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 
     sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United States Code; rental 
     of conference rooms in the District of Columbia; and 
     reimbursement of the Department of Homeland Security for 
     security guard services; $299,400,000: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $8,280 is for official reception and representation 
     expenses: Provided further, That contracts may be entered 
     into under this heading in fiscal year 2013 for maintenance 
     and operation of facilities and for other services to be 
     provided during the next fiscal year.

                  office of the national science board

       For necessary expenses (including payment of salaries, 
     authorized travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, the 
     rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia, and 
     the employment of experts and consultants under section 3109 
     of title 5, United States Code) involved in carrying out 
     section 4 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 
     U.S.C. 1863) and Public Law 86 209 (42 U.S.C. 1880 et seq.), 
     $4,440,000: Provided, That not to exceed $2,500 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, 
     $14,200,000, of which $400,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2014.

                        administrative provision

       Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available 
     for the current fiscal year for the National Science 
     Foundation in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than 15 percent by any such transfers. Any transfer 
     pursuant to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming 
     of funds under section 505 of this Act and shall not be 
     available for obligation except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.

                                TITLE IV

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                       Commission on Civil Rights

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights, 
     including hire of passenger motor vehicles, $9,193,000: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph shall be used to employ in excess of four full-time 
     individuals under Schedule C of the Excepted Service 
     exclusive of one special assistant for each Commissioner: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph shall be used to reimburse Commissioners for more 
     than 75 billable days, with the exception of the chairperson, 
     who is permitted 125 billable days: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be 
     used for any activity or expense that is not explicitly 
     authorized by section 3 of the Civil Rights Commission Act of 
     1983 (42 U.S.C. 1975a): Provided further, That there shall be 
     an Inspector General at the Commission on Civil Rights who 
     shall have the duties, responsibilities, and authorities 
     specified in the Inspector General Act of 1978: Provided 
     further, That an individual appointed to the position of 
     Inspector General of the Government Accountability Office 
     (GAO) shall, by virtue of such appointment, also hold the 
     position of Inspector General of the Commission on Civil 
     Rights: Provided further, That the Inspector General of the 
     Commission on Civil Rights shall utilize personnel of the 
     Office of Inspector General of GAO in performing the duties 
     of the Inspector General of the Commission on Civil Rights, 
     and shall not appoint any individuals to positions within the 
     Commission on Civil Rights: Provided further, That of the 
     amounts made available in this paragraph, $250,000 shall be 
     transferred directly to the Office of Inspector General of 
     GAO upon enactment of this Act for salaries and expenses 
     necessary to carry out the duties of the Inspector General of 
     the Commission on Civil Rights.

                Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission as authorized by title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 
     the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Americans with Disabilities 
     Act of 1990, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Genetic 
     Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 (Public Law 
     110 233), the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110 
     325), and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Public 
     Law 111 2), including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 
     U.S.C. 1343(b); nonmonetary awards to private citizens; and 
     up to $29,500,000 for payments to State and local enforcement 
     agencies for authorized services to the Commission, 
     $366,568,000: Provided, That the Commission is authorized to 
     make available for official reception and representation 
     expenses not to exceed $2,250 from available funds: Provided 
     further, That the Chair is authorized to accept and use any 
     gift or donation to carry out the work of the Commission.

                     International Trade Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the International Trade 
     Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, and 
     services as authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United 
     States Code, and not to exceed $2,250 for official reception 
     and representation expenses, $83,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                       Legal Services Corporation

               payment to the legal services corporation

       For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out 
     the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, 
     $328,000,000, of which $302,400,000 is for basic field 
     programs and required independent audits; $4,200,000 is for 
     the Office of Inspector General, of which such amounts as may 
     be necessary may be used to conduct additional audits of 
     recipients; $17,000,000 is for management and grants 
     oversight; $3,400,000 is for client self-help and information 
     technology; and $1,000,000 is for loan repayment assistance: 
     Provided, That the Legal Services Corporation may continue to 
     provide locality pay to officers and employees at a rate no 
     greater than that provided by the Federal Government to 
     Washington, DC-based employees as authorized by section 5304 
     of title 5, United States Code, notwithstanding section 
     1005(d) of the Legal Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 
     2996(d)): Provided further, That the authorities provided in 
     section 205 of this Act shall be applicable to the Legal 
     Services Corporation: Provided further, That, for the 
     purposes of sections 505, 533 and 535 of this Act, the Legal 
     Services Corporation shall be considered an agency of the 
     United States Government.

                              {time}  2100


              Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Westmoreland

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 74, line 13, insert ``(reduced by $128,000,000)'' 
     after the first dollar amount.
       Page 74, line 13, insert ``(reduced by $128,000,000)'' 
     after the second dollar amount.
       Page 101, line 10, insert ``(increased by $128,000,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is to reduce funding by 
$128 million for the Legal Services Corporation in the fiscal year 2013 
CJS appropriations bill, bringing this funding down to only $200 
million for FY13. The $128 million would then be moved to the spending 
reduction account for deficit reduction.
  The main focus of the Legal Services Corporation, at least in the 
eyes of every farmer, rancher, poultry producer I have met, is to 
harass those in the agriculture business.
  Some examples of this unwarranted harassment include filing surprise 
lawsuits against farmers for problems found related to housing and 
transportation, payment issues related to work visas and visa 
applications, border-crossing fees, et cetera, all without allowing the 
farmers and the migrant workers to attempt arbitration. Some of those 
are of Legal Services Corporation's representatives actively soliciting 
clients by knowingly trespassing on farm property or by waiting for 
migrant workers outside of Wal-Mart stores and other places and 
informing such workers that, if they sue their employers for even the 
most minor of issues, they will receive monetary settlements.
  These lawsuits cost our farmers hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
legal fees each year and, in some cases, cause their financial ruin. In 
2008, in one specific case in Georgia, that of a farmer who did not 
want to mention his name for fear of retribution, his costs alone in 
legal fees were $525,000.

[[Page H2412]]

  Furthermore, Federal LSC funding is redundant. According to a 2008 
report--and I only use the 2008 report because there has not been a 
comprehensive report since 2008--for the Center for Justice, Law and 
Society at George Mason University, the total State, county and local 
expenditures for indigent defense services that same year were almost 
$4.5 billion. Federal defender organizations, which also use Federal 
funds for indigent defense services, received $849 million in Federal 
funds for the same purpose that year. Combined with the almost $351 
million in funds that Congress appropriated to the Legal Services 
Corporation in 2008, the total amount dedicated to indigent defense 
services that year was almost $5.7 billion.
  The American taxpayers do not want their money wasted on an 
organization like this. The agriculture community cannot afford to keep 
fighting the frivolous lawsuits that the Legal Services Corporation has 
filed, and we cannot afford to keep funding them in the current 
budgetary climate. Local legal services programs supplement the Legal 
Services Corporation's grants with funds from a variety of government 
and private sources.
  This is not the only source of funding. Non-LSC funding sources 
include State and local grants; some interest on lawyers' trust account 
programs; Federal programs, such as title XX; the Social Services Block 
Grant; the Older Americans Act; the Violence Against Women Act; the 
Community Development Block Grants; and private grants from entities 
such as the United Way, foundations, and national, State and local bar 
associations. In addition, private attorneys accept referrals to 
provide legal services to the poor primarily through the Legal Services 
Corporation's funding of pro bono programs.
  The LSC does not provide legal services directly. Rather, it funds 
local legal services providers referred to by the LSC as grantees. 
Grantees may include nonprofit organizations that have as a purpose the 
provision of legal assistance to eligible clients, private attorneys, 
groups of private attorneys or law firms, State or local governments, 
and certain sub-State regional planning and coordination agencies.
  In its FY 1996 budget resolution, the House assumed a 3-year phase-
out of the Legal Services Corporation, recommending the appropriation 
of $278 million. Here is what the budget report said:

       Too often, lawyers funded through Federal Legal Services 
     Corporation grants have focused on political causes and class 
     action lawsuits rather than helping poor Americans solve 
     their legal problems. A phase-out of Federal funding for the 
     LSC will not eliminate free legal aid to the poor. State and 
     local governments, bar associations and other organizations 
     already provide substantial legal aid to the poor.

  With that, I think this is a good reduction in order to start to 
eliminate the funding, and I hope that we can pass this amendment and 
then, further, the reduction.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The bill that we are considering tonight provides $328 million for 
legal services, which is a reduction to the fiscal year 2006 level. It 
is almost $100 million below the FY 2010 level, and we are $74 million 
below the request by the administration. LSC helps many people. Last 
year, 2.3 million people were provided assistance in more than 300,000 
family law cases, 105,000 domestic violence cases, thousands of 
veterans benefit cases, 25,000 unemployment cases, and 20,000 
foreclosure cases.
  Those cuts would result in 400,000 fewer people being served 
nationwide and in 160,000 fewer cases closed. This includes returning 
veterans who are seeking benefits, and it includes elderly victims of 
foreclosure. The elderly have been taken advantage of in so many cases. 
It also includes women who are seeking safety for themselves and for 
their children from domestic violence.
  I understand that there are some concerns about LSC-funded programs. 
Our committee has carried numerous restrictions on political activity 
by the LSC grantees, to include: lobbying, abortion litigation, class 
action lawsuits. These restrictions cover both LSC funds, as well as 
private funds.
  The administration proposes to eliminate several of these 
restrictions, but the House bill does not. The committee conducted 
vigorous oversight over the LSC in March. We heard testimony from a 
sheep herder who has concerns about the LSC grantee's violating 
restrictions. We have included language directing LSC to rigorously 
enforce the restrictions on political activity. Wherever there is any 
political activity, we are going to shut it down. We are facing an 
extremely difficult time, and I think many poor people would be hurt. 
As a result of that, I would ask for a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I rise to join the chairman in opposing this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, under our Constitution is the idea that, in a land of 
laws, we will not deny people an opportunity to have representation as 
they seek redress. We have thousands of veterans who have returned home 
after service who have faced foreclosures and have gone to the Legal 
Services Corporation to seek redress to hold onto their homes. We've 
had women who have been faced with abuse and who are in need of 
restraining orders and other types of assistance who use Legal 
Services. In fact, three out of four of the clients for Legal Services 
are women who are seeking an opportunity through a court of law to gain 
their rights.
  To deny them this opportunity in a situation where we are already 
underfunding Legal Services--and to cut it, to zero it out in terms of 
Federal support--makes no real sense except if you think poor people 
have too much access to quality legal representation or, as some would 
suggest, that they need fewer food stamps or less job training or 
affordable housing. There seems to be some kind of notion here that 
poor people have it going too well for them in our country and that 
what they need is some kind of opportunity to pursue liberty without 
any kind of assistance or a hand up.

                              {time}  2110

  I'm opposed to this amendment. Legal services is one of the proudest 
accomplishments of a Republican administration, but we come to a day 
where for some reason there seems to be some partisan approach to this 
matter. In truth, I think all of us should hope that people throughout 
the country could have access to lawyers when they are in need of them, 
because our system requires legal representation in a court of law. And 
not for Democrats and Republicans, but for Americans seeking to have 
their case heard.
  I hope that we reject this amendment. And I think the House will 
reject it because even in a Republican majority House, I think there's 
an understanding that in our Constitution that not having access to the 
courts really in some ways strips away people's opportunity to truly be 
an American and for America to live up to its ideals.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo the comments made by 
the ranking member, Mr. Fattah.
  I remember the days I worked very closely with Chairman Wolf, and at 
that time also with the Subcommittee Chairman Rogers, as their ranking 
member, and it was always understood that the Legal Services 
Corporation was a bipartisan effort. In other words, we understood the 
need for it. And as the chairman has said, we understood the need to 
protect this program.
  There were always discussions as to how much money we should allocate 
it, but there was never a desire to get rid of it. There was even 
discussion tonight not only of what a waste of money this program is, 
but also perhaps doing away with it totally. This really strikes at 
something much deeper than just this particular amendment. And it is, 
as Mr. Fattah has

[[Page H2413]]

said, Where are we going when we believe that services as essential as 
legal services should not be made available to people who cannot afford 
any other access?
  We keep mentioning--and maybe people think that some of us are trying 
to be funny--that Richard Nixon understood then the need for this 
program to exist, and President Nixon understood the need for it to 
grow to a point where it could be that access point for people.
  So I just hope that both Mr. Fattah and I are correct, that this will 
not get the support that some people think it will get; that, in fact, 
this amendment will be defeated. And one of the best messages we could 
send tonight, as we deliberate, is that in the desire to cut the 
budget, that we cannot just throw away every gain we've made over this 
last generation. This is one of the most important programs we have, 
and we should maintain it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield to my dear friend and colleague from 
Georgia, and I appreciate what he is doing with this amendment.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for 
yielding.
  I want to again emphasize that, according to a 2008 report by the 
Center for Justice, Law, and Society at George Mason University, the 
total State, county, and local expenditures for indigent defense 
services that same year was almost $4.5 billion. Federal defender 
organizations, which also used Federal funds for indigent defense 
services, received an additional $849 million in Federal funds for the 
same purpose that year. Combined with the almost $351 million in funds 
that the Congress appropriated that year, it brings the total to $5.7 
billion. Of that $5.7 billion total, only 6.1 percent was appropriated 
by Congress, assuming total non-Legal Services Corporation funding for 
indigent defense services has not increased since then.
  My amendment to reduce the agency by $128 million down to $200 
million would result in a 2.5 percent decrease in overall indigent 
defense service funding. Reducing the Legal Services Corporation 
funding to $200 million, as my amendment would do, would reduce overall 
CJS funding by 0.0039 percent. Mr. Chairman, if we can't cut 0.0039 
percent, then we're going to have a lot bigger problems on our hands at 
the end of the day.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate 
my colleague's amendment on this. It makes sense. It is a very 
miniscule cut, and Congress needs to face the fact that America is 
broke. We don't have the money to keep spending. Both parties are 
guilty of spending money that we don't have, spending money that 
eventually is going to have to be paid for by our grandchildren's 
children. We just have to stop the spending addiction that we have here 
in Washington.
  I'm an addictionologist, a medical doctor, and I've done addiction 
medicine. Addiction medicine has a saying that ``if there is no denial, 
there is no addiction.'' There is denial here in this Congress. There 
is denial that we have a fiscal crisis as a Nation. This is just a 
miniscule cut, not much at all.
  I support the gentleman's amendment. I hope my colleagues will 
support it and we can pass this minimal cut in this program.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, first of all, there is a 
difference in indigent legal representation in criminal cases and civil 
cases. The criminal defense, it's required by the Constitution that you 
have to provide that, and whatever it costs, the defendant is entitled 
to representation. In civil court, you don't have that technical 
requirement. But some of the cases where people need but cannot afford 
attorneys deal with some of the most important parts of our life: 
housing, family law, divorce, child custody, consumer rip-offs, health 
care, things where you actually need representation that legal aid 
provides.
  Legal aid programs cannot meet the needs of their demands right now. 
Most legal aid programs, as the gentleman from Virginia said, turn down 
a lot more than they can take. And because of the recession, the demand 
is much higher than it has been in the past.
  When you talk about rights, rights without remedies are no rights at 
all. When rights in our democracy depend on the generosity of a few pro 
bono attorneys, we're actually violating our democratic values.
  As my colleague again mentioned, traditional Federal funding is down 
and another traditional funding for legal aid services--Interest on 
Lawyers Trust Account--is also way down because interest rates are at 
historic lows.
  Mr. Chairman, we should support our democratic principles and support 
legal aid services and oppose this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, I was off campus, and I got a notice from my 
staff that this amendment was here.
  I kind of knew it was coming, but I find it shocking. In these 
economic times, there is more of a need for legal services than there 
has ever been a need for legal services. There are more people that 
have been economically hurt because of this economy who haven't been 
able to get jobs because we haven't passed a transportation bill to put 
people to work, we haven't passed jobs bills to put people to work. 
When people are out of work and they're economically deprived, they are 
more likely to have domestic violence in their homes. It's a direct 
cause and a direct relationship. They're more likely to be behind in 
their payments on their house and have problems with their mortgage 
where they need legal services because they're facing foreclosure. More 
people are in need of help than ever before, and yet we're taking legal 
services away from poor people who are the Purple Hearts, the victims 
of this recession/depression, whichever we're having. This is just hard 
to fathom. It's unfair, it's unwise, and it violates every Judeo-
Christian principle that I can conjure up and imagine.

                              {time}  2120

  What you do unto the least of these, you do unto me. And when you 
take people who are being foreclosed upon, victims of domestic 
violence, or whatever other purpose and taking away the opportunity to 
get legal representation, that is un-American.
  Now you have a right to legal representation in a criminal case 
because of the Constitution. In a civil case, it's really up to this 
Congress to provide funds for Legal Services Corporation to give people 
that opportunity. And while there is no constitutional amendment, we've 
got the words of Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who said, There can 
be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the 
amount of money he has, or the type of representation.
  And if you can't get representation, you are not going to have any 
chance to win in court. And justice should be blind. People should have 
an opportunity to go to court, particularly for economic distress. And 
we're seeing more and more of that.
  So slashing funds to Legal Services is the wrong thing to do. It 
hurts the most vulnerable. It hurts the poorest.
  There was a group that met out here in Statuary Hall, Come Pray With 
Me. And Come Pray With Me was saying that we need to have the values 
that religion has, and they should be a part of this Congress. Well, 
there should be a separation of church and State, no question about it. 
But there should be values that are in the Judeo-Christian heritage, 
which goes to the Muslim heritage, which is that we care about those 
who are at the bottom and we give them a hand up. And it's not the 
wealthy we care about, but the poor. We want to give them help.
  This is the type of situation, with Legal Services, where we need to 
help people. And we need to call on the values that we've been taught 
from generation to generation and put them into effect, not just talk 
about them in Statuary Hall when the Christian

[[Page H2414]]

Broadcasting Network is putting them on television, but put them into 
effect when we have an opportunity to act. And this Legal Services 
amendment is one where we have a chance to act because you are helping 
people who are in distress and need help and need fair, just 
opportunities that the Legal Services Corporation can provide.
  I know these are tough budgetary times, but this is not the place to 
cut, and it's not the people to cut. So I would ask that we not do 
this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. 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. Austin Scott of Georgia

  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 74, lines 13 through 19, after each dollar amount, 
     insert ``(reduced to $0)''.
       Page 101, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $328,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strike 
$328 million in funding for the Legal Services Corporation. Now, at no 
point in the past 32 years has any party in Congress felt that this 
agency was important enough to reauthorize it. That's just the fact.
  Now let me put it another way. Since 1980, Congress has been 
appropriating the Legal Services Corporation an average of over $400 
million a year while at the same time, again, deeming it unworthy of 
reauthorization.
  Why has Congress not felt compelled to reauthorize the Legal Services 
Corporation? Perhaps it's because the Legal Services Corporation has 
become so far removed from its original intended purpose which was, 
yes, to provide attorneys for the poor.
  In 1975, Congress created the Legal Services Corporation to provide 
free legal assistance to the poor in civil matters. Currently, they 
provide less than 6 percent of the need-based legal services in this 
country. Today, the States, bar associations, and private organizations 
provide the majority of the pro bono legal services to the poor.
  The Legal Services Corporation has, in effect, become bounty hunters 
who attack farmers and other employers. Instead of representing the 
needy, they have chosen to focus their attention on another activity--
actively lobbying, even though it is against the rules, for the 
advancement of their chosen Big Government priorities.
  Fifteen years ago, Senator Phil Gramm explained his opposition to the 
program by saying, ``They're being advocates for the existing welfare 
bureaucracy, and while they may have a right to do it, they don't have 
a right to do it with taxpayers' money.''
  Now every phone book in America has plenty of attorneys in it that 
will be happy to take any good case on a contingency fee. A recent 
analysis by The Washington Times found that the Legal Services 
Corporation--instead of spending your taxpayer dollars on what they 
were appropriated to do--purchased ``a decorative natural stone wall, 
more than 100 casino hotel rooms that were never occupied, limousines, 
and first-class airfare,'' rather than providing the need-based legal 
services that the funds were actually appropriated for.
  The Legal Services Corporation has clearly been poor stewards of 
taxpayer dollars, and the constituency they were originally intended to 
serve simply does not need them, Mr. Chairman.
  Tough decisions need to be made. This is not one of them. Certainly 
there is an attorney that will take any legitimate case that any 
citizen of this country has, whether they be poor or not. The Legal 
Services Corporation is duplicative; it's nonessential; it's 
unauthorized. I encourage my colleagues to defund it completely.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I hope that the House would handle this amendment 
appropriately, relative to what has been said about Legal Services.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment, too.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I think the arguments have already been made to the 
gentleman from Georgia, and the same argument would also hold true 
here.
  And let me say one other thing. If any Member has any information 
with regard to lobbying or any violation of the law, I hope they'll 
call, because we have made clear that the committee carries numerous 
restrictions on political activity from LSC grantees, including 
lobbying abortion litigation and class action lawsuits. And they cover 
both the LSC funds as well as the private funds. So if anybody has any 
information on either side, we will hold a public hearing and deal with 
the issue. But based on this, this zeros it out. So I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, the suggestion has been made 
that we depend on volunteer attorneys. We don't ask for physicians to 
volunteer. We don't depend on volunteer homebuilders or grocers or 
police officers or teachers. We shouldn't depend on essential services 
by asking only volunteers to meet the need. There are volunteer 
attorneys who volunteer a lot of time. But in terms of essential 
services, we shouldn't have a system where we depend on those 
volunteers. I would hope we would defeat this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

         administrative provisions--legal services corporation

       None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal 
     Services Corporation shall be expended for any purpose 
     prohibited or limited by, or contrary to any of the 
     provisions of, sections 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, and 506 of 
     Public Law 105 119, and all funds appropriated in this Act to 
     the Legal Services Corporation shall be subject to the same 
     terms and conditions set forth in such sections, except that 
     all references in sections 502 and 503 to 1997 and 1998 shall 
     be deemed to refer instead to 2012 and 2013, respectively.
       Section 501(a)(2)(A) of the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1996 (Public Law 104 134) is amended by 
     striking ``on the basis of the most recent decennial census 
     of population conducted pursuant to section 141 of title 13, 
     United States Code'' and inserting ``triennially by the 
     Bureau of the Census''.

                        Marine Mammal Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as 
     authorized by title II of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 
     1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), $3,025,000.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 76, line 8, insert ``(reduced by $181,500)'' after the 
     dollar amount.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on his 
amendment.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[[Page H2415]]

  My amendment would reduce the budget for the salaries and expenses of 
the Marine Mammal Commission by just 6 percent. The underlying bill is 
suggesting that Congress allot the same amount of Federal funding for 
the Marine Mammal Commission as last year--more than $3 million--when, 
in fact, every other office on Capitol Hill endured a 6 percent cut 
just this year. It seems only fair that in the midst of our current 
economic crisis we should ask Federal Commissions without any extreme 
need or urgent purposes to bear the same reductions. I believe that the 
Marine Mammal Commission falls under this criteria and that it should 
be able to find 6 percent worth of savings if they comb through every 
corner of their budget.
  Mr. Chairman, we reduced our budget in our offices by much more than 
this. I think the Marine Mammal Commission can trim their budget by 
just 6 percent, and I urge my colleagues to support this very simple 
amendment that would save nearly $200,000.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I support the amendment. I urge adoption, and yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I support my colleague in his amendment. Hopefully, he'll 
withdraw some of the other ones, and we're in business.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. Do you know if the Marine Mammal Commission has anything 
to do at all with the dolphins that help us in security, that they get 
these sonars attached to them and they do a lot of security work for 
us? Isn't this what they do?
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COHEN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. They study marine mammals. I think probably 
you're correct on that, but I'm not certain.
  Mr. COHEN. So the dolphins that they train and that they study save 
us in the way of security and they do jobs that humans don't have to 
do, so they save human lives. And you're talking about $200,000 and the 
cost of one SEAL. To me, a SEAL in the United States Navy is worth a 
lot more than $200,000. I would rather those dolphins be understood and 
trained and be able to do that security work and save us. They are 
marine drones and they are protecting our country and saving human 
lives. That's why I say this is penny wise and pound foolish
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COHEN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. 
Certainly, the Navy SEALs are important, and so are the dolphins. What 
this is going to do is just cut expenses and salaries of the Commission 
itself. So it doesn't reduce the funding of the dolphin program. 
Certainly, there are some things that the Marine Mammal Commission can 
continue doing. This is not going to hurt those programs.
  So I urge the adoption of my amendment.
  Mr. COHEN. I thank the gentleman for his response, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to respectfully request to engage 
in a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Chairman 
Wolf.
  As you know, I've been a strong supporter of science, education, and 
innovation programs to spur economic growth and job creation. I greatly 
appreciate the strong funding levels for these programs in this bill, 
especially the NSF, and also, Chairman Wolf, your eloquent defense of 
NSF on the floor here a short time ago.
  I specifically would like to thank you for inviting me to testify 
before the CJS panel this year to share my strong support for the NSF 
Innovation Corps program, which provides NSF grantees with an 
opportunity to learn from and collaborate with entrepreneurs in order 
to increase the likelihood that their research can be turned into new 
products. This program will turn our investments in science and 
research into American innovation and American jobs and will produce 
enormous value for the relatively small cost of $19 million. The early 
results of I-Corps are promising: out of the first 21 grantees, 19 are 
pursuing commercialization of their technology in, hopefully, future 
American jobs.
  Chairman Wolf, I understand this bill does not provide line items for 
most NSF funding, but I hope you agree that the I-Corps programs are a 
wise investment that will educate America's brightest so they can make 
the best use of Federal research funding to boost America innovation 
and job growth.
  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman for his support for Federal science 
Agencies and his advocacy for programs like this one, which ensure that 
taxpayer investment in research and development provides returns to the 
economy in the forms of jobs, revenue, and export opportunities. I'll 
be happy to work with the gentleman as the bill continues through the 
appropriations process to ensure that I-Corps and related efforts 
receive the appropriate amount of support.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman for 
his response and, again, for his commitment to this program. I look 
forward to working with you on ensuring success of the I-Corps program 
and more generally for the continued increases in NSF and science 
funding as we lead the way to American innovation and American jobs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting Chair. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            Office of the United States Trade Representative

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States 
     Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as 
     authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     $51,251,000, of which $1,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $111,600 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses.

                        State Justice Institute

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as 
     authorized by the State Justice Institute Authorization Act 
     of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10701 et seq.) $5,121,000, of which 
     $500,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2014: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $2,250 shall be available for 
     official reception and representation expenses: Provided 
     further, That, for the purposes of section 505 of this Act, 
     the State Justice Institute shall be considered an agency of 
     the United States Government.

                                TITLE V

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

                        (including rescissions)

       Sec. 501.  No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 502.  No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 503.  The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures 
     are a matter of public record and available for public 
     inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing 
     law, or under existing Executive order issued pursuant to 
     existing law.
       Sec. 504.  If any provision of this Act or the application 
     of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be 
     held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of 
     each provision to persons or circumstances other than those 
     as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.
       Sec. 505.  None of the funds provided under this Act, or 
     provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies 
     funded by this

[[Page H2416]]

     Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure in 
     fiscal year 2013, or provided from any accounts in the 
     Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of 
     fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that: (1) creates or initiates a new 
     program, project or activity; (2) eliminates a program, 
     project or activity; (3) increases funds or personnel by any 
     means for any project or activity for which funds have been 
     denied or restricted; (4) relocates an office or employees; 
     (5) reorganizes or renames offices, programs or activities; 
     (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities 
     presently performed by Federal employees; (7) augments 
     existing programs, projects or activities in excess of 
     $500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, or reduces by 10 
     percent funding for any program, project or activity, or 
     numbers of personnel by 10 percent; or (8) results from any 
     general savings, including savings from a reduction in 
     personnel, which would result in a change in existing 
     programs, projects or activities as approved by Congress; 
     unless the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are 
     notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.


                Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 78, beginning on line 17, strike ``(6)'' and all that 
     follows through ``(7)'', and insert (6).
       Page 78, line 23, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(7)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, tonight I offer an amendment which would 
strike provision 6 of section 505 of the legislation, which would 
impose a moratorium on contracting out activities currently performed 
by Federal employees.
  These challenging economic times require Congress to not only 
reassess the size and scope of the Federal Government, but I think it's 
important to make better stewardship of taxpayer dollars and to give 
the government an opportunity to get the best dollar for and on behalf 
of the American taxpayer. Legislative provisions that prohibit or 
otherwise interfere with contracting out or in-sourcing are 
counterproductive to reducing spending, limiting the size of 
government, and creating private sector jobs. My amendment to strike 
this provision, which I am proud to offer with Congressman Justin Amash 
of Michigan, does not affect inherently governmental activities. It 
allows only for increased private contracting.
  Mr. Chairman, the Heritage Foundation has reported that subjecting 
Federal employee positions which are commercial in nature to a private-
public cost comparison would generate, on average, a 30 percent cost 
savings, regardless of who wins that competition. Rather than 
preventing market competition that would improve service and lower 
costs, we should be encouraging Agencies to find the best way to 
deliver services to citizens of this great Nation. This is exactly what 
this amendment does.
  Our Nation's unemployment rate stands at 8.1 percent. We must allow 
the private sector the ability to create jobs without an unfair 
disadvantage, and I think we get more results for our money. I urge all 
my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment that would ensure 
cost-savings competition in the Federal Government. Congress should be 
looking to use all the tools it can to help save taxpayer dollars.

                              {time}  2140

  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FATTAH. I'm trying to clarify, your amendment is amending page 
78, line 17, of the bill?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I believe that is correct, sir.
  Mr. FATTAH. Okay. It would seem to me that you are limiting the 
committee's oversight of their ability to receive information about 
what is taking place; is that accurate? Is that your intent?
  Mr. SESSIONS. No, sir, it is not.
  Mr. FATTAH. Is it your intent to deprive the Appropriations Committee 
of this important information?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I do not believe in any way that we would limit this 
committee at all; no, sir. It is simply to allow this to take place 
except where there are inherently governmental policies in place, 
inherently governmental activities.
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Maybe I don't completely understand the amendment, and it 
pains me to oppose the amendment from my good friend, but this is 
basically, from the way that we read it, a notification requirement 
exists so that the Congress can track significant changes in an 
Agency's activities over the course of the entire fiscal year.
  There isn't any reason to believe, unless I misunderstand this--and 
if I do, I apologize--removing the requirement would result in the 
administration choosing to contract out government function with any 
greater frequency or scope. It does, though, guarantee that they will 
execute any existing plan without any congressional oversight. So, 
really, regardless of how you feel about the merits of contracting out, 
we should be able to agree that it's in the best institutional interest 
for the Congress to know.
  Basically, it would be like, and I may be wrong, we are giving this 
authority. We are saying, Eric Holder, you take this and you can do 
whatever you want to do and do not tell us. And believe me, he would 
take this and he would not tell us. I write Eric Holder seven letters, 
and I get back one letter thanking me and he quotes each and every date 
and never answers the question.
  Basically, I think you have to have the requirement of a 15-day 
notification to allow the committee to sort of look at it and see what 
they were doing. But basically, I think it could be viewed, and perhaps 
I misunderstand the amendment, turning over much more congressional 
authority to the executive branch; and since we are on the bill dealing 
with the Justice Department and I've had some really difficult times 
with Eric Holder--you think Fast and Furious, we try to get information 
on so many things--if they didn't have to come up before the committee, 
I think they would have unfettered rights to do whatever. So based on 
my understanding of it, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate the subcommittee chairman yielding, my 
very dear friend, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  The way I read this, section 505 begins with ``none of the funds 
provided under this act'' and continues to say, ``contracts out or 
privatizes any function or activities presently performed by Federal 
employees,'' which is under section 505(6), and it is this (6) that 
contracts out or privatizes any function: ``No funds can be for 
contracts or privatization of any function or activities performed by 
Federal employees.''
  Now, to me that's pretty straightforward. I'm simply saying that we 
would amend that and say we're going to strike that to where there is 
nothing in there that says none of these funds provided in this section 
shall be provided where you can contract out or privatize any function. 
That's all I'm simply trying to say. It would be equally a part of any 
funds in section 505 to say it could be contracted out.
  Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman would yield for a second, or if you run 
out of time, I will take time and I will yield to you, either way.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FATTAH. Just so we can clarify, so section 505 begins on line 4 
on page 78, ``none of the funds.'' It ends on page 79 on line 3, but 
lines 1 through 3 say, ``approved by the Congress; unless the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified 15 days in advance.'' 
So everything that precedes this says you can't use any of these funds 
unless you notify us ahead of time and we don't disapprove.
  This whole section, 505, if the gentleman would follow, is a 
requirement to prenotify, for instance in this instance, the Republican 
majority here

[[Page H2417]]

in the House, that an administration official is planning to do 
something. Right? And what you do by taking this out would say if they 
planned on doing a private contract, they wouldn't have to tell you. 
They wouldn't have to notify Chairman Wolf or the committee or the 
staff and they could go ahead and act, and there is no way that you 
would know about it.
  So all I'm saying is that this language actually is a notice to our 
committee of administrative action as delineated on page 78. And so I 
just think that the purpose of your intent and what you are actually 
accomplishing are two different things.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I appreciate that, and if I could engage the gentleman, 
what is that line that you were suggesting?
  Mr. FATTAH. I'm saying if you go over to page 79, the top three 
lines, ``as approved by Congress; unless the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations are notified 15 days in advance.''
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has 
expired.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to my good friend from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment at this time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 506. (a) If it has been finally determined by a court 
     or Federal agency that any person intentionally affixed a 
     label bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any 
     inscription with the same meaning, to any product sold in or 
     shipped to the United States that is not made in the United 
     States, the person shall be ineligible to receive any 
     contract or subcontract made with funds made available in 
     this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and 
     ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 through 
     9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (b)(1) To the extent practicable, with respect to 
     authorized purchases of promotional items, funds made 
     available by this Act shall be used to purchase items that 
     are manufactured, produced, or assembled in the United 
     States, its territories, or its possessions.
       (2) The term ``promotional items'' has the meaning given 
     the term in OMB Circular A 87, Attachment B, Item (1)(f)(3).
       Sec. 507. (a) The Departments of Commerce and Justice, the 
     National Science Foundation, and the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration shall provide to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     a quarterly report on the status of balances of 
     appropriations at the account level. For unobligated, 
     uncommitted balances and unobligated, committed balances the 
     quarterly reports shall separately identify the amounts 
     attributable to each source year of appropriation from which 
     the balances were derived. For balances that are obligated, 
     but unexpended, the quarterly reports shall separately 
     identify amounts by the year of obligation.
       (b) The report described in subsection (a) shall be 
     submitted within 30 days of the end of the first quarter of 
     fiscal year 2013, and subsequent reports shall be submitted 
     within 30 days of the end of each quarter thereafter.
       (c) If a department or agency is unable to fulfill any 
     aspect of a reporting requirement described in subsection (a) 
     due to a limitation of a current accounting system, the 
     department or agency shall fulfill such aspect to the maximum 
     extent practicable under such accounting system and shall 
     identify and describe in each quarterly report the extent to 
     which such aspect is not fulfilled.
       Sec. 508.  Any costs incurred by a department or agency 
     funded under this Act resulting from, or to prevent, 
     personnel actions taken in response to funding reductions 
     included in this Act shall be absorbed within the total 
     budgetary resources available to such department or agency: 
     Provided, That the authority to transfer funds between 
     appropriations accounts as may be necessary to carry out this 
     section is provided in addition to authorities included 
     elsewhere in this Act: Provided further, That use of funds to 
     carry out this section shall be treated as a reprogramming of 
     funds under section 505 of this Act and shall not be 
     available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 509.  None of the funds provided by this Act shall be 
     available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
     products, or to seek the reduction or removal by any foreign 
     country of restrictions on the marketing of tobacco or 
     tobacco products, except for restrictions which are not 
     applied equally to all tobacco or tobacco products of the 
     same type.
       Sec. 510.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel of the 
     Department of Justice to obligate more than $720,000,000 
     during fiscal year 2013 from the fund established by section 
     1402 of chapter XIV of title II of Public Law 98 473 (42 
     U.S.C. 10601).
       Sec. 511.  None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Justice in this Act may be used to discriminate 
     against or denigrate the religious or moral beliefs of 
     students who participate in programs for which financial 
     assistance is provided from those funds, or of the parents or 
     legal guardians of such students.
       Sec. 512.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government, except pursuant to a 
     transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act 
     or any other appropriations Act.
       Sec. 513.  Any funds provided in this Act used to implement 
     E-Government Initiatives shall be subject to the procedures 
     set forth in section 505 of this Act.
       Sec. 514. (a) Tracing studies conducted by the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are released 
     without adequate disclaimers regarding the limitations of the 
     data.
       (b) For fiscal year 2013 and thereafter, the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives shall include in 
     all such data releases, language similar to the following 
     that would make clear that trace data cannot be used to draw 
     broad conclusions about firearms-related crime:
       (1) Firearm traces are designed to assist law enforcement 
     authorities in conducting investigations by tracking the sale 
     and possession of specific firearms. Law enforcement agencies 
     may request firearms traces for any reason, and those reasons 
     are not necessarily reported to the Federal Government. Not 
     all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms 
     traced are used in crime.
       (2) Firearms selected for tracing are not chosen for 
     purposes of determining which types, makes, or models of 
     firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected 
     do not constitute a random sample and should not be 
     considered representative of the larger universe of all 
     firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe. 
     Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and 
     sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily 
     represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general 
     are acquired for use in crime.
       Sec. 515. (a) The Inspectors General of the Department of 
     Commerce, the Department of Justice, the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, 
     and the Legal Services Corporation shall conduct audits, 
     pursuant to the Inspector General Act (5 U.S.C. App.), of 
     grants or contracts for which funds are appropriated by this 
     Act, and shall submit reports to Congress on the progress of 
     such audits, which may include preliminary findings and a 
     description of areas of particular interest, within 180 days 
     after initiating such an audit and every 180 days thereafter 
     until any such audit is completed.
       (b) Within 60 days after the date on which an audit 
     described in subsection (a) by an Inspector General is 
     completed, the Secretary, Attorney General, Administrator, 
     Director, or President, as appropriate, shall make the 
     results of the audit available to the public on the Internet 
     website maintained by the Department, Administration, 
     Foundation, or Corporation, respectively. The results shall 
     be made available in redacted form to exclude--
       (1) any matter described in section 552(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code; and
       (2) sensitive personal information for any individual, the 
     public access to which could be used to commit identity theft 
     or for other inappropriate or unlawful purposes.
       (c) A grant or contract funded by amounts appropriated by 
     this Act may not be used for the purpose of defraying the 
     costs of a banquet or conference that is not directly and 
     programmatically related to the purpose for which the grant 
     or contract was awarded, such as a banquet or conference held 
     in connection with planning, training, assessment, review, or 
     other routine purposes related to a project funded by the 
     grant or contract.
       (d) Any person awarded a grant or contract funded by 
     amounts appropriated by this Act shall submit a statement to 
     the Secretary of Commerce, the Attorney General, the 
     Administrator, Director, or President, as appropriate, 
     certifying that no funds derived from the grant or contract 
     will be made available through a subcontract or in any other 
     manner to another person who has a financial interest in the 
     person awarded the grant or contract.
       (e) The provisions of the preceding subsections of this 
     section shall take effect 30 days after the date on which the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Government 
     Ethics, determines that a uniform set of rules and 
     requirements, substantially similar to the requirements in 
     such subsections, consistently apply under the executive 
     branch ethics program to all Federal departments, agencies, 
     and entities.
       Sec. 516. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available under this Act may be used by the Departments 
     of Commerce and Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration, or the National Science Foundation to acquire 
     an information technology system unless the head of the 
     entity involved, in consultation with the

[[Page H2418]]

     Federal Bureau of Investigation or other appropriate Federal 
     entity, has made an assessment of any associated risk of 
     cyber-espionage or sabotage associated with the acquisition 
     of such system, including any risk associated with such 
     system being produced, manufactured or assembled by one or 
     more entities that are owned, directed or subsidized by the 
     People's Republic of China.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act may be used to acquire an 
     information technology system described in an assessment 
     required by subsection (a) and produced, manufactured or 
     assembled by one or more entities that are owned, directed or 
     subsidized by the People's Republic of China unless the head 
     of the assessing entity described in subsection (a) 
     determines, and reports that determination to the Committees 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate, that the acquisition of such system is in the 
     national interest of the United States.
       Sec. 517.  None of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be used in any way whatsoever to support or justify the 
     use of torture by any official or contract employee of the 
     United States Government.
       Sec. 518. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     treaty, in the current fiscal year and any fiscal year 
     thereafter, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act or any other Act may be expended or 
     obligated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States to pay administrative expenses or to compensate 
     an officer or employee of the United States in connection 
     with requiring an export license for the export to Canada of 
     components, parts, accessories or attachments for firearms 
     listed in Category I, section 121.1 of title 22, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (International Trafficking in Arms 
     Regulations (ITAR), part 121, as it existed on April 1, 2005) 
     with a total value not exceeding $500 wholesale in any 
     transaction, provided that the conditions of subsection (b) 
     of this section are met by the exporting party for such 
     articles.
       (b) The foregoing exemption from obtaining an export 
     license--
       (1) does not exempt an exporter from filing any Shipper's 
     Export Declaration or notification letter required by law, or 
     from being otherwise eligible under the laws of the United 
     States to possess, ship, transport, or export the articles 
     enumerated in subsection (a); and
       (2) does not permit the export without a license of--
       (A) fully automatic firearms and components and parts for 
     such firearms, other than for end use by the Federal 
     Government, or a Provincial or Municipal Government of 
     Canada;
       (B) barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames) or complete 
     breech mechanisms for any firearm listed in Category I, other 
     than for end use by the Federal Government, or a Provincial 
     or Municipal Government of Canada; or
       (C) articles for export from Canada to another foreign 
     destination.
       (c) accordance with this section, the District Directors of 
     Customs and postmasters shall permit the permanent or 
     temporary export without a license of any unclassified 
     articles specified in subsection (a) to Canada for end use in 
     Canada or return to the United States, or temporary import of 
     Canadian-origin items from Canada for end use in the United 
     States or return to Canada for a Canadian citizen.
       (d) The President may require export licenses under this 
     section on a temporary basis if the President determines, 
     upon publication first in the Federal Register, that the 
     Government of Canada has implemented or maintained inadequate 
     import controls for the articles specified in subsection (a), 
     such that a significant diversion of such articles has and 
     continues to take place for use in international terrorism or 
     in the escalation of a conflict in another nation. The 
     President shall terminate the requirements of a license when 
     reasons for the temporary requirements have ceased.
       Sec. 519.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     the current fiscal year and any fiscal year thereafter, no 
     department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States 
     receiving appropriated funds under this Act or any other Act 
     shall obligate or expend in any way such funds to pay 
     administrative expenses or the compensation of any officer or 
     employee of the United States to deny any application 
     submitted pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(1)(B) and qualified 
     pursuant to 27 CFR section 478.112 or .113, for a permit to 
     import United States origin ``curios or relics'' firearms, 
     parts, or ammunition.
       Sec. 520.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to include in any new bilateral or multilateral trade 
     agreement the text of--
       (1) paragraph 2 of article 16.7 of the United States-
     Singapore Free Trade Agreement;
       (2) paragraph 4 of article 17.9 of the United States-
     Australia Free Trade Agreement; or
       (3) paragraph 4 of article 15.9 of the United States-
     Morocco Free Trade Agreement.
       Sec. 521.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to authorize or issue a national security letter in 
     contravention of any of the following laws authorizing the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation to issue national security 
     letters: The Right to Financial Privacy Act; The Electronic 
     Communications Privacy Act; The Fair Credit Reporting Act; 
     The National Security Act of 1947; USA PATRIOT Act; and the 
     laws amended by these Acts.
       Sec. 522.  If at any time during any quarter, the program 
     manager of a project within the jurisdiction of the 
     Departments of Commerce or Justice, the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration, or the National Science Foundation 
     totaling more than $75,000,000 has reasonable cause to 
     believe that the total program cost has increased by 10 
     percent, the program manager shall immediately inform the 
     respective Secretary, Administrator, or Director. The 
     Secretary, Administrator, or Director shall notify the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days in 
     writing of such increase, and shall include in such notice: 
     the date on which such determination was made; a statement of 
     the reasons for such increases; the action taken and proposed 
     to be taken to control future cost growth of the project; 
     changes made in the performance or schedule milestones and 
     the degree to which such changes have contributed to the 
     increase in total program costs or procurement costs; new 
     estimates of the total project or procurement costs; and a 
     statement validating that the project's management structure 
     is adequate to control total project or procurement costs.
       Sec. 523.  Funds appropriated by this Act, or made 
     available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for 
     intelligence or intelligence related activities are deemed to 
     be specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of 
     section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     414) during fiscal year 2013 until the enactment of the 
     Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013.
       Sec. 524.  The Departments, agencies, and commissions 
     funded under this Act, shall establish and maintain on the 
     homepages of their Internet websites--
       (1) a direct link to the Internet websites of their Offices 
     of Inspectors General; and
       (2) a mechanism on the Offices of Inspectors General 
     website by which individuals may anonymously report cases of 
     waste, fraud, or abuse with respect to those Departments, 
     agencies, and commissions.
       Sec. 525.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in 
     an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in 
     excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or 
     grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the 
     contract or grant that, to the best of its knowledge and 
     belief, the contractor or grantee has filed all Federal tax 
     returns required during the three years preceding the 
     certification, has not been convicted of a criminal offense 
     under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and has not, more 
     than 90 days prior to certification, been notified of any 
     unpaid Federal tax assessment for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied, unless the assessment is the subject of an 
     installment agreement or offer in compromise that has been 
     approved by the Internal Revenue Service and is not in 
     default, or the assessment is the subject of a non-frivolous 
     administrative or judicial proceeding.

                              (rescissions)

       Sec. 526. (a) Of the unobligated balances available to the 
     Department of Justice, the following funds are hereby 
     rescinded, not later than September 30, 2013, from the 
     following accounts in the specified amounts--
       (1) ``Working Capital Fund'', $26,000,000;
       (2) ``Legal Activities, Assets Forfeiture Fund'', 
     $675,000,000, of which $314,000,000 shall be permanently 
     rescinded;
       (3) ``Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 
     Violent Crime Reduction Program'', $1,028,000;
       (4) ``Federal Prison System, Buildings and Facilities'', 
     $64,700,000;
       (5) ``State and Local Law Enforcement Activities, Office on 
     Violence Against Women, Violence Against Women Prevention and 
     Prosecution Programs'', $12,000,000;
       (6) ``State and Local Law Enforcement Activities, Office of 
     Justice Programs'', $43,000,000; and
       (7) ``State and Local Law Enforcement Activities, Community 
     Oriented Policing Services'', $12,200,000.
       (b) The Department of Justice shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate a report no later than September 1, 2013 
     specifying the amount of each rescission made pursuant to 
     subsection (a).
       Sec. 527.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to purchase first class or premium airline travel in 
     contravention of sections 301 10.122 through 301 10.124 of 
     title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 528.  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, unless 
     such conference is a law enforcement training or operational 
     conference for law enforcement personnel and the majority of 
     Federal employees in attendance are law enforcement personnel 
     stationed outside the United States.
       Sec. 529.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this or any other Act may be used to transfer, 
     release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within 
     the United States, its territories, or possessions Khalid 
     Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who--
       (1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States; and
       (2) is or was held on or after June 24, 2009, at the United 
     States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department 
     of Defense.

[[Page H2419]]

       Sec. 530. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in this or any other Act may be used to 
     construct, acquire, or modify any facility in the United 
     States, its territories, or possessions to house any 
     individual described in subsection (c) for the purposes of 
     detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the 
     effective control of the Department of Defense.
       (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     any modification of facilities at United States Naval 
     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       (c) An individual described in this subsection is any 
     individual who, as of June 24, 2009, is located at United 
     States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and who--
       (1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of 
     the Armed Forces of the United States; and
       (2) is--
       (A) in the custody or under the effective control of the 
     Department of Defense; or
       (B) otherwise under detention at United States Naval 
     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       Sec. 531.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations 
     for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries.
       Sec. 532.  To the extent practicable, funds made available 
     in this Act should be used to purchase light bulbs that are 
     ``Energy Star'' qualified or have the ``Federal Energy 
     Management Program'' designation.
       Sec. 533.  The Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall instruct any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States Government receiving 
     funds appropriated in this Act to track undisbursed balances 
     in expired grant accounts and include in its annual 
     performance plan and performance and accountability reports 
     the following:
       (1) Details on future action the department, agency, or 
     instrumentality will take to resolve undisbursed balances in 
     expired grant accounts.
       (2) The method that the department, agency, or 
     instrumentality uses to track undisbursed balances in expired 
     grant accounts.
       (3) Identification of undisbursed balances in expired grant 
     accounts that may be returned to the Treasury of the United 
     States.
       (4) In the preceding 3 fiscal years, details on the total 
     number of expired grant accounts with undisbursed balances 
     (on the first day of each fiscal year) for the department, 
     agency, or instrumentality and the total finances that have 
     not been obligated to a specific project remaining in the 
     accounts.
       Sec. 534. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used for the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration (NASA) or the Office of Science and Technology 
     Policy (OSTP) to develop, design, plan, promulgate, 
     implement, or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or 
     contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or 
     coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-
     owned company unless such activities are specifically 
     authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall also apply to 
     any funds used to effectuate the hosting of official Chinese 
     visitors at facilities belonging to or utilized by NASA.
       (c) The limitations described in subsections (a) and (b) 
     shall not apply to activities which NASA or OSTP has 
     certified--
       (1) pose no risk of resulting in the transfer of 
     technology, data, or other information with national security 
     or economic security implications to China or a Chinese-owned 
     company; and
       (2) will not involve knowing interactions with officials 
     who have been determined by the United States to have direct 
     involvement with violations of human rights.
       (d) Any certification made under subsection (c) shall be 
     submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate no later than 30 days prior to 
     the activity in question and shall include a description of 
     the purpose of the activity, its agenda, its major 
     participants, and its location and timing.
       Sec. 535. (a) The head of any department, agency, board or 
     commission funded by this Act shall submit quarterly reports 
     to the Inspector General, or the senior ethics official for 
     any entity without an inspector general, of the appropriate 
     department, agency, board or commission regarding the costs 
     and contracting procedures relating to each conference held 
     by the department, agency, board or commission during fiscal 
     year 2013 for which the cost to the Government was more than 
     $20,000.
       (b) Each report submitted under subsection (a) shall 
     include, for each conference described in that subsection 
     held during the applicable quarter--
       (1) a description of the subject of and number of 
     participants attending that conference;
       (2) a detailed statement of the costs to the Government 
     relating to that conference, including--
       (A) the cost of any food or beverages;
       (B) the cost of any audio-visual services; and
       (C) a discussion of the methodology used to determine which 
     costs relate to that conference; and
       (3) a description of the contracting procedures relating to 
     that conference, including--
       (A) whether contracts were awarded on a competitive basis 
     for that conference; and
       (B) a discussion of any cost comparison conducted by the 
     department, agency, board or commission in evaluating 
     potential contractors for that conference.
       Sec. 536.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay the salaries or expenses of personnel to deny, 
     or fail to act on, an application for the importation of any 
     model of shotgun if--
       (1) all other requirements of law with respect to the 
     proposed importation are met; and
       (2) no application for the importation of such model of 
     shotgun, in the same configuration, had been denied by the 
     Attorney General prior to January 1, 2011, on the basis that 
     the shotgun was not particularly suitable for or readily 
     adaptable to sporting purposes.
       Sec. 537. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to maintain or establish a computer network 
     unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and 
     exchanging of pornography.
       (b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall limit the use of funds 
     necessary for any Federal, State, tribal, or local law 
     enforcement agency or any other entity carrying out criminal 
     investigations, prosecution, or adjudication activities.
       Sec. 538.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation 
     that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any 
     Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the 
     awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless an agency 
     has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and 
     has made a determination that this further action is not 
     necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
       Sec. 539.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation 
     that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been 
     assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies 
     have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being 
     paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the 
     authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where 
     the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, 
     unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of 
     the corporation and has made a determination that this 
     further action is not necessary to protect the interests of 
     the Government.
       Sec. 540.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the final 
     regulations on ``Disparate Impact and Reasonable Factors 
     Other Than Age Under the Age Discrimination in Employment 
     Act'' published by the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission in the Federal Register on March 30, 2012 (77 Fed. 
     Reg. 19080 et seq.).

                              {time}  2150

  Mr. WOLF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the remainder of the bill through page 101, line 4, be considered 
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       spending reduction account

       Sec. 541.  The amount by which the applicable allocation of 
     new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of 
     proposed new budget authority is $0.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Black

  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Attorney General to originate or join in any 
     lawsuit that seeks to overturn, enjoin, or invalidate--
       (1) Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 
     (HB 1804), which became effective on November 1, 2007;
       (2) Missouri House Bill 390, First Regular Session 2009, 
     9th General Assembly, which became effective on August 28, 
     2009;
       (3) the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods 
     Act (SB 1070), which was signed into law in Arizona on April 
     23, 2010;
       (4) The Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act (HB 497), which 
     was signed into law in Utah on March 15, 2011;
       (5) Indiana Senate Enrolled Act No. 590, First Regular 
     Session, 117th General Assembly (2011), which was signed into 
     law on May 10, 2011;
       (6) the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen 
     Protection Act (HB 56), which was passed by the Alabama State 
     legislature on June 9, 2011;
       (7) South Carolina Act No. 69 (SB 20), which was signed 
     into law on June 27, 2011;

[[Page H2420]]

       (8) the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 
     2011 (HB 87), which became effective in the State of Georgia 
     on July 1, 2011; or
       (9) an Act to amend the Indiana Code concerning education 
     (HB 1402), which became effective in the State of Indiana on 
     July 1, 2011.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I'm here tonight to talk about my amendment 
that would prohibit the Obama administration from filing lawsuits 
against Arizona, South Carolina, Alabama, and other States over their 
immigration enforcement laws.
  In the last 3 years, eight States have adopted immigration 
enforcement measures to address the illegal alien population in their 
States. In response, the Department of Justice and Eric Holder have 
pursued unprecedented lawsuits against these States.
  Mr. Chairman, there are over 10 million unauthorized aliens in this 
country, and States must be able to enforce the law if the Federal 
Government refuses to. And the States should not have to live in fear 
of Federal retribution for trying to keep their citizens safe. This 
amendment would deny the Obama administration and Eric Holder funding 
for these ridiculous lawsuits. And until the Supreme Court decides the 
case against Arizona's S.B. 1070, Congress must use our power of the 
purse to stop these political lawsuits and allow states to uphold the 
law.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Let me speak briefly on this matter.
  I thank the gentlelady for bringing this amendment.
  The Constitution of our United States, which was written in 
Philadelphia, suggests three branches of government--the executive 
branch, the legislative branch, and the judicial branch.
  I would oppose an amendment like this in a Democratic-majority 
Congress trying to impede a Republican administration's Justice 
Department from acting to, in their belief, represent the legitimate, 
authentic view of the Constitution in a Federal matter.
  To fight in court is one thing. To take away someone's right to have 
a lawyer--that is to say, the Justice Department can't go into court on 
behalf of the executive branch when they feel the Constitution is being 
violated--I think is a bad precedent. I think that for those who are 
interested in protecting and upholding our Constitution, to support it, 
this is a vote that you will regret having on your record as you look 
back on your service in the Congress.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. As a member of the House Judiciary 
Committee, I can appreciate the frustration that many times we feel as 
Members of Congress on actions by the Federal Government, but there are 
two points that I'd like to make:
  One, immigration has been defined as an issue under the jurisdiction 
of the Federal Government. No matter what Attorney General is in place 
and what position they take, they take it as a representative of the 
executive, but also of the people of the United States of America.
  To highlight Attorney General Eric Holder for fulfilling the 
responsibilities of an AG, which is to defend against laws that are 
discriminatory under Federal law, to maintain the integrity of the 
Federal responsibility of certain laws--which happens to be 
immigration--would be, I believe, a highlighting or a targeting of a 
member of the President's Cabinet--and I agree with my ranking member, 
Mr. Fattah--of any administration for doing their duty.
  So I would just say that I am empathetic to all of our frustrations 
when we deal with attempting to represent our constituencies. Attorney 
General Holder, in his pursuit of lawsuits, is representing the 
American people, but also representing the administration and pursuing 
justice accordingly under the law. I would hope that we would be able 
to recognize the frustration, but to reject the underlying amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. I, too, rise in opposition to this amendment.
  We have had amendments and even bills on the floor in the past that 
were just as misguided, and they all take the same form or a similar 
form: either an amendment to say that no fund shall be expended for the 
Justice Department to argue for this in court or against that in court. 
That's one form of the amendment, and this is one of those. Or, we've 
had court-stripping bills: No court shall have jurisdiction to consider 
an appeal in the case of X versus Y, or no court shall have 
jurisdiction to consider a case on a subject matter of--whatever.
  All of these are wrong and misguided, whatever the merits of the 
specific claim may be, because they are violations of the separation of 
powers and of the proper functioning of the different branches of 
government.
  The Justice Department must argue for the executive branch's 
interpretation of the law and for its opinion as to constitutionality. 
That's its job. Our job is to enact laws. The judiciary's job is to 
state what the law is. The executive branch is to enforce the law, and 
for the Justice Department, on a nonpolitical basis--not dictated, 
certainly, by Congress; we don't want to politicize the Justice 
Department--to argue in defense of the Constitution as it sees it. 
Therefore, this amendment is wrongheaded. An amendment or a bill to 
strip the court of the ability to make a decision as to 
constitutionality on a given subject would be just as wrongheaded.

                              {time}  2200

  So, regardless of one's feelings on immigration, regardless of 
whether you think that the Federal Government has the sole power of 
enforcement and that State enforcement of immigration laws is preempted 
by Federal law, which is one point of view, which the Justice 
Department is arguing, or that it is not, which is the other point of 
view, which is what some States are arguing in court, that's for the 
Court to decide.
  Now, Congress might decide to be very clear and say that this 
immigration law, whatever it is, does not--we do not wish to preempt 
State law. We could say that. But interpreting what we have said, if we 
haven't been clear on it, that's the job of the courts, and, in arguing 
that, the administration's point of view of the Justice Department.
  We should not be politicizing the Justice Department. We should not 
be using the power of the purse to say that the Justice Department 
cannot argue in a certain case or argue a certain point of view. And 
certainly, that's even worse; to say they can intervene in a case but 
on side A but not side B is a perversion of the separation of powers, 
and we should not be considering--we should not pass this amendment. It 
would pervert the separation of powers and the safeguards of our 
liberty.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARLETTA. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BARLETTA. I wish I didn't have to stand here tonight in strong 
support of this amendment, but the simple fact is that the Federal 
Government's lack of action made us do this. The Federal Government, 
through its deliberate inaction for at least the last 15 years, has 
created this problem, the problem of unchecked illegal immigration.
  From the border States to the heartland, from our largest cities to 
our smallest boroughs, every American has seen the impact of illegal 
immigration. An underground workforce that takes away jobs from 
American citizens and our legal immigrants, overcrowded classrooms that 
make it harder for children to learn, health care systems forced to the 
brink of bankruptcy because of unreimbursed costs, victims of crimes 
committed by people who should not even be in the United States.

[[Page H2421]]

  Local municipal leaders called out to the Federal Government and 
asked for help. I know because I was one of them. I saw serious 
problems in my hometown back in 2005. I came here to Washington to ask 
for help, and Washington turned its back on me and my citizens.
  Higher up, State officials across America called out to the Federal 
Government. They cried out for enforcement of existing immigration 
laws. They asked for tougher border security. Elected officials at all 
levels--sheriffs, mayors, Governors, county commissioners, city 
councilmen, State representatives--all asked for Federal help.
  What have they received? More words, more empty promises, more 
inflated statistics.
  So States acted on their own. They acted to protect their citizens. 
They acted to protect their budgets. They acted to uphold their 
constitutional duty to the people that they serve. Most importantly, 
they enacted laws that work in harmony within the existing Federal 
framework to slow the effects of illegal immigration. Let me repeat 
that. They enacted laws that work in harmony within the existing 
Federal framework.
  In fact, just about a year ago, across the street from this building, 
the United States Supreme Court said that the State of Arizona has the 
right to impose penalties on businesses that knowingly hire illegal 
aliens. In upholding that Legal Arizona Workers Act, the Supreme Court 
ruled there is a high threshold for striking down a State law on the 
grounds that it conflicts with a Federal law.
  As they take effect, these laws are working exactly as intended, 
within the federally allowed framework. Illegal immigration is slowing. 
Illegal aliens are self-deporting.
  And what has been the Federal Government's response? To file more 
lawsuits, more taxpayer-funded lawsuits that attempt to punish States 
for upholding and working within Federal laws.
  So the Federal Government creates the illegal immigration problem 
through decades of inaction, lax enforcement, and looking the other 
way. States step in to protect the jobs of their residents, the balance 
of their budgets, and the safety of their residents. Then the Federal 
Government turns around and sues the States, sues the States, and they 
use taxpayer dollars to do it. It's ridiculous. It's unfair.
  Instead of using tax dollars to sue States, the Department of Justice 
and other branches in this government should start focusing on 
enforcing existing immigration laws. And until they do, the Department 
of Justice should not receive one Federal tax dollar to sue States.

  That's what this amendment does, and I encourage my colleagues to 
vote ``yes.''
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, I will try to speak somewhat quickly.
  Being from the State of Arizona and having been a legislator in 
Arizona, having been a County Treasurer from Arizona, and now often 
find myself in forums having to explain, or trying to at least in some 
way figure out how to explain, why my Federal Government, why my 
Justice Department is suing my State.
  And if you think about what we saw last year when we had the employer 
sanctions lawsuits, the Supreme Court ruled in our favor. We were at 
the Supreme Court standing out there a couple of weeks ago, suing our 
State again.
  But one of the explanations of why does a State like Arizona stand up 
and have to do these types of laws, understand what you've done to my 
county, what you've done to my State in education, incarceration, and 
health care.
  If we were having the debate right now of how the Federal Government 
was going to step up and do its job and reimburse the citizens of 
Arizona for what was a Federal cost but their failure, maybe we 
wouldn't be standing here supporting the gentlewoman's amendment. But I 
don't see that happening in this body.
  So, in that case, let Arizona, let States stand up and defend 
themselves by, in our case, enforcing the actual Federal law.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I find this argument very interesting that 
people like to cast both blame and aspersions that we are sort of 
different from all our States, that the Federal Government is one thing 
and the States are different.
  I have an amendment in a moment, and I hope all these people will 
support it, which would prohibit the Federal Government from enforcing 
laws on legal use of marijuana in those States for medical purposes. 
It's the exact same argument.
  So if you're going to make this argument that, you know, we're only 
going to be selective, we're going to tell the Justice Department that 
in immigration laws we're going to prohibit you from enforcing Federal 
provisions, and turn around and yet allow you to enforce Federal 
provisions that give States that have legally enacted in their own 
rights, and law enforcement is supportive of them, to have medical 
marijuana, it seems very inconsistent.
  It also seems very inconsistent to say, well, what about those States 
that have taken a different approach and allow undocumented folks to 
have a driver's license? Many States have allowed that. The Federal 
Government doesn't go in and say you can't do that.
  What about those States that allow undocumented children graduating 
from high school with great grades and getting accepted to colleges to 
have access to scholarships, called the DREAM Act? States have DREAM 
Acts. The Federal Government does not.
  It seems to me that this argument is just choose your blame and go 
after the Justice Department. I hope that the people who vote for this 
amendment, if that's what they want to do, will also vote for the 
amendment that restricts the Federal Government from enforcing State-
enacted medical marijuana laws.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the first coin ever minted in the 
Republic of Mexico contained the motto, ``Liberty in Law,'' something 
we understand so well in this country, that there can be no liberty 
without law. And fundamental to that is law enforcement, and this is a 
law enforcement issue.
  This is a no-brainer. It really illustrates how utterly out of touch 
the Democrat minority is with the Nation's concern with the lack of law 
enforcement at our border.
  My good friend from Arizona, who was the County Treasurer in Maricopa 
County, the largest county in Arizona, just pointed out to me that you 
experienced cost to your local taxpayers of $1.3 billion a year because 
of the cost of undocumented illegal aliens in Maricopa County.

                              {time}  2210

  In my work on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I've 
discovered that the Federal Government is only prosecuting about 15 
percent of the illegal aliens entering the country in the Tucson 
sector. So 85 percent of those that they even catch are released, and 
they return voluntarily across the border so that they come right back.
  There are wildly different levels of enforcement up and down the 
border. The people of the United States, all of us, understand 
particularly in the State of Texas, which I am so proud to represent, 
the importance of a healthy relationship with Mexico and the importance 
of a guest worker program that allows people to come and go freely with 
our number two trading partner in the world. Canada is our number one 
trading partner, and Mexico is our number two trading partner. We need 
a healthy back-and-forth relationship with our friends in Mexico, and 
the only way to do that is to have the laws enforced equally and fairly 
as to everyone.
  There is no liberty without law enforcement. It is the first 
responsibility of our State officials to enforce the

[[Page H2422]]

law. We know under the Constitution that the police powers are reserved 
to the States under the 10th Amendment because the Founders understood 
that the local sheriff, the Governor, and the State police were 
primarily responsible for protecting the lives and property of the 
people of their States and their communities.
  How many times does it happen every day that a bank robber is 
arrested or a money launderer is arrested by the State police or a 
county sheriff, and then because there are Federal charges involved the 
local prosecutor will hand the individual over to Federal prosecutors 
for prosecution? Entering the country illegally, crossing the border, 
is a Federal violation. Those individuals are often picked up by State 
or local police, who work every day arm in arm with Federal law 
enforcement authorities to protect the lives and property of the people 
of America. This is a no-brainer. Local and State law enforcement 
authorities do it every day.
  Enforcing the law is fundamental to who we are as a Nation, because 
as the Republic of Mexico said on the first coin they ever minted: 
liberty in law. It's fundamental to who we are as Americans. If we are 
going to restore the healthy relationship that we've always enjoyed 
with the people of Mexico, it begins with secure borders, with the 
uniform--equal--enforcement of the law and by ensuring that the people 
who come here do so legally and properly so that we know who you are, 
how long you're going to stay, when you're going home, and that you're 
not accessing government benefits and costing the people of Maricopa 
County or the people of the United States money that we simply cannot 
afford.
  As generous as we are, we are out of money. This Nation is living on 
borrowed income that our kids and grandchildren will have to pay off. 
It's unacceptable. This new constitutional conservative majority in the 
House is determined to see the budget balanced, our laws enforced, our 
borders secured, and this Nation of laws--the greatest democracy ever 
created in the history of the world--returned to the constitutional set 
of principles on which it was founded. That begins with liberty in law, 
which this amendment so wisely attempts to restore. So I strongly 
support the amendment, and I urge its adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I hope both sides consider the fact of 
what has happened over the last year or two.
  The fact is that this amendment is here before us because we have an 
extraordinary situation that has happened in certain local communities 
and States where the Federal Government has actually intervened and 
filed lawsuits based on the fact that the administration felt that 
local communities being involved in the enforcement of Federal 
immigration law was somehow encroaching on the ability of the Federal 
Government to enforce the law when, in fact, if you read their 
statement against a State like Arizona, the encroachment was not 
because they were enforcing some new law or some off-the-wall approach, 
but the fact that they were enforcing the law. In fact, in the case of 
Arizona, it said that Arizona's enforcing of immigration law infringed 
on the ability or prerogative of the executive branch not to enforce 
the law at any time the executive branch chooses.
  Now, I think, as legislators--Democrats and Republicans--but most 
importantly as Americans, we need to stand up for the fact that the 
executive branch is here to enforce the law, not to pick which laws to 
enforce and which ones to ignore. We make the laws, Mr. Chairman, not 
the White House. We make the laws that the White House is supposed to 
be enforcing. Sadly, we have seen in the last few years the executive 
branch claiming the right to choose which laws to enforce and which 
laws not to enforce. In the Arizona case, they specifically stated that 
they chose not to enforce the law, thus, that Arizona's enforcing of 
the Federal law is some kind of encroachment on the executive 
prerogative.
  You and I--Democrats and Republicans--and Americans across the 
country who believe in the separation of powers should stand up and 
say, Executive, you do not have the power to legislate from the White 
House. That's our job. You do not have the authority to pick and choose 
what laws you enforce.
  We all remember the police officer who says, Sir, I do not make the 
laws. I just enforce them.
  All we're asking here is that the executive branch understand that 
they are not here to choose which laws are honorable and appropriate to 
be enforced. It is our prerogative to pass those laws and to tell the 
executive branch, Your job is to enforce it.
  Definitely, it is not the executive's right to use taxpayer money to 
sue States for the cooperation and implementation of laws that this 
body and bodies before us have passed to make the Federal law. The 
enforcement of those Federal laws is an essential point, not just on 
immigration control, but as to the entire concept that this Republic 
was founded on.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman.
  Let me sum this up because there is a lot of passion. The 
Constitution might be an inconvenient thing, yet it is the basis for 
all of our law, but let's move beyond that.
  This is an appropriations bill. This amendment, no matter what its 
result, is not going to be in this bill and this bill have the 
President's signature. So this is the beginning of a whole set of 
amendments having nothing to do with how much money we're going to 
spend but, rather, having to do with various political passions. Most, 
if not all of the amendments, are going to be stripped from this bill. 
So we're going to spend hours here, and we're going to debate these 
things, but they're not going to be part of the bill as it finally 
becomes the law of the land. We're not going to resolve immigration 
policy in this bill.
  So I am going to recede from using all of this time, and I want to 
thank my colleagues for their comments. The truth of the matter is that 
this is actually an appropriations bill, and these matters are going to 
get settled in some other way.
  I thank the gentlelady for offering the amendment. It does violate, 
within the Constitution, the notion of the separation of powers. I 
believe that, even in a Democrat-controlled Congress and with a 
Republican President, I would vote against denying the executive branch 
the right to have its lawyers go to court and argue whatever point of 
view they wanted to argue.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote on the last 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's request is not timely.
  Will the gentlewoman from Texas clarify which amendment she is 
offering?
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I am offering amendment 381.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amounts otherwise provided by this Act for 
     the Department of Justice are revised by reducing the amount 
     made available for ``Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
     Explosives--Salaries and Expenses'', and increasing the 
     amount made available for ``Office of Justice Programs--State 
     and Local Law Enforcement Assistance'' (and the amount 
     specified under such heading for DNA-related and forensic 
     program activities and, within such specified amount, the 
     amount further specified for section 2 of the DNA Analysis 
     Backlog Elimination Act of 2000), by $34,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H2423]]

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I really do thank the chairman and ranking 
member of this committee. This is a difficult hurdle and a difficult 
task, but I do believe that this is an amendment that can draw 
bipartisan concern.

                              {time}  2220

  And I say that because all of us have daughters, wives, and sisters. 
This amendment deals with the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant program 
that my colleague from New York sponsored and many of us cosponsored 
and saw authorized through the Judiciary Committee. The amendment seeks 
to restore $34 million to the backlog of rape kit tests that are 
plaguing the justice system across America.
  If we go back more than a decade, New York City reported having 
17,000 untested rape kits. In 2004, the Department of Justice indicated 
there was a backlog of hundreds of thousands of untested DNA kits. This 
is the only way that law enforcement can ensure that the cases are 
prosecuted and the right person is prosecuted. This is the only way 
women who have been violated and sexually abused can have their day in 
court.
  As someone having dealt with a victim of rape, having sat on the 
board of one of our community women's centers, I know the stories that 
they've told. We have seen rape increase among our younger women, 
teenagers, even though during the Bush administration--and we supported 
it--there was an influx of dollars to the Advancing Justice account. We 
have still seen thousands of backlog cases. For example, in my own city 
of Houston--it has been acknowledged in San Antonio, Dallas, and 
Houston, and other cities across the State of Texas have acknowledged a 
significant backlog of untested rape kits in their police storage 
facility, at least 4,000 kits in Houston and 16,000 in Dallas and San 
Antonio. These are only cities in one State.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe in the ability to make the added $34 million 
just for the simple action of justice to millions of women that are yet 
unaccounted for or to be able to move the backlog, which, Mr. Chairman 
and my colleagues, has not even been assessed. The reason why the 
numbers are as low as people might assume they are--and I do not 
believe 17,000 or 22,000 is low--is because the records of the 
individual jurisdictions are not kept. So these dollars would help to 
access additional resources directly pointed toward the backlog.
  I know that a lot of work was done, but the grant program under this 
bill, under the DOJ, as I indicated, is down 378 million, or 17 
percent. This simply tries to close the gap on the hurt and the harm 
that have been done to those who have suffered a rape. Remember, 
justice delayed is justice denied. A rape kit that is now in storage 
containers around the Nation, because law enforcement doesn't have the 
resources at the local level to pierce the backlog, means that 
prosecutors are not able to prosecute the cases and women remain 
without justice, women who have been brutalized, women who have 
suffered the devastation of rape, many of whom suffer with, if you 
will, the devastation of that act for many years. Many of us know that 
many women ask the question, was it their fault. We've moved beyond 
that. But I believe this amendment would at least provide the necessary 
resources in order to provide the overcoming of this terrible backlog.
  My colleagues, please help us. Please help us render justice and 
provide for the solving or the piercing of the backlog of rape kits 
that have not been tested throughout the Nation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we have $125 million. We are at the 
administration's request of $125 million for DNA, $117 million for the 
DNA backlog. The gentlelady is accurate, it is a very important 
program. The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant program provides grants to 
States and units of local law enforcement and local governments to 
conduct DNA analysis and backlog. But we're at the administration's 
request. And what this will do is cut from ATF $34 million. It would 
require the RIFing of a number of ATF employees; it would impact on the 
Violent Crime Impact Teams in dozens of cities. The foundation of the 
Violent Crime Impact Team program is the identification and targeting, 
disruption, arrests, and prosecution of the worst of the worst 
criminals possible. We have met the administration's request. We are at 
$125 million. It is an important program. There will be $117 million 
for the DNA backlog. So we've met the request. It would devastate the 
ATF is what it would do.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Chairman Wolf, I appreciate the work of 
this committee, and it's a committee that attracts the Judiciary 
Committee. And I have been a supporter of the work of the ATF for many 
years.
  As I looked at the numbers, the ATF has $1,153,345,000. Their work is 
important. But we're only asking for $34 million because the backlog, 
as I indicated, has really not been assessed. I appreciate the $125 
million. It is my understanding that we're below the mark. I appreciate 
that. But the point I want to make is that there are backlogs that have 
not been documented across America. It is far exceeding the $125 
million. I just simply ask to be allowed to take $34 million out of the 
$1 billion of ATF. I certainly support work that they do, but the 
backlog has been going on and on and on since the Bush administration. 
We've never been able to solve the backlog on these rape kits.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, we have fully funded this. This would 
require a reduction of ATF salaries and expense accounts. A cut of this 
magnitude would result in the loss of 268 ATF personnel, including 111 
agents. That's more than 4 percent of ATF's onboard agent staffing. It 
would require that each ATF remaining staff be furloughed for 5 days.
  We're at the amount. It's very important. You have my commitment. 
We'll fight to make sure that we save the amount. I don't know where 
the Senate is on this. It's very important. But to go above what the 
administration asked and to devastate the ATF, I think, would not be a 
good idea. So I'm committed to the program, but we're at the level; and 
I don't think we should go higher and devastate the ATF and bring about 
the number of RIFs and furloughs and reductions, particularly in so 
many important roles the ATF does.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. May I inquire of the chairman one more 
question, please.
  Mr. Wolf, what can we do? We're at what the mark is. Again, I'm 
looking at different numbers. You're obviously the chairman. I see a 
shortchange. But the point is this is attempting to respond to the rape 
kits in jurisdictions that have not been accounted for.
  Mr. WOLF. I think we should. I completely agree with you. And If 
there is any additional allocation and we can go, we will. But we're at 
the request, and I don't think that we can now devastate the ATF. But, 
yes, I completely agree with you.
  Adam Schiff is on the committee. I don't see Mr. Schiff here. He's 
been a strong advocate of this, as has the chairman. This is not a good 
amendment; but the program is good, and we'll continue. If we get a 
better allocation and things happen, we'll be very sympathetic to it . 
But I ask, based on the fact that we have met the administration level, 
$117 million for the DNA backlog, that we don't devastate the ATF.
  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. I think that maybe if the gentlewoman would withdraw the 
amendment, we would work with her to make sure that we think we've met 
what is needed to make sure that every one of these kits is analyzed. 
And if that's not the case, then we can revisit it between now and 
conference. But the chairman and I would be glad to work with you to 
make sure this is done because, as he said, we agree that this is 
vitally needed. We think we've met the requirements as needed.

                              {time}  2230

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Well, if the gentleman would just yield for 
a moment so I could respond.

[[Page H2424]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has 
expired.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. In the spirit of how important this is and 
to reinforce the fact that there are rape kits that are unaccounted for 
because there is not any data kept--so I don't think we have met the 
numbers. But I am willing to work with the chairman and the ranking 
member to determine how we can move in our next steps.
  I will tell you and I do acknowledge that we're doing the work, but 
we don't have enough money to do all the work that we need to bring 
justice to women across this Nation.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and will work with 
the chairman and ranking member.
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                  Amendment Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Each amount made available by this Act (other 
     than an amount required to be made available by a provision 
     of law) is hereby reduced by 1 percent.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I bring this amendment forward tonight, 
just as I do every single year for these appropriations bills, because 
it is so important that we get the out-of-control spending here in 
Washington, D.C., under control. We all know that at this point in 
time, we are borrowing 40 cents of every single dollar that we spend. 
And as we look at this appropriations bill that is before us, we're 
talking about another $51.1 billion. So the amendment tonight makes a 1 
percent across-the-board haircut. It would be $511 million.
  Now I know all of the arguments. Since I have been doing these since 
I came to Congress, I know all of the arguments that I am going to 
have: Well, this is a carefully crafted bill. We have worked diligently 
on this bill. We have sought to get the costs down in these 
appropriations.
  And I truly appreciate the diligence that goes into this. But I have 
to tell you, on behalf of the men and women that I represent, the mom 
and pop stores in my district--which are primarily run by mom at this 
point in time--on behalf of so many of our small farms, our realtors 
who are all cutting back more than 1 percent, more than 10 percent. 
Many have revenues that are off 25 or 30 percent. We need to require 
the bureaucracy to get in behind here and cut another penny.
  It should be done for our children and our grandchildren. Indeed, if 
you want to look at what is happening to them, the share of the 
national debt for my two grandsons is $50,000 each. That is the burden 
that we are placing on them because we will not cut a little further. 
We will not reduce what the bureaucracy has to spend. We are not making 
the requirements of them that our companies and businesses and stores 
are having to make of the work that they do every single day.
  Now we all know that across-the-board spending cuts work. We've seen 
them work in our States. We saw it work in Tennessee when a Democrat 
Governor went in and cut not 1 percent but 9 percent across the board. 
This is what you do when you want to get your spending under control. 
It's what we, as a body, should do to prevent DOJ activism because 
reining that in and preserving our Constitution is priceless. It is a 
step that we need to take and do that heavy lift. It is our job to be 
good stewards of the taxpayers' money. It is our job to make certain 
that we stop borrowing money and spending money that we don't have for 
programs that many of our constituents do not want and certainly our 
children and grandchildren do not want. It is time for us to make 
additional cuts into this budget. So I offer, again, the 1 percent 
across-the-board cut. It will make a $511 million reduction to the 
spending in this appropriation.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I appreciate what the gentlelady said. Frankly, what we 
should do here is--I'll take the amendment tonight and support it, and 
we can reform Social Security. I mean, we gave Jimmy Buffett and Warren 
Buffett a big break on Social Security with the payroll tax. We 
literally bankrupt the Social Security system.
  So if there is an amendment, I will take an amendment. If you want to 
take an amendment tonight, I will take it to close the loophole.
  In 2010, everyone here who paid their taxes paid more taxes than GE. 
They fought 57,000 pages of tax reform. And they were one of the 
highest taxpayers in China. If you've got a GE taxpaying amendment, 
I'll take it tonight.
  But every dollar is not the same. Let's cut Eric Holder more than we 
cut Director Mueller. Let's cut some climate issue over at NOAA, where 
nobody knows, more than we cut cyberterrorism. Let's cut something else 
rather than cutting the DA's backlog. To take it across the board is 
just not a good idea.
  Across-the-board cuts--and I think the gentlelady had it right--
really does kind of impact on the work that's gone on in the bill. It 
says $1 in one agency is just as dispensable and the same as any other 
agency. I agree with her that we've got to do everything we can.
  I was one of the people here who supported Simpson-Bowles. I never 
signed a Grover Norquist tax pledge. I want to do whatever we can to 
deal with this issue. I want to put everything on the table. But now 
we're going through the appropriations process. And to go across the 
board, FBI and Eric Holder--if I had to make it, I would take $2 of 
Eric Holder and give $2 to Director Mueller, but not across the board. 
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I want to commend Mr. Wolf for what he just said. I agree 
with him, and I think it's a violation of our oath of office to do as 
she has suggested. So I hope we can vote this down.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. I rise to oppose the amendment and, in many ways, agree 
with Chairman Wolf.
  When you present an across-the-board cut, it always sounds good. And, 
yes, I will say we've worked diligently on this bill, and it's been 
many months in putting it together.
  But what's interesting in it is that every time you speak about an 
across-the-board cut, people get excited, and they say, Boy, that 
sounds good. But these days, those cuts don't hold the same strength 
that they used to hold in the past because in the past, there were 
times--and I was part of it, and so were many people on that side--when 
we felt that we had to grow some accounts.
  So one could argue that a 1 percent or a 2 percent or a whatever 
percent cut taking place made sense. But it's interesting to note now--
and I wonder how many people who would present these amendments know 
that these budgets, these bills that come before you, have been cut 
dramatically already. Last year and this year, they've been cut 
dramatically. The allocations given to the subcommittees to put 
together these bills are not the allocations of the past. There isn't a 
single bill on the floor--perhaps Defense, the only exception--that is 
really growing the budget. On the contrary, it's a cut and a cut and a 
cut.
  So the bigger question is, at what point does it end? At what point 
do we feel that we don't need a government, that we don't need a 
budget? Will zero be satisfactory to people who want to cut? Zero, not 
spend a single penny in the Federal Government? This bill, as presented 
by Mr. Fattah, by Chairman

[[Page H2425]]

Wolf, by the leaders of this subcommittee and this committee, is not a 
bloated bill. It is a streamlined bill. So it's easy to stand up and 
say, another 1 percent, another 3 percent, another 5 percent. But where 
does it end?

                              {time}  2240

  At what point do we say that we have a responsibility to fund a 
government, understanding what people are living through and 
understanding what we must do for the American people?
  But we can't destroy every agency, and that's what these cuts do.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I just want the House to be aware that this would be a 
cut in the FBI budget of close to a hundred million dollars. There will 
be a cut to the DEA. We just had a major incident in which the Federal 
Government and our law agencies are working right now involving a 
mother and three children from Tennessee, where there's been a murder 
and kidnapping and trying to track these people down.
  The idea that cutting a dozen agents doesn't affect our ability to 
apprehend criminals or to protect the public, I think, really would be 
malfeasance on the House to just pass an across-the-board cut. If you 
want to cut an amount of money, let's examine where you want to cut it 
at. But it's very easy to come and just say, Well, let's slash across 
the board.
  It is true that we've held lots of hearings. It is true that we 
visited with our law enforcement agencies. I've been out to the 
counterterrorism training center. I've met with Director Mueller. This 
will be a cut that has an impact.
  So this is not frivolous, and the House Appropriations Committee has 
the responsibility of figuring out what needs the Nation has that need 
to be funded. It is the Ways and Means Committee, under our 
Constitution, that is supposed to figure out how to pay for it.
  I don't hear anyone running to the floor asking for an across-the-
board tax increase because they see that as being onerous, but to cut 
FBI agents who are in hot pursuit of criminals, we think that's fine.
  I think it's wrong. I ask that we oppose this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to request a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Black).
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection?
  Without objection, a recorded vote is requested on the amendment 
offered by Mrs. Black of Tennessee.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act, other than an amount required to be 
     appropriated or otherwise made available by a provision of 
     law, an amount made available under the heading ``United 
     States Marshals Service'', an amount made available under the 
     heading ``Federal Bureau of Investigation'', or an amount 
     made available under the heading ``National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration'', is hereby reduced by 12.2 percent.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I listened very intently to the debate on the last amendment, and we 
have an amendment that actually cuts more than just Mrs. Blackburn's 1 
percent. I listened very carefully to what my dear friend from 
Virginia, whom I have the utmost respect for and what he was saying, 
and I do have a tremendous respect for him and hope with my amendment 
his blood pressure won't go up.
  This is a very straightforward amendment. It would simply reduce the 
overall sending for much of the underlying bill by 12.2 percent.
  It's no secret that we as a Nation are facing an economic emergency. 
Entitlement spending remains out of control; discretionary spending 
continues to grow; and should the President's health care plan, God 
forbid, be upheld by the Supreme Court, we could be facing the largest 
expansion of Federal Government spending in recent history and the 
greatest attack upon our freedom.
  While the budget passed by the House last month would rein in 
government spending, it would take decades for it to be balanced. Mr. 
Chairman, we don't have decades to wait around for this budget--which 
is far better than the President's request--to right our fiscal ship.
  During the budget debate, 135 House Members joined me in supporting 
the Republican Study Committee's budget substitute, which prioritized 
spending in such a way that it would have balanced in just 5 years. I'm 
not sure we have 5 years, Mr. Chairman, but the Republican Study 
Committee's budget would balance in 5 years.
  The RSC budget represents a realistic view of the dire situation 
we're facing and the tough choices which must be made to get our Nation 
back on the right track fiscally. However, this view isn't for the 
faint of heart. The RSC budget would have reduced the 302(a) 
allocations relative to those seen in the underlying bill by 24.4 
percent.
  My amendment is meant to be a compromise. I'm here to be a 
compromiser tonight, a halfway point between the level approved in the 
House-passed budget, which is used in the underlying bill, and the 
level recommended by the RSC and supported by over 100 Members of this 
body.
  My amendment would also exempt the U.S. Marshals Service. It would 
exempt the FBI and NASA. It would allow these agencies to continue to 
further our national security objectives.
  It is long past time to get serious about our fiscal situation, and 
my amendment would be a profound step toward getting Federal spending 
under control.
  I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. This would be great news for the prisoners in prison 
because it would cut the prison system by $600 million and we'd have to 
let a lot of people out of prisons or we couldn't operate them. But I 
commend the gentleman. He's been very consistent throughout the night. 
I think this would be an impact on DEA probably in the rage of $200 
million, when we think of the drugs coming into the country.
  So, while I appreciate the gentleman's compromise spirit of taking it 
down from 25 percent to half that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I was trying to figure out if we cut 12 percent of the 
weather satellites budget, how would the satellite actually function 
with 12 percent less of its capacity?
  We have, in Georgia, which the gentleman is from, and from many of 
our others States the most severe weather that the country has ever 
seen over the last 20 months. We've had more billion-dollar-plus 
incidents than we've ever had. And when we have forecasting through our 
satellite systems that we're launching through the Weather Service, we 
actually save lives and money by being able to delineate exactly where 
the storms or tornadoes or

[[Page H2426]]

hurricanes are going to hit. And it takes time to be able to evacuate 
people and the like.
  So his cuts to the National Weather Service under this 12 percent 
approach, especially with exempting certain agencies, would have a 
disproportionate effect. And I think that for farmers and for others, 
the lack of weather information would be very problematic in our 
economy and would actually threaten lives.
  So I would reject this amendment. I thank the gentleman for offering 
it. I hope the House has the wisdom to also reject it, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2250

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an 
amendment regarding the civil rights division, and recognizing the 
structure of the amendment, I chose to raise a point of concern, as I 
did with the date rape, and I look forward to working with the chairman 
and the ranking member, particularly on the date rape backlog that I 
believe is epidemic across America.
  But in looking at the appropriations bill, I noticed $40 million, 4 
percent less than requested, for certain areas in the Justice 
Department which would include the solicitor general, the tax division, 
the criminal division, civil division, but more importantly, the civil 
rights division. And it is well important to recognize how valuable 
civil rights are to Americans. No matter what your political 
perspective, there is always someone raising the point, I don't want my 
civil rights violated.
  And so obviously, as I have interacted with the civil rights 
division, particularly as they are engaging in the results of the 
discrimination in lending and foreclosures, a large responsibility, 
particularly looking at the impact of subprime mortgages, and as they 
look at the enormity of voting rights, and we have had a siege of 
attacks with voting ID laws passed across America. And one would argue 
there is nothing wrong with voting ID laws, and you are absolutely 
right. But when they have been determined to impact minorities in a 
discriminatory fashion, then it is sad when the civil rights division 
may be limited in funding.
  In the State of Texas, for example, our State law has been ruled 
invalid under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because it 
discriminates against Hispanics, African Americans, and even the 
elderly, based upon the requirement of getting a photo ID from the 
Department of Public Safety. It is not the fault of the Department of 
Public Safety, but those officers are not located in many places where 
communities of color live, and, therefore, they are disproportionately 
impacted in being prevented from having the right to vote.
  We have gone through many States' redistricting, and in some 
instances those cases have gone before the Department of Justice and 
the Federal court.
  So civil rights, I am well reminded that it was the civil rights 
department of both the Kennedy administration and the Johnson 
administration that came to the aid of civil rights leaders and 
activists, particularly in the 1960s under the Johnson administration. 
On occasion, they had to be rescued by the Department of Justice.
  And so I raise great concern when we find ourselves in a place where 
we would cut those funds such that they might impact the rendering of 
justice. It is well known that we have tough times, but I hope that as 
we make our way through the Congress, that we will find that it is 
important that we ensure that the funding that is rendered to the 
particular group of lawyers that come to the defense of civil rights of 
all Americans, that we ensure the full funding of that particular 
subset of the division under the Department of Justice.
  And so my intent would be to add this comment to the Record, and with 
that I yield back the balance of my time.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Southerland

  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to develop, approve, or implement a new limited 
     access privilege program (as that term is used in section 
     303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1853a)) that are not already 
     developed, approved, or implemented for any fishery under the 
     jurisdiction of the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New 
     England, or Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Mr. Chairman, the Southerland-Grimm amendment 
prohibits funds in the CJS Appropriations Act from being spent on 
limited access programs otherwise known as catch shares. Ladies and 
gentlemen, what I'm referring to here is nothing less than a battle to 
prevent freedom in our oceans. I want to make sure that I am very clear 
that our amendment only addresses the New England coast, the South 
Atlantic, the Mid-Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. I also want to make 
sure that it is clear that this amendment only deals with new annual 
catch limits, not any old programs that are currently in place.
  Catch shares are no different than any other inside-the-Beltway style 
tactic determined to destroy American freedom. By capping the amount of 
fish that may be caught annually----
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I have been here since the Magnuson-Stevens Act was 
enacted. Catch shares are done by local councils of fishermen. It 
doesn't come out of Washington, D.C. Every region of the country has a 
regional group, and they determine what these catch shares should be. 
This is not an implemented program from Washington, D.C.
  I mean, the gentleman at least owes it, at 5 minutes to 11, to give 
an accurate description of this amendment and this program, which is a 
program that many people, especially on the West Coast, by the way, 
think is a good program that's helping us protect the fishery.
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Reclaiming my time, in an attempt to answer your 
question, while you were here since Magnuson-Stevens, my family was 
continuing 200 years of living on the coast in the Gulf of Mexico. So 
though I respect your time here, we were there experiencing the 
crushing impacts of what catch shares do.
  Mr. DICKS. Isn't the local group down there in your area making the 
decision?
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Reclaiming my time, I want to make it very clear 
that this amendment does not affect the West Coast.
  Mr. DICKS. Oh, I know that. First the East Coast and then the West 
Coast.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Will the gentleman yield to me to help 
support his amendment? I am in support of the gentleman's amendment. 
Will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. They are welcome to get their own time, Mr. Chair, 
so I would like to finish my statement.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida controls the time.
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. It is very clear that these catch shares in the 
bodies of water that I made reference to are an effort by a select 
group to take away the individual fishing rights of individual citizens 
and to implement a cap-and-trade system where fish are traded like a 
commodity. The only problem, the American people own this natural 
resource. This is not like a crop where a farmer has planted this in a 
field. And so I want to be very clear that this does not affect any 
existing programs. It just says that no dollars may be used for new--
new--programs.

[[Page H2427]]

  I would like to submit for the Record this extensive list of 
organizations and associations that represent tens of thousands of 
fishermen, commercial, boats for hire as well as individuals.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


    THE LIST BELOW REPRESENTS THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORKING AND 
              RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN OF THE GULF OF MEXICO

     National associations
       National Association of Charterboat Operators, Recreational 
     Fishing Alliance, Food and Water Watch.
     Regional associations
       Southeastern Fisheries Association, Southern Offshore 
     Fishing Association, Fishing Rights Alliance, America 
     Alliance of Fishermen and Communities.
     State associations
       Florida: Florida Keys Commercial Fishermen's Association, 
     Florida Guides Association, Organized Fishermen of Florida.
       Alabama: Alabama Seafood Association.
       Louisiana: Louisiana Shrimp Association.
       Texas: Recreational Fishing Alliance, Texas Chapter; Texas 
     Shrimp Association.
     Local associations
       Florida: Panama City Boatmen Association, Marco Island 
     Charter Captains Association, Pensacola Charter Boat 
     Association, Pensacola Recreational Fisherman's Association, 
     Islamorada Charter Boat Association, Destin Charter Boat 
     Association, Key West Charter Boat Association, Organized 
     Fishermen of Florida, Marathon Chapter, SFA East Coast 
     Fisheries Section, Directed Sustainable Fisheries, Inc.
       Mississippi: Mississippi Charter Boat Captains Association.
       Texas: Port Aransas Boatmen, Inc., Coastal Bend Guides 
     Association.
     Seafood dealers
       Florida: Greg Abrams Seafood, Water Street Seafood, Key 
     Largo Fisheries, Raffield Fisheries, A.P. Bell Fish Company, 
     Inc., Star Fish Company of Cortez, Inc., Madeira Group, Inc., 
     Pelican Seafood, David Barber Seafood, Seafood Atlantic, 
     Kings Seafood, Madeira Beach Seafood Co., Saveon Seafood Co., 
     Stokes Fish Company, Sunnyland Seafood, RS Enterprise, #1 
     Discount Corner, Blendedin, Inc., Capt. Alex Seafood, Capt. 
     Eddie's Seafood, Inc., Gary's Seafood Specialties, Inc., 
     Hull's Seafood, Mermaid Foods, Inc., A.M Fishing Products, 
     Starboard, Inc., Dixon Seafood, John Mantia & Sons, DFI 
     Seafood, Fortune Fish Co., Nachman's Native Seafood, Seacore 
     Seafood Inc., Sea Farms Inc., Billy's Stone Crab, MB Seafood 
     Company, Inc., Cape Canaveral Shrimp Co., Wild Ocean Seafood 
     Market, Top Tuna, Inc.
       Alabama: Bryant Seafood, ABC Sport Fishing, Anna's Seafood, 
     Bryant Products, Fish Bones, Get Seafood, JD Seafood, PJ 
     Seafood, Ranch Seafood, Safe Harbour Seafood, Wallace Seafood 
     Trader, Z-Packed Seafood,
       Mississippi: Clark Seafood.
       Louisiana: Dean Blanchard Seafood, Sharko Seafood Intl, 
     Inc., Griffin Seafood.
     Bait and tackle shops
       Florida: Fishermens Ice and Bait.
     Restaurants
       Florida: Rusty Belly Restaurant, Dixie Crossroads Seafood 
     Restaurant, Captain's Table.
     Marinas
       Florida: Hubbards Marina, Captain Anderson's Marina, 
     Smith's Yacht Basin, Madeira Marine Services, Mexico Beach 
     Marina.
       Texas: Woody's Sport Center, Fishermen's Wharf.
     Marine support businesses
       Duys Marine Electronics, Watkins Oil Company, Inc., 
     Addictive Bottom Cleaning, The Grove of Mexico Beach, Sun 
     Dance Realty, The Shell Shack, Emerald Coast Jewelry, Frost 
     Pottery Garden, Shoreline Styles, Iveys Nail Spa, Catheys Ace 
     Hardware, Parker Realty of Mexico Beach, The Driftwood Inn, 
     El Governor Hotel, Toucans Restaurant, Metcalf Electric, 
     Forgotten Coast Property Management and Rentals, Gulf Foods 
     of Mexico Beach, The Trading Post Cape San Blas, Beach Barber 
     Shop, Harmon Real Estate and Rentals.
     Fishing vessels
       Florida: Sea Leveler Charters, FN Sea Leveler, F/V Out Of 
     Hand, F/V Zora, Sea Aye Charters, Bottom Dollar Charter 
     Fishing, F/V Bottom Dollar, Jodie Lynn Charters, F/V Capped 
     Off, Cool Beans Fishing Charters, F/V Leo B, F/V Daytona, FN 
     Crosswinds, F/V Raw Dog, Floridaze Adventures, F/V Michelle 
     Marie, F/V Honey Bee, F/V Miss Rita F/V Villager F/V Sea Cat 
     F/V Guardian F/V Bluewater I F/V Taurus F/V God's Grace F/V 
     Gulf Search, F/V Bandit II, F/V Cando, F/V Kingfisher, F/V 
     Crabco, F/V Trevco, F/V Careless, F/V Miss Vicki, F/V BNB, F/
     V Johnny O, F/V Mary L, F/V Redman, F/V Overkill, F/V Miss 
     Kim, F/V Daniel 1, F/V Galilee, F/V Hard Times, F/V Capt AL, 
     F/V Bird Dog 1, F/V Miss Irene, F/V Benjamin K, F/V Round 
     Tuit, F/V Barbara J, F/V Petes Dream, F/V Cynthia J, F/V Life 
     Force, F/V Miss Beth II, F/V Gale Force, F/V Rachel J. Belle, 
     Inc., F/V Lisa M. Belle, Inc., F/V Kalije Belle, Inc., F/V 
     Karen J. Belle, Inc., F/V Savannah Belle, Inc., F/V Liberty 
     Belle, Inc., F/V Sea Hawk, Inc., F/V Blendedin, Inc., F/
     VJessie B. Bell, Inc., F/V Rebel, Inc., F/V She's A Belle, 
     Inc., F/V Thunder Belle, Inc., F/V Joanne, Inc., F/V Mystic 
     1., Party Boat Capt Anderson, F/V Leo Too, F/V Aegeus II, F/V 
     Scat II, F/V Flash, F/V Tar Baby, F/V Full Circle, F/V 
     Charisma, F/V Bottom Line, F/V Arrowhead, F/V Wild Catch, F/V 
     Top Tuna, F/V Phat Kat, F/V Four O's, F/V Pirates Pride, F/V 
     Fish Trap, F/V Prescription, F/V Onna Bender, F/V Miss Tracy, 
     F/V Miss Sierra, F/V Captain's Table, F/V Captain's Table 
     II, F/V Big Catch, F/V Second Wind, F/V Patriot, F/N 
     Prowler, F/N Big Chief, F/V Down Easter, F/V Neil L, F/V 
     Out Of Hand, F/V The Obsession, FN Sea Leveler, F/V 
     Relentless II, F/V Point Blank, F/V Tight Work, F/V 
     Tiburon, F/N Night Quest, F/V Sea Wrangler, F/V Crusader, 
     F/N No Limit, Mexico Beach Charters, F/N Miss Mary, F/V 
     Nauti-Dogg, F/V Calamari Express, F/N Big Time, ACME 
     Ventures Fishing, F/V Wile E Coyete.
       Alabama: F/V Alexandra Pearl, F/V Angela C, F/V Appalachian 
     Girl, F/V Datt Parker, F/V David's Pride, F/V Debra Lee, F/V 
     Dirty White Boys, F/V Diversifide, F/V Emily Ariel, F/V Erica 
     Lynn, F/V Escape, F/V Eunice Lemay, F/V Fairplay, F/V Free-N-
     Deed, F/V Kala Michelle, F/V Kimberly Ann, F/V Mama Sharon, 
     F/V Miss Ann, F/V Miss Loraine, F/V Nixie, F/V Open Sea, F/V 
     Qwest, F/V Sea Weed 2, F/V Seaman Pride, F/V Southbound, F/V 
     WBS, F/V Wild Dream Two, F/V Gladiator, F/V Liberty, F/V Day 
     Break, F/V Posidon, F/V Lucky Nam, F/V Thuy Trang, F/V 
     Gladiator IV, F/V Fellowship, F/V May Flower, F/V Miss Amy, 
     F/V Miss Jennifer, S/F/V LA8283FJ, S/F/V LA8373FP, F/V Lucky 
     Star, S/F/V LA3032CA, F/V Blue Fin, F/V Blue Fin II, S/F/V 
     LA7411FD, S/F/V LA4611CA.
       Mississippi: Party Boat Silver Dawn III, Party Boat Happy 
     Hooker, Party Boat Kessler Dolphin II, Party Boat Skipper, 
     Party Boat Miss Hospitality.
       Texas: Party Boat La Pesca, Party Boat Dolphin Express, 
     Party Boat Osprey II, Party Boat Osprey, Party Boat New 
     Buccaneer, Party Boat Texas Cavilier, Party Boat Big Thunder, 
     Party Boat New Pelican, Party Boat Gulf Eagle, Party Boat 
     Kingfisher, Party Boat Adventurer, Party Boat Scat Cat, Party 
     Boat Wharf Cat, Party Boat Dolphin.
     Fishermen
       Florida: Alan Coe, Jason Whitaker, Donna McRoberts, Louis 
     Michael Primicero, Andrea Fitzwater, Steven E. Brand, Emily 
     Klizek, Roberto Ramirez, Damian Martinez, Carl Barquist, 
     Samantha Cobb, Libia Paulino, Alex Burr, Jennifer Jette, Rian 
     Busse, Stan Mickle, Antonio Giambanco, Herb Sullivan, Capt. 
     Albert Quatraro, Ron Rincones, Brock Anderson, Robert 
     Johnson, Charter boat teaser, Inc, mark brown, sc, Capt. 
     David Grubbs, Capt Tim Fletcher, Bill Houghton, Sam Chavers, 
     Rusty Hudson, George Armexy, Robert Roberts, Mitch Rice, Gary 
     Reed, Daryl Reed, Alex Mallieis, Matt Mallieis, Danny 
     Fiddler, Mike Cardin, Mark Raffield, Tim Chaiffin, Capt. 
     Thomas M. Coleman, Billy Moore, Noah Gibson, Scott Woods, 
     Scott Tubb, Homer Jones, Joseph Mims, Matt Mayfield, 
     Joshua Sprinkle, Shane Schoon, Jim Bonne11, Darrell Knepp, 
     David Johnson, Shawn Watson, Mark Dube, Tim McGrath, Jeff 
     Ursery, Capt. Brian Holland, Capt. Dave Malouf, Capt. 
     Brian Spaeth, Capt. Steve Thoristeem, Capt. Jason Kossert, 
     Capt. Bob Spaeth, Capt. Sam Nastari, Capt. Butch Hewlett, 
     John Stalides, Kirk Stewart, Russell Boats, Mike Nichols, 
     Ed Duller, Rich Castellano, Martha Lee Beneduci, Al 
     Dopirak, John Cox, Capt. Mitch Gale, Joe Pillsbury, Capt. 
     Gary Nichols, Capt. Kelly Nichols, George Gieger, former 
     SAFMC member from FL, Jerry Andrews, Capt. Robbie Fuller, 
     Capt. Bobby Fuller, Mark Hubbard, owner 3 party boats in 
     John's Pass, FL, Greg Abrams, Walter Bell, Karen Bell, 
     former GMFMC member, Karl Lessard, former GMFMC Member and 
     Chairman from FL, Jerry Sansom, Executive Director OFF, 
     Capt. Tim Daniels, Capt. Ernie Piton, Capt. Bobby Pillar, 
     Capt. Billy Niles, Capt. George Niles, Capt. Jason 
     Yarbrough, Capt. Josh Nicklaus, Capt. Vicki Gale, Capt. 
     Jeff Cramer, Steve Reis, Capt. Johnny Brown, Capt. Bob 
     Zales, II, Keith Bowan, Mason Bowan, Tom Adams, Larry 
     Jones, Chip Blackburn, Jimmy Hull, Dewey Hemilright, Jim 
     Busse, Capt. James Turner, Andrea Vautier, Capt. Chuck 
     Guilford, Mike E. Schnurbusch, Thomas Moors, Joshua McCoy, 
     Duane Grove, Sherri McCoy, John Tobeyyansen, Fred Collins, 
     Alvin Sanders, Mel Miller, Stewart Miller, Waylon Mills, 
     William Mills, II, Hubert Potter, Marty Scott, Johnny 
     Brown, Patrick Putslow, William Wamble, Chris King, 
     Richard Turner, Mark Raffield, Danny Fidler, Mike Carden, 
     Milton Alexander, Gary Key, Tim Chaffin, Anthony Chiodo, 
     Kristy Chiodo, Doug Wiggin, Don Harper, Laura Harper, John 
     Amick, Freddie Knowles, Donnie Harper, Danny Harper, 
     Russell Stewart, III, Mike Moore, Trey Helms, Sherrie 
     Hook, Kristy Miller, Stephenie Oberst, Maria Adams, 
     William Hanson, Allen Byrd, Angelo Petrandis, Mitch 
     Holman, Carolyn Holman, Pat Floyd, Jarvis Olson, Jeffrey 
     Long, Zak McCool, G.P. Floyd, Chris Bucalo, Holly 
     Stricker, Robert Wemple, Paul Cavanaugh, Raymond 
     Zakaluzny, Kenny Evans, Ralph Neil Logan, James A. Reeves, 
     Erica L. Anson, Barrett Colby, Tony Goiillo, Jimmy Reeves, 
     James Capiti, Brent Hancock, Stan Mitchelle, Scott Bussen, 
     Andy Fish, Johnny Fish, Greg Rapp, Dustin Rapp, Robbie 
     Knapp, Billy Knight, Joe Palermo, Frank Booth, John 
     Miller, Mike Egner, Leonard Gero, Nichole McCoy, Jimmy 
     Shick, Chip Blackburn, Nate Odum, Henry Hauch, Matt 
     Wegner, John Tendler, Carol Tendler, Sally Childs, Bill 
     Fauth, Teresa Hunter, George Hunter, Marie Stephens,

[[Page H2428]]

     Dena Frost, Jay Frost, Tracy Wilson, Lionne Fulk, Ivey 
     Chapman, Helen Laplante, Duane Wrona, Al Cathey, Lee 
     Cathey, Cathey Parker Hobbs, Ralph Hobbs, Maurice 
     Bosstick, Curtis Cain, Gary Carlton, Fred Buskins, Capt. 
     Dick Swikert, Diane Wallace, Nancy Compton, Jim Compton, 
     John Rand, Shawna Wood, Amy Haag, Peggy Wood, B. J. Shaw, 
     Teresa Lineberger, Wiley Petty, Scott Gordon, Jay Metcalf, 
     Teresa Carlton, Candi Daniel, Capt. Luke Daniel, Capt. 
     John Wilson, Lisa Guilford, Andrew Wyrosidick, Nike 
     Wyrosidick, Ike Godwin, Todd Godwin, Michelle Catrett, 
     Chris Hubbard, Ryan Harmon, Michelle Corbel, Randall 
     Cowan, James Stanley, Jerry Metz.
       Alabama: Cindy Adams, Lea Adams, Steven Adams, Tim Adams, 
     Bruce Alexander, Phillip A. Alexander, Tracy Allen, Mark 
     Averitt, Darlene Baird, Jason Baird, Shane Baird, Mellisa 
     Bartholomew, Scott Black, Josh Blackwell, Terry Boyd, Kevin 
     A. Brannon, Phillip Brannon, Beth Bryant, Glen Bryant, Robert 
     L. Bryant, Brent Buchanan, David Buchanan, Jimmy Lewis 
     Buckley, Jerry Burleson, Teddy Jerome Bussie, Gilbert 
     Calloway, Jennifer Calloway, M. C. Calloway, Shelby Calloway, 
     Mike Cassey, Joe Carver, Doug Coleman, Barry Collier, Mark 
     Collier, Richard M. Collier, Sean Collier, Troy Cornelius, 
     Billy Cunningham, Larry S. Davis, Douge Duvall, William 
     Eddins, Mitch Fore, Jack Gaines, David Grazzier, Joseph 
     Anthony Nelson, II, Justin Nelson, Lloyd Nielson, Mathew 
     Noel, Paul Noel, Tommy Phillips, Trung Phan, Urban Poole, 
     Charles Pope, Timothy E. Rice, Ron Rifley, David Roberts, 
     David Rogers, David Rogers, Jr., Robert Rutledge, Noah 
     Gibson, Ted Clark Gillespie, Bernnie Ray Goldman, Ann Marie 
     Guidroz, Beth Guidroz, Clay Guidroz, Clayton Guidroz, Jr., 
     Renay Guidroz, Mathew Haidt, Willie Harris, Deral Holeman, 
     Robert Neal Horton, Wendall A. Howerin, Jan Isham, Connie 
     Johnson, Daryl Ray Johnson, Zeb Jones, Farrell Ryan, Shawn 
     Ryan, Eathan Saunders, Harry Saunders, Kevin Saunders, Jr., 
     Kevin Saunders, Sr., Sebastian Saunders, Polly Saunders, Alan 
     Savell, Jeremy Schoon, Thurman Seaman, Randy Shutt, David 
     Simms, Jr., David Simms, Sr., Robert Sprinkle, Vernon Steele, 
     James Stewart, Homer O. Ladnier, Kieth Ladnier, Chris 
     Laforce, Joseph Laskey, Mark Lewis, Julia Lochrico, King 
     Marchand, Lane Moralis, Terry Moralis, Clayton Morgan, Harry 
     Mund, Bradley Murph, Alvin Nelson, Allen Still, M.L. Strange, 
     Glenn G. Swift, Brian Swindle, Claude Teed, Chuck Turner, 
     Richard Turner, Tyler Vantt Hoff, Cecil Wainwright, Angela 
     Wallace, Blake Wallace, Brent Wallace, Brittan Wallace, Bruce 
     Wallace, Eddie Wallace, Erin Wallace, Heather Wallace, Violet 
     Wallace, Bobby Wescovich, Stacy Wester, Roy White, Bryan 
     Wilkerson, Deloyd Williams, Greg Williams, Martin Young, 
     Brent Zirlott, Jeremy Zirlott, Simon Zirlott, Kim Vo, Amy Vo, 
     Khai Nguyen, Khanh Nguyen, Chuc Nguyen, Dung Nguyen, Nam 
     Nguyen, Chau Kha, Ai Tran, Mang Sov, Minh Chau, Anh Tran, Van 
     Tran, Tuan Tran, Jay Trotter, James Braddock, Frank Kruth, 
     Thi Lo, Lien Nguyen, Nam Truong, Hong Truong, Smay Son, Tiet 
     Thach, Glenn Bryant, Pete Barber.
       Mississippi: Jay Trochesset, James McClellon, James Young, 
     Tom Becker, Kenny Barhanovich, Phil Horn.
       Louisiana: Clint Guidry, President LA Shrimp Assn.
       Rhode Island: Tina Jackson, President AAFC.
       Texas: Michael Hall, Phil Calo, Ed Schroeder, Kelly F. 
     Owens, Mary Ann Heinmann, Bobby Grumbles, Paul Dirk, Capt. 
     Mike Nugent, Mike Holmes, Ed Schroeder, Tom Hilton, Glenn 
     Martin, Former Mayor Port, TX, Bobby Grumbles, Hefner 
     Appling.

  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DICKS. I've got a letter and let me read you this letter because 
I think it really picks up what this program is about so that Members 
understand that this is a program that is going to help the fishermen, 
not hurt them:

       We are writing to ask your continued support for the 
     groundfish trawl program in the FY12 and FY13 National Marine 
     Fisheries Service budget.
       Today, a year after the implementation of catch shares in 
     our fishery, things are beginning to improve. We are seeing 
     higher prices for several key groundfish species. We have 
     greater flexibility in when and how we fish. Discards are 
     down dramatically. Gear innovation is on the rise. Fishermen, 
     processors, fishery managers, and others are coming together 
     to make this new program work. While the new management 
     system will require ongoing improvement to maximize economic 
     and biological performance, the early trends are positive.
       As we continue into the second year of the catch share 
     program, a fundamental challenge confronts us--observer and 
     program management costs.
       The high cost of observers--a key element of the catch 
     share program--is a subject of deep concern to many of us. 
     While over time we will assume more of these costs, we 
     continue to require Federal assistance during the 
     transitional phase to help support the cost of observers.

                              {time}  2300

  So here we have a group of people who think that this is the program 
of the future. It is decided upon by a regional council under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. Every region can make decisions that affect the 
fishery in their area. In our area of the world, this is highly 
regarded.
  The gentleman from Alaska isn't on the floor, but he'll tell you the 
people up in Alaska on halibut, this has been a great salvation. We're 
protecting the lives of these people so they don't have to rush out, 
catch all their fish in 1 or 2 days. They have a share, and they can do 
it over a reasonable period of time. It adds safety to this program.
  But the last thing it is is coming out of D.C. This isn't NOAA or 
NMFS. This is the regional council in the gentleman's part of the 
world, in the Northeast, on the Atlantic coast off of Florida. These 
regional councils, they're the ones that make the decisions.
  I thought that our good friends on the other side were for authority 
being used at the local level. So I urge you all, do not buy into this 
amendment. We should defeat this.
  By the way, the gentleman from Washington is the chairman of the 
Natural Resources Committee. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Southerland) is a member of that committee. If he's got a complaint, 
why don't you go to your own committee and work on it rather than 
coming here and screwing up an appropriations bill where we don't need 
riders, frankly. We appreciate your concern, but go talk to the 
chairman, and you guys sit down and write some laws if you can get them 
passed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my friend and colleague 
from Florida.
  I represent an island. And I respect the letter that was just read, 
but I have to be honest, those that I'm speaking to in my district that 
have made their living for generations on the water disagree. I have 
been contacted by many of my constituents that have great concerns that 
this will hamper their ability to earn a living.
  I want to add, when we talk about the economy and growing the economy 
and creating jobs, think about those that have a charter boat and they 
bring out people from all over that come and vacation and go fishing. 
Think of all the ancillary business that that brings--all of the 
hotels, all of the restaurants, all of the shopping that they do. I 
think that is also relative.
  At this time, I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
who has been waiting.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman.
  I strongly support the amendment. The gentleman from Washington has 
the regional councils confused with the people who fish. There's a 
regional split here. If the people on the west coast are happy with 
this, good luck to them.
  Here's what happened.
  In the Magnuson-Stevens Act passed in the lame duck of 2006, we said 
that provisions that would provide for these kinds of limitations were 
to be voted on by the people in the fishery. There would have to be a 
vote of the people in the fishery. What happened was, in Washington, 
they decided that there were areas where they wouldn't get the 
fishermen to vote for it--maybe on the west coast, they would; on the 
east coast, they wouldn't. So they invented--Washington did--catch 
shares, which is a way to have exactly the same impact as what we 
have in the bill, but without a referendum. We went to court. The judge 
said, Well, you've got a good argument, but I've got to go with the 
administrator.

  If this amendment passes, if the people in the fishery--the 
fishermen--want to vote for something that will, in effect, be catch 
shares, they can put it into effect. And if they vote ``no,'' it will 
be no.
  The regional councils, they are not only fishermen, they are 
appointees. NMFS has had a major impact.
  So let's be very clear: If you think the fishermen ought to be able 
to decide, that's what the law says. This catch shares is an invention 
to get around the law. If this amendment

[[Page H2429]]

passes, catch shares will not be around, but the law that we passed in 
2006 that allows for the fishermen to vote if they want to implement it 
will still be there. If people on the west coast want it, fine.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield? That's not what the amendment 
says.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, excuse me. That is what the amendment 
says. The amendment says you can't have what they call catch shares. If 
it passes, you will go back to the underlying Magnuson-Stevens Act, 
which did come out of committee.
  Do you know who amended the bill? Not here in the appropriations 
process, NMFS. If there are no catch shares, that means you can't do 
this without a vote of the fishermen. You will go back to the 
underlying statute, Magnuson-Stevens, which will say that if the people 
in the fishery want to vote for it, they can; otherwise, it doesn't 
happen.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. GRIMM. In closing, I just want to say that I urge all of my 
colleagues to join me in supporting our fishermen and support this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this amendment.
  Mr. Grimm said that he represents an island. I live on an island. I 
live in the heart of the fisheries in the State of Maine, and I join my 
colleagues in Maine in supporting this. I'm sorry to see my good friend 
from Massachusetts is in opposition, but it shows that there are 
differences in the fisheries. I guarantee you that the fishermen in my 
State would say this is not to circumvent the law; this is a law that 
is now working in our State and highly successful. This amendment would 
block the use of catch shares from managing our Nation's fisheries by 
superseding the Regional Fishery Management Council process set up by 
Congress.
  I live in the heart of a district where people have lost a tremendous 
amount of fish and are looking for ways to make sure that they have a 
fisheries industry to pass along to their children and grandchildren. 
The sectors management system in Maine has done that; it has allowed 
innovative fishermen, like members of the Maine Coast Fishermen's 
Association, to manage their small business in a way that works best 
for them in their own way of managing it.
  By having an allocation and the flexibility to fish on their own 
schedule--which I can tell you is far safer and far more profitable--
fishermen can enter into contracts with processors and avoid the ``race 
to fish,'' improving their bottom line and their safety. And it's been 
proven over and over again.
  Some Maine fishermen have even developed community-supported 
fisheries co-ops, which bring local fish to the tables of local 
consumers, strengthening our communities while getting fishermen a 
better price for their catch.
  It is critical for coastal communities and working waterfronts that 
fishermen are allowed to utilize the best management tools for their 
particular fishery. Catch shares may not be the best option for every 
fishery, but that decision should be left to the industry, the 
management experts, and the scientists in their region where the 
fishery occurs.
  In order to help our fishermen, we should be focused on improving the 
stock assessments, implementing cooperative research programs, 
addressing monitoring challenges, and ensuring fair enforcement. This 
amendment would do none of these things. Instead, it would take a 
critical management tool out of the toolbox to keep our fishermen on 
the water.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting fishermen by keeping 
all options available for wise fisheries management by opposing this 
amendment and sticking with the fishermen in the State of Maine who 
have found this highly successful--far more safe for the industry and 
much more profitable for them. Any other argument is just plain wrong.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I have a letter here from the Atlantic Trawlers Fishing, 
Inc, the Associated Fisheries of Maine, and a whole bunch of other 
groups, and they say:

       Dear Member of Congress:
       Please don't micromanage our fisheries from Washington, 
     D.C.
       We represent thousands of hardworking fishing men and women 
     from all over the country who want local fishermen to write 
     the rules governing their fisheries instead of having 
     Congress dictate them through an appropriations rider.
       Through the Nation's primary fishing law, the Magnuson-
     Stevens Act, Congress has given regional fishery management 
     councils made up of fishing industry representatives and 
     others the power to write the rules governing fishing in 
     their area.
       But in a move that would tie the hands of local fishermen, 
     Representative Steve Southerland recently sent a letter to 
     the appropriators seeking a rider to the Commerce-Justice-
     Science appropriation bill that would prohibit the ``future 
     development and implementation of new `catch share' programs 
     for any fishery under the jurisdiction of the Fishery 
     Management Councils'' in certain regions.
       Such a rider would prevent councils from eliminating 
     command-and-control regulations that burden our small 
     businesses, imperil our jobs, drive up our fuel costs, even 
     put our lives at greater risk--

  Shame on you. That was an edit, by the way.

       --and often don't successfully conserve fish populations.
       Although catch shares have proven successful in commercial 
     fisheries around the world and in the United States (today, 
     fully half the fish caught in U.S. Federal waters are under 
     catch share management), they may not be right for every 
     fishery. But that is a determination best made by the 
     councils, which have local representation, not legislators in 
     Washington, D.C. Congress micromanaging Federal fisheries 
     through appropriations riders is big government at its worst.

                              {time}  2310

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Reclaiming my time, how much time do I have 
left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 30 seconds remaining.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. So just to be clear, the Catch Shares Program, 
as you've heard over and over again, suits the fishermen of my 
district. It serves them well. It brings about a tremendous amount more 
safety. When they had allocations, they had to go out whenever the day 
was, whatever the weather was. With catch shares they can make that 
determination on their own. They can get a better price for their fish.
  If the Port Clyde fishermen were up this late, which I feel confident 
they're not, and they saw Congress debating the opportunity to take 
away this right that has been very successful for them, they would be 
shocked and angry and frustrated and down here tomorrow with their 
boats and their boots.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. You know, what's amazing is I always hear stuff 
that's not true. I was very clear. The letter that my colleague, Mr. 
Chairman, read, clearly stated that it would eliminate programs, catch 
share programs currently in bodies of water all around America; and 
that's just not true. That's not what it says.
  My amendment is crystal clear. New catch shares in New England, Mid-
Atlantic, South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico--that's four bodies of 
water.
  Now, I also want to make it very clear that every time that opponents 
or proponents of catch share stand up they want to talk about 
commercial fishermen. And I have commercial fishermen in my district, 
and I'm concerned about our commercial fishing industry.
  But I'm also concerned about the individual freedoms and liberties of 
the American people, and the proponents of the catch share program 
never want to talk about the individual rights and freedoms of the 
American people.
  This is a public resource, a natural resource. This is not just for a 
small select group of commercial fishermen that are backed by very, 
very wealthy environmentalists to decide alone.
  This is an issue that is worthy for the American people to speak on. 
And this is the people's House. And so I stand here, yes, as a Member 
of the people's House, but I also stand here as someone who's lived on 
the Gulf of Mexico,

[[Page H2430]]

as a family, for over 200 years. I know what I'm talking about.
  And you just quoted something that was untrue, Mr. Chairman, and I 
have a problem with that. Geez.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DICKS. This was from an east coast group of Atlantic fishermen. 
This wasn't west coast people. I quoted and I gave the title of the 
people who were----
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I reclaim my time, sir. When the gentleman stood up 
he mentioned----
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina controls the 
time.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. I reclaim my time, and I yield to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  MR. FRANK of Massachusetts. The gentleman from Washington is turning 
this on its head; and standing on your head is dangerous in any 
circumstances; but in the water, it's bad for your breathing.
  What we have in the law are individual transferrable quotas. It was 
written into Magnuson-Stevens, and it does exactly what catch shares 
are supposed to do, with one difference.
  The gentleman says Washington is micromanaging. No, it was the 
National Marine Fisheries Service that twisted the law. The law says 
they can do this for new ones. The gentleman's right, it doesn't 
disrupt anything. It allows them to do it subject to a vote of the 
people in the fishery.
  I would say to my friend from Maine that may be what they think in 
Maine. I represent the fishing port in the United States that brings in 
the most money, and the people there want to be able to vote for 
themselves. They do not, as does the gentleman from Washington, 
identify the regional councils as the voice of the fishermen. They have 
a lot of complaints about that, including the NMFS intervention.
  So this is the question. It is not whether or not we should have the 
system that the gentlewoman from Maine mentioned, whether or not you 
should be able to allocate and come together.
  There is one point at issue here: should the fishermen themselves 
have to vote for it. In the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it said you can do 
any of that new if the fishermen voted it. The NMFS didn't like the 
notion of a fishermen vote, so they came up with catch shares and said 
the fishermen don't have to vote.
  So all of the benefits the gentlewoman from Maine claims, everything 
else can be done. The difference is the gentleman from Washington 
apparently thinks the councils are fishermen. The councils do not, in 
my experience of 20 years of representing a large fishing port, 
represent the fishermen. The fishermen represent the fishermen.
  And so the question is not whether or not we allow this kind of 
allocation in shares, but should it be subject to a vote of the 
fishermen, as the Magnuson-Stevens Act said, or should this wiggle room 
that NMFS came up with allow it to go to the council with NMFS people 
and others sitting on it, State officials sitting on it, as opposed to 
the fishermen.
  So the gentleman's amendment is very clear. It will allow those kinds 
of allocations. It would allow any of those things. It allows 
everything that you get in catch shares, except it calls them 
individual transferrable quotas, as it did in the law, not catch 
shares; and it's subject to a vote of the people in the fisheries.
  That's the sole issue here in this amendment: should the people who 
are the fishermen themselves be able to vote on this, or should NMFS be 
able to tell the council and the council should be able to do it.
  Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman from Massachusetts lending his voice to this debate in favor 
of it.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. I'd like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts. 
I agree with his comments.
  Again, I want to be just very clear. I think that the amendment is 
crystal clear. I think that all Americans who believe----
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from South Carolina has 
expired.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment 
affects fisheries under the jurisdiction of NOAA, as written in the 
actual amendment in the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England, Gulf 
of Mexico fishery management council areas; and it prohibits these 
catch shares from any funds being used.
  Now, I believe that the 15 Federal catch shares programs have worked 
well. I think that they have had a great deal of social, economic, and 
biological benefit. They deal with the essential challenge here, which 
is overfishing. And it also deals with some of the dangerous conditions 
related to kind of this race to fish, or derby kind of atmosphere 
because it creates some order. And order is useful, and is done at a 
local level.
  Now, our committee is an appropriations committee. It is not the 
place for this to be worked out. This is not the hour for it to be 
worked out. But if the House has to take a vote on this, I think that 
we should understand our responsibilities in terms of stewardship here.
  There's a difference between saying, well, it shouldn't be the 
regional council, it should be the fishermen and saying that there 
should be no funds of NOAA used to organize these catch shares. They're 
two different things. They are not the same.
  So I join the gentlelady from Maine, I join my ranking member from 
Washington State, and I ask the House and I'll be asking members of my 
caucus to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a Representative from a great 
fishing community, Monterey, California. Many of you may have heard 
about Monterey because it was the sardine port of the world, the 
largest sardine port in the world; and it certainly was written about 
in Steinbeck's famous ``Cannery Row.''
  We don't catch sardines anymore. They're all gone. We fished them all 
out, destroyed an entire industry. No programs there to help people in 
the 1950s when that whole Cannery Row closed down.
  It took about 50 years to rebuild it as a tourist industry, but the 
sensitivities of all the Italian and Portuguese fishermen that were in 
that community are still there today.
  We have a catch share program on the west coast, and people endorse 
it wholeheartedly.

                              {time}  2320

  I've been listening to this debate. Unfortunately, the debate hasn't 
really gone to the amendment. Let me read what the amendment is:

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to 
     develop, approve or implement a new limited access privilege 
     program.

  It doesn't say anything about fishermen's votes or catch shares or 
anything like that. This is just taking a tool out of the toolbox and 
saying you can't even use it, that you cannot use it. There hasn't been 
a program developed, approved or implemented yet. So why are we trying 
to say you can't use any of these funds to go and do that? It's because 
the process is from the bottom up. That's the way it was worked out in 
all of these fisheries. So we're taking a meat ax to, really, a weak 
fish, a delicate fish. We're taking a meat ax to a delicate fish.
  I think the process here of Congress is overreaching, and it is 
prohibiting a tool to be used to work out with local fishermen, which 
are all the things the gentlelady from Maine said. Fishermen want to be 
able to have certainty in that they can go out and fish within the 
quota. They don't want to have to go out, because the season is so 
short, when the storms are high--because that's the window--and risk 
their lives. They want to be able to have more. If all the fish are 
caught at the same time, the price for fish goes down. This way, you 
can spread it out. Then, as you've heard, revenue goes up for 
fishermen. They have a sustainability, and the fishery doesn't get 
pounded so hard. It can replenish itself.

[[Page H2431]]

  There are all the good things in here that any farmer would tell you 
were absolutely logical in farming practices. So why wouldn't we want 
to apply that to farming the sea? You are using this amendment to say, 
before you even think about it, before you even discuss it, we're not 
going to allow you to even consider it. We're going to take the money 
away from the administration and prohibit it from doing it.
  Don't leap before you look. It is not broken. It does not need to be 
fixed yet.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to language included 
in the FY13 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill that strips 
the Justice Department's authority to implement accessibility standards 
for swimming pools under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was 
an amendment offered and discussed earlier this evening.
  As cochair of the bipartisan Disabilities Caucus and as a person who 
has lived with a disability for over 30 years, I am very troubled by 
any attempt to weaken the ADA. However, I am even more surprised to see 
such language included in an appropriations bill used to fund the 
Federal Government.
  In 2010, the Department of Justice issued regulations requiring that 
public and commercial pools be made accessible by either a ramp or a 
fixed pool lift. This rule was intended to break down one of many 
barriers to recreational activities that people with disabilities face. 
I understand that some businesses, such as hotels and motels, believe 
that meeting these requirements would impose an undue cost burden, so I 
would like to take a moment to dispel some of the misunderstandings 
that have formed around this issue.
  The Justice Department's regulation only requires existing pool 
facilities to satisfy the accessibility standards if it is ``readily 
achievable,'' which simply means that it is ``easily accomplished and 
able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.'' This has 
been the governing legal principle of the ADA since its passage 22 
years ago. It ensures that businesses are given the flexibility to 
determine whether they have the resources to make accessibility 
improvements rather than requiring a one-size-fits-all approach; and 
contrary to some misconceptions, individual parties cannot sue to get 
money damages as a result of noncompliance.
  It is also worth pointing out that this is not a last-minute 
regulation rushed through by any one administration. The United States 
Access Board first adopted pool access standards in 2002 and 
incorporated those standards into its ADA Accessibility Guidelines in 
2004. This rule applies those same standards to the 2010 regulation at 
issue, and businesses have had 18 months to prepare and give feedback 
on this rule. In fact, they were recently granted another 2-month 
extension to delay implementation until May 21, 2012.
  I recognize the challenges facing many small businesses, so I feel it 
is important that regulations do not impose an undue burden on them. 
However, if this language to strip the DOJ's authority is approved, a 
burden will be borne by people with disabilities everywhere--whether 
they are trying to access commercial pools or public pools like those 
run at State and local recreation facilities.
  Swimming is a recreational activity that provides numerous social, 
physical, and medically therapeutic benefits; and it has played a 
crucial role in the rehabilitation, overall health and increased 
quality of life for millions of people with disabilities, including our 
injured military servicemembers and disabled veterans who participate 
in adaptive sports and recreational swimming as a means of fitness, 
inclusion, and empowerment. Many veterans service organizations and 
disability rights groups have expressed as much in letters opposing 
this language, including Disabled American Veterans, Iraq and 
Afghanistan Veterans of America, Jewish War Veterans, VetsFirst, in 
addition to the National Council on Independent Living, American 
University Centers on Disabilities, and the Consortium for Citizens 
with Disabilities, which encompasses many additional disability, health 
and veterans groups.
  Mr. Chairman, this language sets a dangerous precedent for civil 
rights enforcement, and it would mark the first time that Congress has 
weakened the enforcement of the ADA. So I ask my colleagues to oppose 
this language in any final bill that is conferred with the Senate. Once 
you pull that thread, you risk unraveling the protections of the most 
important civil rights bill for people with disabilities as well as 
that which binds us all together in a higher calling of equal rights 
for all.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                                         Association of University


                                      Centers on Disabilities,

                                   Silver Spring, MD, May 7, 2012.
       Dear Representative:  On behalf of the Association of 
     University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD), I am writing to 
     urge you to oppose Representative Carter's amendment to the 
     Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill that would 
     prevent the Justice Department from using its funds to 
     enforce the ADA regulations to increase access for people 
     with disabilities to swimming pools.
       On March 15, the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design went 
     into effect, setting accessibility requirements for built-in 
     facilities including swimming pools. These standards were 
     adopted as part of the revised regulations for Title II and 
     Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 
     (ADA). Unfortunately, the regulations were met with strong 
     opposition by the hotel industry due to a misunderstanding as 
     to what they require and the ``readily achievable'' standard 
     the ADA applies to ensure reasonable enforcement.
       The readily achievable standard has been supported and 
     recognized by the business community since the passage of the 
     ADA in 1990. The standard, since its inception twenty-two 
     years ago, provides the Justice Department with flexibility 
     to determine what is achievable based on a covered entity's 
     particular circumstances, and to prevent the Department from 
     applying a rigid one-size-fits-all standard. In the case of 
     the accessibility regulations for pool lifts, therefore, if 
     it is too costly or burdensome for a small, family-owned 
     business to install a fixed pool lift at their facility, the 
     new regulations do not require that they do so. Furthermore, 
     pool owners that fail to comply with the regulations are not 
     subject to large damage awards largely in part to the fact 
     that individuals cannot obtain money damages against hotels 
     for violations of ADA's accessibility requirements.
       The hotel industry has known about this issue for a decade, 
     and has participated in every step of the way. They were 
     given 18 additional months (past the publication of the 
     finalized rules in September 2010) to prepare before the 
     standards went into effect. As a result of the forgoing built 
     in protections in the ADA, this amendment is not needed to 
     protect small hotel owners.
       Additionally, it is crucial to understand, that access to 
     swimming pools is important for people with disabilities--it 
     helps them participate in their communities, spend time with 
     their families and, for many, is a critical means of exercise 
     and maintaining good health.
       If Congress intercedes by passing this amendment, we fear a 
     dangerous precedent will have been set that could chip away 
     at other provisions of the ADA. The final rule was the result 
     of an extensive regulatory process that provided ample 
     opportunity for participation. Accordingly, AUCD urges you to 
     protect the ADA by opposing amendments that will take away 
     the right of the Department to enforce such critical 
     regulations.
           Sincerely,
                                                A. Anthony Antosh,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                      May 4, 2012.
       Dear Senator/Representative: We the undersigned veterans 
     organizations are writing in support of the Department of 
     Justice's (DOJ) final rule detailing requirements for 
     accessible entry and exit for pools and spas under the 
     Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
       Our organizations strongly support the principles of the 
     ADA, because they ensure independence and reintegration for 
     wounded servicemembers and disabled veterans. After a decade 
     of war, we must ensure that the ADA continues to stand for 
     equal treatment and non-discrimination in access to 
     rehabilitation, employment, educational, and recreational 
     opportunities.
       Specifically, Congress must not weaken the principles of 
     the ADA by delaying or otherwise inhibiting DOJ's enforcement 
     of the

[[Page H2432]]

     pool and spa accessibility regulatory requirements. DOJ 
     published the final rule on accessibility in September 2010 
     after engaging in six years of public outreach, which 
     included multiple opportunities for all stakeholders to 
     provide comments. Although the final rule was to go into 
     effect on March 15, 2012, DOJ delayed compliance until May 
     21.
       We believe that our nation's disabled veterans and wounded 
     warriors have waited long enough for access to pools and 
     spas. The January 2012 guidance issued by DOJ clarifying the 
     intent of the final rule for existing pools and spas did not 
     change the requirements DOJ published in September 2010. The 
     gold standard for new construction is a fixed pool lift. It 
     is logical that fixed pool lifts would be required for 
     existing pools and spas if ``readily achievable.'' Readily 
     achievable means that an existing pool or spa would only need 
     to have a fixed pool lift if it was not costly or burdensome.
       Readily achievable is the flexibility that was built into 
     the ADA to ensure that a one-size-fits-all approach would not 
     be required. Thus, if it is not readily achievable for a 
     small, family-owned business to install a fixed lift for a 
     pool or spa, then they are not required to under the ADA. The 
     ADA's inclusion of the readily achievable standard represents 
     the compromise between the needs of people with disabilities 
     and the costs of accommodations.
       If Congress intercedes by delaying implementation or 
     hindering enforcement of DOJ's final rule, we fear that a 
     dangerous precedent will have been set for the future of the 
     ADA. The final rule was the result of an extensive regulatory 
     process that provided ample opportunity for participation. It 
     is now time for Congress to step back and let the regulatory 
     process function as was envisioned when the ADA was passed by 
     a bipartisan Congress 22 years ago.
       If you have any questions, please contact Heather Ansley, 
     Vice President of Veterans Policy for VetsFirst, a program of 
     United Spinal Association, at (202) 556 2076, ext. 7702 or by 
     e-mail at hansley(a)vetsfirstorg.
           Sincerely,
         Blinded Veterans Association; Disabled American Veterans; 
           Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; Jewish War 
           Veterans; National Association for Black Veterans; 
           Paralyzed Veterans of America; Veterans for Common 
           Sense; Veterans of Foreign Wars; Veterans of Modern 
           Warfare; VetsFirst, a program of United Spinal 
           Association; Vietnam Veterans of America.
                                  ____

                                           Consortium for Citizens


                                            with Disabilities,

                                   Washington, DC, April 23, 2012.
       Dear Representative: The undersigned members of the 
     Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), representing 
     people with disabilities, family members, and professionals 
     in the disability field, write in opposition to any 
     Congressional effort to roll back, or prevent enforcement of, 
     the Justice Department's September 15, 2010 regulations 
     setting forth requirements to ensure that swimming pools are 
     accessible to people with disabilities. These regulations, 
     the product of an extensive and considered process of 
     deliberation, were originally scheduled to go into effect on 
     March 15, 2012 and are now slated to take effect in May 2012.
       H.R. 4200, introduced on March 16, 2012, would deprive the 
     Justice Department of the authority to enforce its own 
     regulations implementing the ADA with respect to the 
     accessibility of swimming pools. H.R. 4256, introduced on 
     March 26, 2012, would prohibit any court enforcement of the 
     Justice Department's new regulations concerning pool 
     accessibility for a period of one year from enactment of the 
     bill and require the Justice Department to issue new 
     regulations with weaker substantive standards (permitting 
     portable pool lifts even where installing a permanent lift 
     would be readily achievable). These bills present a number of 
     serious concerns.
       First, the prospect of Congress preventing an executive 
     branch agency from enforcing its own regulations is very 
     troubling. The regulations at issue were promulgated by the 
     Department of Justice--the agency charged by Congress with 
     enforcement of the ADA--and based on standards issued by the 
     United States Access Board, a federal agency devoted to 
     developing and maintaining standards to ensure accessibility 
     for individuals with disabilities. The ADA requires the 
     Justice Department's accessibility regulations to be 
     consistent with Access Board standards. Both the Access Board 
     and the Justice Department have extensive expertise in 
     setting appropriate accessibility standards that take into 
     account the needs of people with disabilities as well as 
     those of business owners. Congress need not and should not 
     step in to deprive the agencies it designated to issue 
     accessibility standards of the authority to enforce those 
     standards.
       Moreover, the opportunity to swim is important to 
     individuals with disabilities just as it is to everyone else. 
     People with disabilities should be able to enjoy swimming 
     pools for recreation and exercise. If enacted, H.R. 4200 and 
     H.R. 4256 would deprive many people with disabilities of 
     access to swimming pools, and would create uncertainty among 
     pool owners about the standards with which they must comply 
     in order to meet the ADA's requirements with respect to pool 
     access.
       The regulations at issue do not present a significant 
     burden to hotels or other pool owners. For pools already 
     built when the new regulations take effect, the regulations 
     do not require owners to satisfy the new accessibility 
     requirements. If doing so is not ``readily achievable''--that 
     is, ``easily accomplishable and able to be carried out 
     without much difficulty or expense''--they need not do so.
       In addition, individuals with disabilities are not entitled 
     to damages in ADA lawsuits challenging the inaccessibility of 
     public accommodations.
       The hotel industry has been aware of--and involved with--
     the development of the new pool accessibility standards for a 
     decade. The Access Board initially issued standards for pool 
     accessibility in 2002 guidelines for recreational facilities. 
     In 2004, the Access Board incorporated those standards into 
     its new Accessibility Guidelines. The new regulatory 
     standards come directly from those 2004 guidelines. The 
     Justice Department first published an Advance Notice of 
     Proposed Rulemaking requesting feedback concerning the Access 
     Board standards in 2004, followed by a second Advance Notice 
     of Proposed Rulemaking in 2008. The final rule was adopted on 
     September 15, 2010, and gave existing pools another eighteen 
     months to comply with the new requirements.
       In conclusion, we oppose any effort to roll back 
     regulations providing accessible swimming pools for people 
     with disabilities. These places of public accommodation have 
     had years of notice and substantial opportunity to prepare 
     for these requirements.
           Sincerely,
         ACCSES; American Association of People with Disabilities; 
           American Foundation for the Blind; American Network of 
           Community Options and Resources; Association of 
           University Centers on Disabilities; The Arc of the 
           United States; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; 
           Brain Injury Association of America; Council of Parent 
           Attorneys and Advocates, Inc.; Daniel Jordan Fiddle 
           Foundation; Disability Rights Education and Defense 
           Fund; Easter Seals; Epilepsy Foundation; Helen Keller 
           National Center; Mental Health America; National 
           Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities; 
           National Council on Independent Living; National 
           Disability Rights Network; National Down Syndrome 
           Society; National Multiple Sclerosis Society; Paralyzed 
           Veterans of America; United Cerebral Palsy; United 
           Spinal Association.

                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. 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. 2 by Mr. Davis of Illinois.
  An amendment by Mr. Grimm of New York.
  An amendment by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan.
  An amendment by Mr. Johnson of Georgia.
  An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Westmoreland of Georgia.
  An amendment by Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia.
  An amendment by Mrs. Black of Tennessee.
  An amendment by Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.
  An amendment by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
  An amendment by Mr. Southerland of Florida.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


            Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Davis of Illinois

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 99, 
noes 311, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 213]

                                AYES--99

     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene

[[Page H2433]]


     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hirono
     Holt
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Landry
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Smith (WA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--311

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Capps
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Waxman
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bachmann
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McCaul
     McHenry
     Moore
     Paul
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Sarbanes
     Slaughter

                              {time}  2350

  Messrs. WALZ of Minnesota, CONAWAY, BROOKS, WHITFIELD, LUJAN and 
BECERRA, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. HOYER, and Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of 
California changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CROWLEY, WELCH, COSTA, Ms. HANABUSA, Messrs. MARKEY, VAN 
HOLLEN, and Ms. WATERS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 213, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Grimm

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Grimm) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206, 
noes 204, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 214]

                               AYES--206

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clay
     Coble
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hartzler
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kissell
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schilling
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Welch
     West
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--204

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Benishek
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Edwards
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter

[[Page H2434]]


     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lucas
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Palazzo
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Webster
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bachmann
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Paul
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Waxman


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2354

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 214, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Huizenga) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 211, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 215]

                               AYES--199

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Barletta
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinchey
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--211

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Canseco
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bachmann
     Bartlett
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Denham
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Paul
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  2357

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 215, I was away from the 
capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 96, 
noes 314, not voting 21, as follows:

[[Page H2435]]

                             [Roll No. 216]

                                AYES--96

     Ackerman
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Castor (FL)
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Critz
     Crowley
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hirono
     Holden
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Keating
     Kind
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lynch
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watt
     Welch
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--314

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Capps
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Waxman
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bachmann
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Gutierrez
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     Markey
     McHenry
     Moore
     Paul
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  0000

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 216, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 121, 
noes 291, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 217]

                               AYES--121

     Adams
     Akin
     Amash
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleming
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Latta
     Long
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Nugent
     Olson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Quayle
     Rehberg
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--291

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)

[[Page H2436]]


     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Polis
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bachmann
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Paul
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  0004

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 217, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


              Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Westmoreland

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Westmoreland) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165, 
noes 246, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 218]

                               AYES--165

     Adams
     Akin
     Amash
     Amodei
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Hall
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rehberg
     Ribble
     Roby
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--246

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bachmann
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Gohmert
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Paul
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  0007

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 218, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitment to my constituents. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``no.''


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Austin Scott) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 122, 
noes 289, not voting 20, as follows:

[[Page H2437]]

                             [Roll No. 219]

                               AYES--122

     Adams
     Akin
     Amash
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Guinta
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Long
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rehberg
     Ribble
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--289

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bachmann
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Paul
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rokita
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  0010

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 219, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Black

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Black) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238, 
noes 173, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 220]

                               AYES--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--173

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)

[[Page H2438]]


     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bachmann
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Denham
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Paul
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  0014

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 220, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                  Amendment Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 251, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 221]

                               AYES--160

     Adams
     Akin
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latta
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--251

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Maloney
     Marino
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nugent
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rivera
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bachmann
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Paul
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter
     Thompson (MS)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

                              {time}  0016

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on roll call 221, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Broun) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 105, 
noes 307, not voting 19, as follows:

[[Page H2439]]

                             [Roll No. 222]

                               AYES--105

     Adams
     Akin
     Amash
     Benishek
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     DesJarlais
     Dreier
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Latta
     Long
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McClintock
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Petri
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Ribble
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thornberry
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--307

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Andrews
     Austria
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Hultgren
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Noem
     Nugent
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stivers
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bachmann
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Paul
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  0019

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


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Southerland

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Southerland) 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 CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220, 
noes 191, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 223]

                               AYES--220

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Capuano
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Conaway
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Rivera
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--191

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Capito
     Capps
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth

[[Page H2440]]


     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Hurt
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kissell
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Ross (AR)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tonko
     Towns
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bachmann
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Donnelly (IN)
     Ellmers
     Filner
     Herger
     Honda
     Jones
     Kucinich
     McHenry
     Moore
     Paul
     Pence
     Reichert
     Rothman (NJ)
     Rush
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  0025

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Smith of Nebraska) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of 
Washington, Acting Chair 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. 5326) making appropriations for the 
Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________