Congressional Record, Volume 158 Issue 65 (Wednesday, May 9, 2012)

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 65 (Wednesday, May 9, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H2515-H2551]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

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

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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5326.
Will the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) kindly resume the chair.

{time} 1803

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 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. Price of
Georgia (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Flores) had been postponed and the bill had been read
through page 101, line 10.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will

[[Page H2516]]

now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
An amendment by Mr. Chaffetz of Utah.
An amendment by Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts.
An amendment by Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.
Amendment No. 38 by Mr. Duncan of South Carolina.
An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
An amendment by Mr. Schweikert of Arizona.
Amendment No. 46 by Mr. Webster of Florida.
The first amendment by Mr. Flores of Texas.
The second amendment by Mr. Flores of Texas.
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. Chaffetz

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Chaffetz) 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 381,
noes 41, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 226]

AYES--381

Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Baca
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
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
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
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
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
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richmond
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
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--41

Andrews
Becerra
Butterfield
Carson (IN)
Chu
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Crowley
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Dicks
Dingell
Edwards
Fudge
Hahn
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
Meeks
Moran
Pascrell
Rangel
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Schakowsky
Scott, David
Stark
Waters
Watt
Woolsey

NOT VOTING--9

Bachmann
Bachus
Costa
Donnelly (IN)
Filner
Garamendi
Kucinich
Pelosi
Slaughter

{time} 1829

Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, ROTHMAN of New Jersey, BECERRA, Ms. CLARKE
of New York, Ms. WATERS, Mr. HONDA and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Messrs.
BRADY of Pennsylvania, COFFMAN of Colorado, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. DEUTCH, Ms.
CASTOR of Florida, Messrs. ACKERMAN, RICHMOND, KEATING, ELLISON, Ms.
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. BASS of California, Mr. GONZALEZ and Ms. JACKSON
LEE of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 226, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded that remaining votes in this
series will be 2-minute votes.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) 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 260, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 227]

AYES--160

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Camp
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Chandler
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crawford
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
Dent
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Duncan (SC)
Ellison
Farr
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gowdy

[[Page H2517]]

Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harris
Hayworth
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Labrador
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moran
Mulvaney
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pence
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Richardson
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Visclosky
Walden
Waters
Watt
Welch
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOES--260

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Barletta
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
DeLauro
Denham
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Himes
Hinchey
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--11

Bachmann
Bachus
Cleaver
Donnelly (IN)
Filner
Garamendi
Kucinich
Miller (FL)
Pelosi
Slaughter
Sullivan

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1832

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 227, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chair, due to being unavoidably detained,
I missed the following rollcall vote: No. 227 on May 9, 2012. If
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 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 is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229,
noes 194, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 228]

AYES--229

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
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
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
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
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--194

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Burgess
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
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)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee

[[Page H2518]]

Kind
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
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)
Woodall
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--8

Bachmann
Bachus
Donnelly (IN)
Filner
Kucinich
McCaul
Schmidt
Slaughter

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1836

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 228, I made an
error voting. It was my intention to vote ``aye'' on the Blackburn
Amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 228, I was away from the
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Duncan of South Carolina

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Duncan) 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

[Roll No. 229]

AYES--232

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
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
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
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)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Long
Lucas
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
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 (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--192

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Smith (NJ)
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--7

Bachmann
Bachus
Donnelly (IN)
Filner
Kucinich
Schmidt
Slaughter

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1840

Mr. SCHILLING changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 229, 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. Garrett

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Garrett) 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

[Roll No. 230]

AYES--238

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei

[[Page H2519]]

Austria
Barletta
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
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
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.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
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--185

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
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
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
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--8

Bachmann
Bachus
Donnelly (IN)
Filner
Kucinich
Schmidt
Slaughter
Sullivan

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1844

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 230, 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. Schweikert

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Schweikert) 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

[Roll No. 231]

AYES--232

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amodei
Austria
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
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)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
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
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--190

Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
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)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah

[[Page H2520]]

Forbes
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
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
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--9

Bachmann
Bachus
Donnelly (IN)
Filner
Kucinich
Miller (NC)
Schmidt
Slaughter
Welch

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1847

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 231, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Webster

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Webster) 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

[Roll No. 232]

AYES--232

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
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
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
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.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
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
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner (NY)
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--190

Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
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)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gerlach
Gibson
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
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
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
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)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--9

Bachmann
Bachus
Donnelly (IN)
Filner
Kucinich
Olver
Schmidt
Slaughter
Welch

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1850

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 232, 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. Flores

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 233]

AYES--250

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash

[[Page H2521]]

Amodei
Austria
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
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
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Doyle
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
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)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
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.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
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)
Scalise
Schilling
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
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
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
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
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--8

Bachmann
Bachus
Donnelly (IN)
Filner
Kucinich
Schmidt
Slaughter
Welch

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1854

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 233, 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. Flores

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 234]

AYES--246

Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Amodei
Austria
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
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)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hochul
Holden
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
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
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--174

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

[[Page H2522]]

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

NOT VOTING--11

Bachmann
Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Donnelly (IN)
Filner
Kucinich
Napolitano
Schmidt
Slaughter
Welch
Wilson (FL)

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1857

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 234, I was away from the Capitol
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''

{time} 1900

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The gentleman from
Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POLIS. I rise today for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy
about the importance of computer science in a balanced program of
science, technology, education, and math. I thank the chairman for
including extensive language in the committee report on STEM education,
but I would like to highlight today some specific needs in the critical
area of computer science.
More than 1.5 million high-wage computing jobs will be created by
2018--the largest growth area across science, technology, engineering,
and math. Yet few computer science classes are available to students;
and when they're offered, they're typically only electives. Many States
don't have proper teacher certification programs for K 12 computer
science and don't clearly connect the certification to content. In
recent years, the number of computer science bachelor degrees in the
U.S. actually fell from 60,000 to 38,000, even as computer science
breakthroughs are transforming our economy.
I have legislation--the Computer Science Education Act--that focuses
on this issue, but there are other steps as well. First, I believe it's
important that Federal STEM education programs explicitly incorporate
the broad definition of science, technology, engineering, and math
reported by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology. This definition helps make sure that STEM is sufficiently
interpreted and not too narrowly to cover just math. Second, to ensure
that there's a comprehensive pipeline for science from K 12 all the way
through to the workforce, it's essential that NSF and other Agencies
identify our Nation's highest STEM-related workforce needs and use that
information to prioritize STEM-related subjects in our schools.
I very much look forward to working with the chairman to address
these issues as this bill continues to move forward through the
appropriations process. I'm grateful to the chair for this conversation
and his perspectives on all these critical issues, and I yield to the
gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his active
support of STEM education in all forms. We'll be happy to work with the
gentleman as we move forward to ensure that NSF and other Agencies in
this bill are getting the most appropriate direction on STEM education
needs and priorities.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McKINLEY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with
the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to discuss one of my top
priorities with you today: NOAA's Comprehensive Large-Data Array
Stewardship program, otherwise known as CLASS. This program has been
funded at the same base level of $6.5 million for each of the past 10
years, despite an increase in their mission.
This is NOAA's enterprise system for handling all of its
environmental data critical for weather predictions. Simply put, CLASS
therefore must rely on programs within the satellite program to
overcome their $24 million funding shortfall. We should be creating
certainty, Mr. Chairman, for the NOAA CLASS program, instead of
expecting them to rely on these other satellite programs to transfer
funds for their own budget to CLASS.
Under last year's budget, CLASS fell short of the necessary funding
to sustain core mission values. Mission failure of CLASS will continue
if we don't provide CLASS with funding certainty this year and not
depend on transfers from other satellite programs.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Appropriations Committee consider the
importance of the CLASS mission in conference, and encourage the
chairman to adequately fund their mission--a mission defined as a level
of funding equal to last year and no job losses.
Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McKINLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. I want to thank the gentleman for speaking on this issue.
Funding the weather satellites is a very high priority in this bill, as
well as the data systems used to store and process data from the
satellites. We will work with you and also our other colleagues in the
body to ensure that the CLASS program is adequately funded.
Mr. McKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with
you on this matter.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Landry

Mr. LANDRY. 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 implement a proposed rule for turtle excluder
devices as described in the Southeast Fishery Bulletin
published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration on May 8, 2012.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NOAA and the fishing industry have had a long history of working
together. Since the 1990s, NOAA has worked with the fishing industry to
develop a regulatory system that provides meaningful protection to
turtles, while at the same time not economically harming our fishermen.
Under the system, fishermen had agreed that they would periodically
remove their nets from the water, allowing any turtles trapped in the
net to escape. By offering to do so, they would not have to use the
turtle exclusion devices.
Now NOAA intends to regulate these shrimpers and force them to use
TEDs. The recent rulemaking negates this partnership and places the
whims of environmentalists ahead of the scientific data or economic
well-being of the fishermen in the coastal communities. There is no
scientific data that's proving that the lack of the use of TEDs by
shrimpers is causing any additional deaths in the turtle population.

{time} 1910

Over 60 percent of the shrimp landed in Louisiana is by the inshore
and near-shore fleet, which is primarily

[[Page H2523]]

skimmers and butterflies. This regulation, if implemented, will affect
thousands of fishermen in Louisiana. Fishermen will lose money due to
the cost of TEDs equipment and also the money lost from loss of catch.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Turtle-excluder devices are already required in other shrimp trawl
fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic to reduce sea turtle
bycatch.
In many cases, fishermen have reported actually preferring the use of
TEDs in their trawl nets because when they are used properly, TEDs
allow up to 98 percent of turtles to escape from trawl nets while
retaining up to 97 percent of target shrimp catch. TEDs also provide
other economic benefits to fishermen. Again, when installed properly,
they can prevent other species bycatch and unwanted marine debris from
entering the trawl nets, thereby increasing shrimp catch efficiency and
the quality of their shrimp catch.
TEDs can also cut down on unwanted debris which can damage and
increase the drag in fishing nets, causing fishermen to incur other
costs. At this stage, NMFS is merely proposing this rule and will
provide ample opportunity for public comment, including public meetings
before any final regulation is in place; and, therefore, I urge defeat
of the 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. Landry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LANDRY. 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 Louisiana
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Gardner

Mr. GARDNER. 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. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to pay the salary of any officer or employee of the
Department of Commerce who uses amounts in the Fisheries
Enforcement Asset Forfeiture Fund of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration that consists of the sums
described in section 311(e)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
1861(e)(1)) for any purpose other than a purpose specifically
authorized under such section.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee,
as well, for his work and leadership on this bill today and yesterday.
We voted long into the morning this morning, and certainly appreciate
his time and consideration.
The appropriations bills before us present an opportunity to provide
oversight that is one of the most important duties and functions of
this Congress, to make sure that we are looking at the ways our Federal
Agencies, our administration is spending money and making sure that it
is carried out properly.
One of the areas where I believe this Congress needs to further its
oversight and step up its oversight concerns the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's asset forfeiture fund. This is money that
is comprised of fines paid by individuals who violate the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The act, as many
Members know, is the primary law governing fish management in our
Federal waters, and it is responsible for managing fisheries, promoting
conservation, producing bycatch, and ending overfishing.
The money in NOAA's asset forfeiture fund can only be used for
express purposes that are laid out in statute, such as paying costs
associated with providing any temporary storage of property seized
during civil or criminal proceedings, paying off valid liens or
mortgages against forfeited property, or reimbursing any Agency that
assisted NOAA in enforcing the law.
Unfortunately, what we have seen is a pattern of unaccountability, a
pattern of abuse of this money, including a purchase of a $300,000
yacht that was used for personal use by certain officials within NOAA.
This amendment simply says that the law, the money in the asset
forfeiture fund should only be used for those express purposes as
defined in statute, making sure that these abuses do not continue and
making sure that this Congress steps up its role in oversight when it
comes to funds of the United States.
With that, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment to make sure
that we are accountable for the funds from the taxpayer, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARDNER. 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 Colorado
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Engel

Mr. ENGEL. 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. 542. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles, for any
executive fleet, or for an agency's fleet inventory, except
in accordance with Presidential Memorandum-Federal Fleet
Performance, dated May 24, 2011.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ENGEL. On May 24, 2011, President Obama issued a memorandum on
Federal fleet performance which requires all new light-duty vehicles in
the Federal fleet to be alternate-fuel vehicles, such as hybrid,
electric, natural gas, or biofuel, by December 31, 2015.
My amendment echoes the Presidential memorandum by prohibiting funds
in the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill from being used to
lease or purchase new light-duty vehicles except in accord with the
President's memorandum.
Last year, I introduced similar amendments to four different
appropriations bills--Agriculture, Defense, Energy, and Homeland
Security. All were accepted and passed by voice vote.
Our transportation sector is by far the biggest reason we send $60
billion per year to hostile nations to pay for oil at ever-increasing
costs. But America doesn't need to be dependent on foreign sources of
oil for transportation fuel. Alternative technologies exist today that
when implemented broadly will allow any alternative fuel to be used in
America's automotive fleet.
The Federal Government operates the largest fleet of light-duty
vehicles in America. According to GSA, there are over 660,000 vehicles
in the Federal fleet, with over 41,000 being used by the Department of
Justice and another 2,400 with the Department of Commerce.
By supporting a diverse array of vehicle technologies in our Federal
fleet, we will encourage development of domestic energy resources--
including biomass, natural gas, agricultural waste, hydrogen, and
renewable electricity.
Expanding the role these energy sources play in our transportation
economy will help break the leverage over Americans held by foreign
government-controlled oil companies and will increase our Nation's
domestic security and protect consumers from price spikes and shortages
in the world oil markets. So I ask that you support the Engel
amendment.
On a similar note, I have worked with my colleagues John Shimkus,
Roscoe Bartlett, and Steve Israel to introduce the bipartisan Open Fuel
Standard Act, H.R. 1687. I have particularly worked with Congressman
Shimkus on this bill in this Congress. Our bill would require 50
percent of new automobiles in 2014, 80 percent in 2016, and 95 percent
in 2017 to be warranted

[[Page H2524]]

to operate on nonpetroleum fuels in addition to or instead of
petroleum-based fuels.
Compliance possibilities include the full array of existing
technologies--including flex fuel, natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel,
plug-in electric drive, and fuel cell--and a catchall for all new
technologies.
In conclusion, I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and
the open fuel standard as we work toward breaking our dependence on
foreign oil.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. I think this amendment has been adopted on other bills. We
accepted the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Walsh of Illinois

Mr. WALSH of Illinois. 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 in this Act for
the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program under the heading
``Department of Justice--State and Local Law Enforcement
Activities--Office of Justice Programs--State and Local Law
Enforcement Assistance'' may be used in contravention of
section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373).

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

{time} 1920

Mr. WALSH of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, immigration enforcement--whether
issuing or revoking a visa, deportation, and even providing
citizenship--is a Federal responsibility and should remain so. However,
our law enforcement in cities and States is sometimes the first line of
defense in these Federal courts.
In 1996, almost 20 years ago, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. This bill not only required
localities to communicate with Federal agencies when legal and illegal
aliens may have been picked up for crimes but also provided money to
help them do so. Since then, additional programs such as the State
Criminal Alien Assistance Program and Secure Communities have been
implemented to ensure further that localities have the resources they
need to meet their responsibilities.
The Federal Government has stated time and again that participation
in these programs is not optional. Yet despite that, some cities and
even whole States blatantly ignore Federal requirements. What is even
worse is that these sanctuary cities still receive money for their so-
called ``immigration efforts'' under the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program. In fact, one city received $1.1 million at the same
time it designated itself as a city and county of refuge. And one State
has even passed laws that prohibit law enforcement agencies from
detecting or apprehending those in violation of U.S. immigration laws.
For this reason today, I am offering an amendment that would prohibit
the Department of Justice from providing funds to these sanctuary
cities for immigration enforcement efforts. This is a smart amendment
that will require America's local law enforcement officers to do just
that--enforce the laws we pass to receive the money we provide them to
do so. I urge the House to vote in its favor.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment,
which provides that none of the funds in the SCAAP program can be used
in contravention of existing law.
This amendment is like several others we've considered today that
simply say either the obvious, which is, Federal funds can't be used in
violation of Federal law, in which case the amendment is unnecessary
and accomplishes nothing; or, the amendment seeks to go beyond existing
law and set new policy, in which case the policy that it would set is
one that is disadvantageous to States and local law enforcement.
State and local community safety policies prioritize budgetary and
law enforcement resources according to community needs while still
permitting Federal immigration enforcement to take place. In many
cases, such local laws support community safety by encouraging citizens
who are crime victims or witnesses to come forward and work with police
regardless of their immigration status.
These local policies don't interfere with Federal enforcement. In
fact, a 2007 Justice Department audit of such laws found that in each
instance where cities were so-called ``sanctuary cities,'' the local
policy either didn't preclude cooperation with ICE, or else included a
policy to the effect that those agencies and officers must assist ICE
or share information with ICE as required by Federal law. That year,
DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff testified before Congress:
I'm not aware of any city, although I may be wrong, that actually
interferes with our ability to enforce the law.
The amendment, if it went beyond the mere statement that you can't
spend Federal funds in contravention of Federal law, might deny funding
to already cash-strapped police departments.
For these reasons, we urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Walsh).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

Mr. ROHRABACHER. 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 in this Act to
the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the
States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,
Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Washington, to prevent such States from
implementing their own State laws that authorize the use,
distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical
marijuana.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, along with Mr. Hinchey,
Mr. McClintock, and Mr. Farr, in support of a commonsense amendment
that would prohibit the Department of Justice from using funds to
prevent States from implementing their own State laws that authorize
the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.
This amendment would take a step in the right direction of respecting
States' rights and individual liberties, and it would help the Federal
Government prioritize its very scarce resources and show compassion for
those thousands of ailing patients across our country.
To date, 17 States, including the District of Columbia, have passed
laws allowing for the medical use of marijuana, and the list continues
to grow. Connecticut is in the process of passing a similar law as
well. Many of these State laws, including in my own home State of
California, have passed these statutes through the initiative process--
meaning that a majority of California voters specifically decided that
sick individuals ought to have the right to use this herb for medical
purposes. Why the Federal Government continues its hard-line
prohibition, then, is completely beyond me.
As far as the medical marijuana is concerned, individuals ought to
have a right and ought to be able to act in accordance with their
respective State laws without the Federal Government coming in and
interfering. Neither should the Federal Government threaten to
prosecute State employees who are carrying out the implementation of
their State laws. Indeed, the Founding Fathers wanted criminal law to
be the domain of local and State government. Unfortunately, however,
this is not the approach that recent administrations

[[Page H2525]]

have taken, including the current administration. For example, the
Governor of Washington State received a letter from the Department of
Justice and was warned that:
State employees who conducted activities mandated by the Washington
legislative proposals would not be immune from liability under the CSA.
Additionally, the DEA has conducted numerous raids on medical
marijuana dispensaries that are in full compliance with State law.
Businesspeople and cooperatives who are licensed and certified within
these States to function as legitimate medical marijuana dispensaries
have seen their businesses locked down, assets frozen, businesses
driven away, and in some cases the victims of a SWAT squad coming into
their operation. It is simply outrageous that we are spending scarce
Federal dollars to interfere with the medical needs of individuals,
especially when it's been recommended by a physician and approved by
the voters of a State.
Importantly, this amendment does nothing to prevent the Federal
Government from being able to go after drug traffickers. In fact, it
makes it easier because it prioritizes and gives those people a chance
to go after drug traffickers rather than sick people.
Under this amendment, the DEA would still have the power to arrest
anyone selling marijuana for recreational use or engaging in any
activity that is not expressly allowed under State law. But they will
have more time to go after the drug traffickers if they are not going
after people who are providing medical marijuana to people who are
sick.

{time} 1930

It is time that we respect States' rights, get serious about
prioritizing our Federal Government's activities, and show some common
sense and compassion when dealing with the sick among us.
I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' for the Rohrabacher-Hinchey-
McClintock-Farr amendment to prevent the Department of Justice from
continuing to engage in activities that it has no business engaging in.
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. What does this amendment say if a young person, 15, at a
high school in whatever State is watching the House at 7:30, and they
say the United States Congress is ready to make it easy to get
marijuana, and their mom or dad--what is going on?
This amendment hurts law enforcement. Our law enforcement people are
jeopardizing their lives.
Marijuana is one of the most widely abused drugs in the United
States. According to the DEA, more young people are now in treatment
for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or all other illegal drugs
combined.
This amendment does not address the problem of marijuana abuse and
possibly makes it worse by sending a message to young people that there
can be health benefits.
The Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, describes marijuana as
``the top revenue generator for Mexican drug trafficking organizations,
a cash crop that finances corruption and the carnage of violence year
after year.''
All you have to do is look at the news. That's why we put money back
in here for the National Gang Intelligence unit to keep the Mexican
gangs from coming into the United States. The Mexican gangs are being
funded and they have a marijuana operation.
I don't understand. I mean, I respect that maybe for medical use at a
time. And I will tell you, the first time this issue came up, I voted
for it, but it was on a narrow basis. But this is wide open.
And then you're going to tell your 15-year-old or 16-year-old don't
use drugs. Well, we've got the marijuana center downtown, and
everybody's going in.
The FDA has stated that ``smoked cannabis has no acceptable medical
use and treatment in the United States.''
I could go on, but I think that the message that this amendment would
send to young people is that Congress wants to aid and abet, if you
will. And we all know. We've watched ``60 Minutes.'' We've watched all
these shows.
If somebody purely, really--my mom died of cancer. So many people in
my family died of cancer. It's so narrow. But this is just wide open.
And we've seen it where they're coming in and they're pouring over. In
essence, I think this would be bad for the country.
In our hearings, we heard that more young people are dying from
overdose of drugs. Then marijuana, then do we go into heroin, and then
we go into OxyContin. You just saw today's Washington Post where some
of the drug companies were promoting these pain operations which are
basically moving and pushing OxyContin, hiring some really prominent
lawyers in this town to represent them.
This would not be a good amendment for the country; it would be a bad
amendment for the young people, and I urge defeat of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HINCHEY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HINCHEY. I rise today in strong support of this amendment, and I
thank, particularly, my friend from California for offering it with me
and for what he said about it just a few minutes ago very clearly.
This amendment is very simple. It directs the Federal Government to
respect the laws enacted by States that have legalized marijuana for
medical use.
The Constitution of the United States is very clear. It authorizes
States' rights in every other area that is not specifically designated
to the Federal Government. Currently, 16 States and the District of
Columbia have legalized medical marijuana, benefiting over 730,000
patients nationwide. In addition, the State of Connecticut will soon
sign a similar bill into law.
President Obama has made it clear that the Justice Department should
not prioritize medical marijuana arrests, especially when there are so
many other more significant issues that need attention. Unfortunately,
some in the DEA clearly didn't get the memo. That's why we're here
today.
According to Americans for Safe Access, since October 2009, the
Justice Department has carried out an estimated 170 raids of medical
marijuana dispensaries and cultivation centers in nine States that have
legalized medical marijuana. Without a doubt, these raids are clearly a
waste of taxpayer dollars, but they are also fundamentally wrong.
Medical marijuana is proven to reduce pain and increase quality of
life for patients suffering from debilitating diseases, including
cancer, multiple sclerosis, and HIV/AIDS. Medical marijuana is a safe
and effective treatment for many of the symptoms that accompany these
diseases. However, the DEA wants to deny patients medicine that can
dramatically improve their lives or reduce their suffering. This is
wrong, and it needs to stop.
This amendment does not do anything to advocate any violations of the
law. It just says those States that have approved medical marijuana
ought to be able to determine how to take care of their own people
effectively.
This amendment does not affect States that have not approved medical
marijuana. It does not require or encourage other States to adopt
medical marijuana laws.
This amendment does not stop law enforcement officials from
prosecuting the illegal use of marijuana.
This amendment does not encourage drug use in children. Studies
actually suggest that teen use of marijuana has declined in States that
have passed medical marijuana laws. That, in and of itself, is very
interesting and important.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow these 16 States to give
relief to people suffering from horrific diseases without fearing
Federal intervention or prosecution.
I urge Members to support this amendment and support States' rights
and compassion. Doctors in these 16 States know what is best for their
patients. The DEA should not stand in the way of these doctors and
their patients.
All of this is serious for the health and safety of many, many people
in these 16 States. And, in fact, other States are coming into this as
well. This is something that really needs to be enacted because it is
safe and secure and reasonable.

[[Page H2526]]

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 rise in support of the Rohrabacher-Hinchey-
Farr and now McClintock amendment.
It is obvious from the votes that we've been casting here, yesterday
and tonight, this afternoon, that this body insists on protecting the
rights of States to define marriage. This body insists on protecting
the rights of States to set abortion policies. This body insists on
protecting rights of the States to determine education curricula and
standards. Just yesterday this body decided that certain States get to
enforce Federal immigration laws however they see fit.
But when it comes to protecting the rights of States to set medical
scope of practice laws, this body balks. All of a sudden States no
longer have the right to determine what is best for their citizens and
when those rights include medical marijuana.
The Rohrabacher-Hinchey-Farr-McClintock amendment doesn't change
Federal law. It doesn't change drug policy. However, it does protect
States' rights.

{time} 1940

For those of you who come from States that do not have medical
marijuana laws, nothing in this amendment will impact your States.
Everything in your States remains exactly status quo. For those of you
who come from States that do have medical marijuana laws, which means
the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, which is my own State--it's
interesting what we have done in California. We've decriminalized the
possession of medical marijuana. It's an infraction, not a felony.
We've also legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes, but the
voters at the same time have turned down an intensive legalization use.
So it's very controlled. The laws are tight and they are enforced.
The other States that have passed laws are Colorado, Delaware, the
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana,
Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and
Washington. For your States, very little in this amendment will impact
your States except that you will now have a State that will be able to
implement the laws without fear of retribution or of retaliation from
the Federal Government. I will also note that, in addition to the 16
States I've just mentioned, the State of Connecticut just passed a
medical marijuana bill last week, and the Governor said he'll sign it.
So, to the list of 16 States, we soon have added No. 17, the State of
Connecticut.
If States' rights are not a good enough reason to pass this
amendment, then do it because of compassion. Compassion demands it. We
offer this amendment for terminal cancer patients, for AIDS victims,
for persons who suffer with chronic pain. We offer this amendment not
only to protect those people, but we offer this amendment to protect
the States that are progressive enough to provide alternative medical
options to those who need it. I urge all of my colleagues to support
the Rohrabacher-Hinchey-Farr amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I
want to share a slightly different perspective on it.
I served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles for 6 years. In
1987, when I started in the office, the office had a guideline where we
wouldn't take a case for prosecution involving less than a kilo of
cocaine. Now, that didn't mean that it didn't get prosecuted. It did
mean that it was referred to the district attorney's office, but we
just didn't have the resources to go after every cocaine case involving
less than a kilogram. A couple of years later into my tenure in that
office, we had to raise the guideline to 5 kilograms because we had so
many 1 kilogram cases, and we couldn't even handle those prosecutions.
I don't know what the policy is now, whether it's 10 kilograms or 20
kilograms, but the reality is we have very finite resources within the
Justice Department to prosecute drug cases. Then, of course, the funds
for drug prosecutions have to compete with the funds for terrorism
cases and carjacking cases and bank robberies and T-Chek thefts or
whatnot. We are in a limited resource world, and I don't think it's a
good use of our Federal law enforcement resources to be prosecuting
medical marijuana cases in States that have legalized medical
marijuana. On the priority list of Federal law enforcement priorities,
that ought to be near the very bottom.
At a time when we can't even keep up with the more serious narcotics
cases and when we have so many other unmet needs in the Justice
Department, this is not where we should be putting our resources, and I
urge support for the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate and thank the
sponsors of this amendment for introducing it. The amendment begins to
break down the taboo in American politics about discussing drug policy
intelligently. It also begins to, hopefully, result in the Federal
Government having a more humane and human policy on medical marijuana.
I heard the gentleman from Virginia say that the DEA says there is no
medical use for marijuana. That's true that they've said it. The DEA
has no credibility with people who have looked at this--on this
subject, on most subjects with respect to drugs these days. One reason
there is no proof of the successful medical use of marijuana is that
the DEA systematically tries to make sure there is no adequate research
on that, and it denies the use of supplies of marijuana for medical
research.
But we have ample proof from the 16 States which have legalized the
medical use of marijuana. We have ample anecdotal proof. We know that,
for people suffering pain, for people suffering nausea from AIDS and
cancer, marijuana is the only thing that produces relief and enables
them to eat and to get sustenance and to regain weight and to, perhaps,
regain health. We know this. We know this from thousands of cases. The
DEA doesn't know it because it refuses to see it and refuses to allow
systematic research. That's wrong. It's inhumane.
Now, I wish this amendment didn't specify the 16 States because maybe
a 17th and an 18th will come along this year. I hope that they will.
Certainly, the Federal Government has a better use for its resources
than in trying to prevent the policy that 16 States have adopted, the
humane policy of allowing the medical use of something that has been
proven to be medically useful in many cases. Doctors and other medical
professionals ought to determine treatment, not bureaucrats in
Washington.
So I support this amendment, and I hope that maybe, if it passes, and
maybe if we have a rational policy with regard to medical marijuana,
that two other things will happen: that maybe the DEA will get its head
out of the sand and will permit proper research so we'll get better
research and better results; and maybe we'll begin a discussion of our
general drug policy toward marijuana, which is certainly a much, much
more benign drug than alcohol, which is legal, than tobacco, which is
legal. We have a very irrational policy toward it, a policy which
reminds one of the policy of the 1920s, which had such deleterious
effects with regard to alcohol and alcohol use.
So I congratulate the sponsor of this amendment for having the
courage to help break the taboos concerning this subject and for
introducing an amendment that, if it passes, will result in many, many
thousands of people being more healthful and more comfortable, and it
will be a great thing for this country.
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. There have been quite a few good arguments made--excellent
arguments--as to why this amendment should pass. Justice Louis Brandeis
is

[[Page H2527]]

one of my favorite Justices. He said the laboratories of democracy are
the States. Indeed, 16 States, mostly through, if not entirely through,
referenda determined that they wanted to try to find out whether
medical marijuana laws worked.
The Federal Government should not be infringing on what the States
have determined and their citizens have determined in the most direct
form of democracy that this Nation knows--State referenda. The Federal
Government has been using its resources, which could be used in better
ways, to police the jurisdictions that have voted it in. That's what
this amendment does. It says there will not be any additional spending
of Federal moneys to try to thwart the will of the people of the States
on issues on which they have voted.
This is the most basic democracy that we could be talking about. You
talk about the Founding Fathers. This is the people who give us power.
They have voted in their States to make it the law, and the Federal
Government has taken its heavy hand and has tried to come in there--and
has come in there--to prosecute individuals. It's for the States to
prosecute those individuals if they want.
As the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) has pointed out,
Federal priorities have to be made to meet the resources available. The
moneys that they're spending now in these States could be spent on
border traffic and could be spent on policing against heroin and
cocaine, which cause people, when they get hooked, to commit violent
crimes in order to get their money to buy their drugs. That has never
been known to be the case with marijuana, and it is not the case with
marijuana. That's where our priorities for law enforcement should go
and prosecution should go is to crack and cocaine and heroin, and
they're not being used there.
So this is a commonsense, basic, democratic proposal to tell our
Federal Government that has gone astray to not use its resources
against the people of this country who have made this determination.
Now, as far as some of the other statements that have been made, I
think the public who listens knows that this is not about legalization,
that this is not about 14-year-olds or 15-year-olds or 18-year-olds.

{time} 1950

It's about States, democracy, doctors, and people who have cancer,
glaucoma, AIDS, MS, whatever. Montel Williams has testified how it has
helped him with his illness. I had a Navy SEAL friend who died of
cancer. There is no question but that marijuana, which he smoked,
helped him with his appetite when he wasn't eating, and his pancreatic
cancer took him from 215 pounds to 115 pounds. His grandmother said
it's the only thing that makes Orel laugh, and it's the only thing that
makes Orel eat. And when he was dying, I wanted my friend to have
whatever he could have to make his illness less damaging to him and
less difficult to deal with.
So I rise here and assure people that it won't affect your States; it
will just be those States where it's been voted in. It will save
resources and be able to give our government the proper direction, the
usage of resources to protect us against heroin, crack, and cocaine.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Actually, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I
would strike many of the words we've heard today.
I first want to acknowledge the leadership of my colleague from
California. He has a characteristic that is all too rare in politics,
an intellectual consistency. We have people on the one hand that talk
about freedom of the individual, liberty, and respect for States'
rights, but when it comes up against some pet project of theirs, all
that goes out the window.
Let's be very clear. This is not a case of people advocating that
other people smoke marijuana. It is for me an advocacy that we allow
people some degree of free choice. I listened to the gentleman from
Virginia, and I admire his diligence. But I have to say, I disagreed
with almost everything he said. There was one thing he said that I
thought was appropriate. He said we shouldn't be debating this at 7:30.
I agree. We should have been debating it at 4:20. That would have been
a much better time. But other than that, he says, What about 15-year-
olds, they'll see marijuana centers.
Well, they'll see liquor stores. They'll see many more liquor stores
than marijuana centers. The notion that because something is
inappropriate for a teenager or a child, adults should not be allowed
to use it, is mindlessness. You can't run a society that says we're not
going to let a 15-year-old see the things a 15-year-old can't do.
Liquor stores would be a great example.
I have been disappointed on this point with the Obama administration.
The Clinton administration was quite sensible on this. The Bush
administration slipped back, and I had hoped that with the Obama
administration it would be more sensible.
The gentleman from Virginia said, Well, this is a great source of
money for the Mexicans. Sure, because we won't let people grow it in
America. To the extent that people are buying medical marijuana from
Mexican drug cartels, I think, is a somewhat overdone thing with regard
to this. That's because we have had people refusing to allow them to
grow it here in America for that use.
People say--again, I'm surprised by some of my conservative friends--
there is no medical value. The Federal Government now becomes the
arbiter and tells the States you may not make that judgment that there
is medical value. We know an awful lot of people think it has medical
value for them.
As to addiction and the notion that if you get all these drugs
together, what marijuana has in common with Oxycontin--which the
gentleman from Virginia mentioned--and other drugs is that we treat
them the same. They are not the same in any rational way. They're not
the same in addictive prospects. They're not the same except we treat
them the same. And we're the ones that by this foolish policy--that I
regret the administration I supported is engaging in--give people the
notion that they're the same thing. It's a very simple point.
People in the States have voted that marijuana should be available
for people who want to use it for medicinal purposes, and the States
are then in charge of setting up ways to deal with it. We have people
out of their ideological opposition announcing that they will not be
allowed to do that, that they will tell people it has no medical use
despite the testimony of so many who think it does. This again is a
form that I thought we learned didn't work, and it's prohibition of the
worst sort. And by the way, it is going to lead to very ineffective law
enforcement because we are a free country. You cannot impose, in a free
society like ours, a regime of law enforcement that the public rejects
without a great deal of repression. State by State by State, the people
of the States have voted to allow this. So when we send the Federal
agents in to disregard what the State did, to disregard State law, of
course you're going to engender resistance; of course you're going to
engender people going around. And I would just close by saying after
listening to this debate, I think tonight C SPAN has merged with Turner
Classic Movies because ``Reefer Madness,'' that great movie from the
thirties, appears to be being shown on both channels.
This notion that because 15-year-olds are watching us talk about how
people who are ill and in pain should be allowed with the vote of the
State to get marijuana prescribed by a doctor, and that's going to lead
a 15-year-old to go out and do it, makes no logical sense. As I said,
if you're worried about what 15-year-olds can see, they can see X-rated
movies that are being advertised; they can see cigarettes being sold
widely; they can see alcohol. They can see all manner of things that we
don't want them to do.
This is a very sensible amendment. No one has shown, let me say
finally--and you know the DEA, they want to do this. I have not seen
the evidence that says that medical marijuana has led to any problem. I
haven't seen it linked to crime. I haven't seen it linked to anything
negative. What we have, frankly, are some prejudices being used to
interfere with people's rights.

[[Page H2528]]

I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
bipartisan amendment. I want to thank Mr. Rohrabacher and all of the
cosponsors of this amendment for their leadership and for bringing this
amendment forward.
This amendment would prohibit the Department of Justice from using
Federal funds to prevent the implementation of State laws authorizing
the use of medical marijuana.
In recent months, the Federal Government has stepped up raids on
legally operating clinics in many States where it is permissible for
seriously ill patients to be prescribed medical marijuana by their
doctors. These raids are shutting down legally operating businesses and
are putting the health and the well-being of patients with cancer, HIV
and AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and other serious illnesses in jeopardy.
Marijuana has proven medical uses that improve the quality of life
and extend the lives of desperately ill people. By shutting down
clinics, Federal agents are forcing patients who may be dying, for
example, of cancer out into the streets to buy prescription drugs like
narcotics, which oftentimes leads to prescription drug addiction. These
raids also undermine the ability of States to faithfully implement the
will of their voters.
The people in my home State of California have voted to make medical
marijuana legal. These laws have been enacted to allow patients safe
and legal access to appropriately produce and dispense medical
marijuana in the safest possible environment. Yet in the last 18
months--for whatever reason--the Drug Enforcement Administration has
raided and shut down many licensed and regulated dispensaries, which
are legal, mind you, under State law. For example, the Berkeley
Patients Group in my district, which had worked closely with the city
of Berkeley to stay in compliance with local and State laws in order to
serve critically ill patients in my community, has been forced to close
its doors and turn their patients away. Complying with the State law
and relying on a memorandum from the Department of Justice, thousands
of small businesses across my State have invested millions in dollars
in building their businesses, created good paying jobs, and have paid
millions in taxes. The business owners in my home district are doing
everything they can to comply with the law, but clinics in Oakland and
Berkeley continue to be subject to raids by Federal authorities.
Many of my colleagues and I have made repeated requests to the
Department of Justice to seek clarification regarding their enforcement
policies on medical marijuana. Mr. Chair, this is about recognizing the
will of the voters. The Federal crackdowns ignore the will of the
voters in 16 States across the Nation. The clinics, doctors, and
businesses, which bring medicine--medicine mind you--to suffering
patients need clarity, certainty, and an end to arbitrary raids.

{time} 2000

We should be protecting, not undermining, our democracy by
prosecuting small business owners who pay taxes, comply with State
laws, and provide medicine to people in need.
But really, and most importantly, it should be out of compassion for
our fellow Americans suffering from a serious illness that compels us
to vote for this amendment. It is the humane thing to do, and it is the
right thing to do.
So I want to thank Mr. Rohrabacher once again and the cosponsors of
this amendment for bringing this forward tonight, and I urge an ``aye''
vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from California for bringing forward
this amendment.
This amendment is absolutely critical for Colorado. We have a legal
regulatory structure for medical marijuana and for the many businesses
and nonprofits that are active in providing patients with medical
marijuana, and yet they live under a constant fear, a constant fear of
selective enforcement from the Attorney General or from the DEA.
I had the opportunity in the Judiciary Committee to question the
Attorney General with regard to this issue, and he acknowledged that
the only possible enforcement--because of the large-scale use of
medical marijuana in the States where it is legal--would be selective
enforcement. And that is a very dangerous precedent and a very
dangerous power to hand an Attorney General, the Department of Justice,
and the DEA.
I have heard from the other side of the aisle in different contexts
many comments critical of the current Attorney General. But regardless
of who is sitting as Attorney General, do we want to have an Attorney
General that has the ability at any given time to engage in selective
enforcement against a large group of people, whomever he or she wants
to prosecute?
What if the select enforcement is politically motivated? What if we
have an Attorney General that decides he or she doesn't like the Tea
Party or doesn't like the Occupy movement? What if they then force the
States to give the records that they keep of who has the medical
marijuana licenses and then go after the people with whose politics
they don't agree? It's a very, very dangerous road to go down, a
dangerous power to give to the Federal Government.
This is a very real and important issue. Drug abuse is a terrible
problem that plagues our country and plagues Colorado families. We can
reduce drug abuse and reduce access to minors of both marijuana as well
as other drugs by making sure that we regulate them appropriately.
In Colorado, medical marijuana dispensaries are regularly audited.
They are required, under State law, to have video cameras keep track of
who comes and goes. Minors are not allowed to enter the premises. It
is, of course, the underground illegal corner drug dealer that will
sell to the 15-year-old, not the legal State-regulated dispensary.
We have limited law enforcement capabilities, as highlighted by my
colleague from California (Mr. Schiff), and to go after patients and
their caregivers rather than drug smugglers and Mexican drug cartels
does a huge disservice, not only to law enforcement, but also to the
many, many victims of the drug war, both from collateral damage as well
as those who fall victim to the drugs themselves.
It's critical, at a time when our Nation continues to battle with
narcotic use, that our limited resources are focused on the real
problem. The real problem is not the 68-year-old cancer patient. The
real problem is not the business or the nonprofit that operates under a
legal State regulatory system in providing these essential services in
our communities in accordance with State and local law.
This amendment is common sense. I hope that colleagues on both sides
of the aisle will join in passing this amendment.
And I understand that for many of our colleagues, they don't have
legal medical marijuana in their States, and that's fine. No one is
saying that they should or they shouldn't. It's up to the residents of
each State to decide how they want to treat the criminal aspects of
regulating marijuana use.
What we're asking is, for those of you who come from States who don't
have legal marijuana, consider that some States might think about it a
little differently. Consider that some States have, in fact, authorized
dispensaries and authorized a system to ensure that it stays out of the
hands of minors, to focus their State law resources on harder drugs and
ensuring that minors don't have access to marijuana or other drugs. And
consider that that is their prerogative, just as it is your prerogative
in your State to continue to approach marijuana usage as a criminal
issue.
I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
important amendment, to focus our limited resources and allow legal
businesses and legal caregivers to operate without the fear of a DEA
agent busting in their door.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

[[Page H2529]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. I hear people talking about States' rights. If a State said
sexual trafficking is okay, would we honor that and say that we're not
going to protect? I would hope not. States, in the past, have done some
things that have not been good in this country.
Secondly, we know that many of these marijuana dispensaries are
simply fronts for illegal marijuana distribution. The FDA noted in 2006
that ``there is currently sound evidence that smoked marijuana is
harmful''--harmful--and that ``no sound scientific study supported
medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no
animal or human data supported the safety of efficacy of marijuana for
general medical use.''
As required by the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA requested a
scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. And what was
concluded is ``that marijuana,'' the stuff that we're saying tonight--
anybody, if you saw the ``60 Minutes'' piece, they come in, they buy,
they take. We talk about doctors. The number of doctors that were
ripping off people with OxyContin, the number of doctors that were
devastating--
You can go down to Broward County, Florida, and go into some of these
pain clinics. There are buses coming down and planes coming down to buy
it. And doctors are writing prescriptions. So we're going to hide
behind and just say doctors are? The number of doctors that ruin, that
ruin young people on OxyContin, whereby they died--they died. So to
hide behind a doctor says that that means it's okay--but Health and
Human Services said, ``Marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no
accepted medical use in the United States, and lacks an acceptable
level of safety for use under medical supervision.''
I may be the only one in this body that feels this way, but I will
tell you, I think if this amendment passes and this becomes the law,
this would be a gateway to young people. This will literally send a
message down to the Mexican cartels. There is going to be a market all
over.
It will also increase automobile accidents because you will basically
be finding people that are driving while they are high versus driving
while they are intoxicated.
So, lastly, I would just hope and ask that we defeat this amendment.
Why don't you have hearings in the Judiciary Committee? Why don't you
have hearings some other place? But at 7:30--and my friend from
Massachusetts was joking about the time. The time is now 8:05, and
we're doing this. We're changing the law. And I think it would be bad
for the country and urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. 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 California
will be postponed.

{time} 2010

Amendment Offered by Mr. Lewis of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS 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:

At the end of the bill (and before the short title) insert
the following:
Sec. . None of the funds provided by this Act may be
obligated for the purpose of closing the regional field
offices of the Antitrust Division of the Department of
Justice.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I rise today to offer an amendment that would
prevent the closing of four field offices of the Department of Justice
Antitrust Division. These offices are located in Atlanta, Dallas,
Cleveland, and Philadelphia. The Justice Department announced plans to
close these offices with the stated goal of saving $8 million. These
closures will not save a dime. In fact, these closures would actually
end up costing the government money in lost criminal fines and
restitution.
Closing the Atlanta office does not even reduce Federal overhead. The
Atlanta field office is located in a Federal courthouse building which
will continue to operate. Not only will the antitrust division likely
lose those talented lawyers who do not choose to relocate to one of the
remaining offices, but it will also move people to some of the most
high-cost locations in the country.
The southern region is home to the corporate headquarters of over 100
of the Fortune 500 companies. The Atlanta office prosecutes individuals
and companies who engage in bid-rigging, price-fixing, and illegal
kickback schemes. Shutting down the Atlanta and Dallas sites leaves the
entire southern region of our Nation without any local presence to
prosecute and deter antitrust violations and white collar criminal
activity.
We cannot and should not underestimate the deterrent effect that the
presence of regional law enforcement officers has on white collar
crime. We cannot afford to leave the Southeast and Southwest without
vital law enforcement officials who are tasked with reducing white
collar crime.
I ask all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment to prevent the
closure of these critical law enforcement offices until a more thorough
review of the consequences can be undertaken. This is not a done deal.
Congress should and must act.
My amendment won't cost a cent, but it would bring in more than a few
dollars. Over the past 11 years, the Atlanta field office alone brought
in over $265 million in fines and restitution. Let me be clear that is
a 600 percent rate of return on this investment. What better proof do
you need?
Mr. Chairman, I ask each and every one of my colleagues again to
support the Lewis-Johnson amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
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. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Lewis for
offering this amendment to the Commerce-Justice-Science fiscal year
2013 appropriations bill. The amendment is designed to prevent the U.S.
Department of Justice from closing and reducing its antitrust division
field offices from seven to only three in a country of over 300 million
people in 50 States.
The Department of Justice literally and regrettably wants to, or is
proposing to, close four of its antitrust field offices in response to
budgetary pressures. This is partly because the Republican budget fails
to provide the administration with the resources it has requested to
carry out its basic mission.
Under Republican leadership, the legal activities account, which
funds the antitrust division, was 2.2 percent less than the
administration requested for the fiscal year 2012, and that resulted in
a 5.2 percent cut compared to fiscal year 2011. When we cut 5.2 percent
out of a particular account that primarily funds salaries and expenses,
there are consequences.
However, congressional Republicans are not totally to blame. The
President's budget says that the antitrust division is expecting an
increase in caseloads and requested additional funding to administer
the increase in caseload. Yet the administration wants to close over
half the division's offices. What sense does this even make?
Also, the antitrust division is a key participant on the President's
Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. How can the division be a
helpful participant when it is reducing its footprint across our
country?
In one of America's poorest cities with lingering high unemployment--
Cleveland, Ohio--that Department of Justice antitrust field office is
scheduled to be closed. I'm concerned about the impact it will have,
first of all, on the administration of justice in the field of
antitrust, but also on the employees, businesses, and consumers that
serve us in the greater Ohio area.
I'm very concerned for the hardworking employees in the Cleveland
field office, one of the most efficient

[[Page H2530]]

antitrust divisions in the country because its employees are so
talented. Cleveland is a community that still endures high unemployment
due to the economic crisis and its lingering effects. Why would we want
to do this now?
From my perspective, the amount of money the Department of Justice
expects to save will not actually materialize because costs will
increase elsewhere as a result of a reduced footprint across the
country.
The reality is we should be furthering our support for the antitrust
division, not closing offices or cutting funds. As currently
structured, the antitrust division is one of the most efficient
Agencies within the Federal Government. Its base budget was $159
million. Yet from 2009 to 2011 the division's efforts resulted in $2
billion in criminal fines and antitrust violations. That's a seven-to-
one return on investment.
In addition, over the last two fiscal years, the antitrust division
has been estimated to have saved consumers over $650 million as a
result of its criminal enforcement efforts. Furthermore, the antitrust
division successfully resolved 97 percent of its criminal cases in
fiscal year 2011.
Without question, the antitrust division more than pays for itself
seven times over. It has an outstanding track record. We should leave
its current structure alone. In fact, we should seek to strengthen it
and get greater return to the taxpayer for every dollar invested. No
matter what happens here today or tomorrow, I'll continue to work with
the other body to protect the antitrust division's presence across this
country and work to ensure that the employees in communities like
Cleveland and the other communities are treated fairly, because in the
final analysis, the American people need a robust antitrust division at
the Department of Justice.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Lewis amendment, and 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. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in support of this amendment which will ensure that the
Department of Justice has the resources it needs to fight white collar
crime. The Department is preparing to close antitrust regional offices
in Atlanta, Cleveland, Dallas, and Philadelphia. This amendment will
prevent the closure of these field offices during fiscal year 2013.
As a member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property,
Competition, and the Internet, I am concerned about the impact of these
closures. This action will seriously undermine the division's ability
to enforce antitrust laws by limiting the number of boots on the
ground, particularly in the Southeast and the Southwest.
Closing these offices is very shortsighted. It puts nearly 100 jobs
at risk in Atlanta and saves only $500,000 in fiscal year 2013. The
proposal could end up costing money by transferring employees to
regional offices with higher costs of living and higher salaries, like
New York and San Francisco.

{time} 2020

Further, the proposal will weaken the antitrust division as
experienced attorneys who choose not to transfer leave for other
opportunities. Antitrust law is a highly specialized field of law and
the institutional knowledge of an experienced attorney is invaluable.
The Atlanta office ranks number one in terms of the most trial wins
of any of the eight criminal offices. In fiscal year 2008, the Atlanta
office ranked first among all of the criminal offices in the amount of
restitution obtained for victims. For that fiscal year, the Atlanta
office accounted for 71.2 percent of all restitution imposed by the
division.
As this Nation recovers from a recession largely caused by white
collar misdoing, I implore this House to consider the message that
closure of these offices will send to the public. Those considering
whether to commit white collar crime need to know that there is strict
Federal enforcement. Closing these field offices sends the wrong
message to criminals and the public at exactly the wrong time.
This Congress has been consumed with debating the proper role and
scope of government. During that debate, we have all agreed that the
minimum role of government is to ensure an equal playing field that
allows opportunity for all and ensures that all wrong-doers will be
prosecuted, no matter if they are engaged in petty criminal offenses or
white collar crimes.
The antitrust division, which promotes and protects competition in
the marketplace, is essential to good governance and fairness. Surely
Tea Partyers and progressives, ALEC members and union leaders can all
agree that government must ensure a fair and competitive marketplace
that allows for innovation.
The closure of these four field offices will have the effect of
significantly eroding the division's criminal enforcement program,
leaving U.S. consumers and businesses in at least 19 States, the Virgin
Islands, and Puerto Rico unprotected against white collar crooks like
Bernie Madoff who seek to rig bids, inflate prices, and otherwise
defraud consumers and businesses.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Lewis-Johnson amendment. This amendment ensures that none of the
funding provided in the bill will be used to facilitate a closure of
the Department of Justice antitrust division's regional offices in
Atlanta, Cleveland, Dallas, and Philadelphia.
Mr. Chairman, from our discussions in the full committee markup of
this bill, I understand that Mr. Wolf, the distinguished chairman of
the subcommittee, believes that this matter can be worked out and that
Justice is perhaps willing to move on this. But I am deeply concerned
that this action will seriously undermine the division's ability to
enforce antitrust laws by limiting the number of boots on the ground,
particularly in the Southeast and the Southwest. Accepting that this is
a done deal and there is no room for negotiation by Congress will
severely weaken our ability to enforce the antitrust laws.
Furthermore, given the already heavy workload of the Washington,
D.C., San Francisco, New York and Chicago field offices, the antitrust
division will not have sufficient human resources to investigate and
prosecute many regional and local conspiracies in the areas of
responsibility that those four offices have, the ones that are slated
to be closed.
I want to ensure that the antitrust division can continue to protect
taxpayers and preserve integrity of our free market system. The
regional offices in Atlanta, Cleveland, Dallas, and Philadelphia help
facilitate these efforts, and they should remain open. Closing these
offices, I believe, is penny wise and pound foolish. It puts nearly a
hundred jobs at risk, and it poses only a $500,000 savings in fiscal
year 2013. In fact, the proposal could end up costing money because it
would transfer employees to regional offices with higher costs of
living and higher salaries, like New York and San Francisco.
It's extremely important that we don't close these offices until a
thorough review of the antitrust division is completed. When deciding
to recommend these closures, the Department of Justice did not consider
other more cost-effective options. Furthermore, if offices must be
eliminated, all of the closures should be based on merit and
productivity rather than on politics.
Let me speak for a moment on the Atlanta office which does better in
terms of overall performance and productivity than say, for instance,
some of the other offices which are slated to remain open. The Atlanta
office obtained over $265 million in fines and restitution between FY
2000 and 2011. With an annual operating cost of $4 million, the
criminal fines and restitution recovered by the office represent a
return rate of 600 percent. Indeed, closing these offices is penny wise
and pound foolish, and I urge adoption of the amendment for the good of
our free market system and our capitalist economy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H2531]]

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. I want to thank the gentleman and the gentlelady for
raising this issue and standing up. This was not done by our committee.
This was done by the Justice Department, by the administration.
But what we will do is next week we will ask the three or four who
spoke, that we bring the Justice Department in. We will get them to
come up here whereby they can sit down with all of you together and
your staffs to explain why, and see if they can justify this. But I
just want to be clear, this was not done at the committee's request.
This was the Justice Department.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I
appreciate those comments. I think it is clear that this was an action
by the Department, and it was not an action taken by the committee.
However, several of us on the committee have grave concerns about it,
and we appreciate the chairman's agreement and his willingness to
discuss it with the Justice Department and see if we can't get this
situation corrected.
Mr. WOLF. I thank you, 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 Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LEWIS 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.

Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Chaffetz

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
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. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the purpose of implementing section 36.302(c)(9)
of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, a couple of short months ago, the
Department of Justice in support of the Americans with Disabilities Act
added a new provision. This provision said that in order to be in
compliance with the ADA regulations, businesses must now allow service
horses into their businesses. And you did hear right: they're talking
about service horses to be in compliance with the ADA regulation. And I
dare to stand and say we need to say ``nay'' to that type of effort.
Pardon the pun. It's kind of hard to get through this without smiling
about it, but this is the kind of regulation that has an untold number
of consequences on small businesses.
While I recognize the imperative and the need that some unfortunate
Americans go through in having to deal with things, there comes a point
where we have to stand up and say wait a sec, wait a sec, wait a sec.
Do we really need to allow service horses into airplanes, into hotels
and into restaurants just to accommodate a particular person?
This amendment would prohibit funding from the implementation of yet
another costly Federal regulation. The regulation would require
businesses and restaurants to admit service horses in the same way they
admit service dogs into their areas of operation. I wish I didn't have
to bring up this amendment; but since the administration has now put
this into a rule, we're going to have to introduce this amendment.
Despite the difficulty--and some would say the impossibility of
housebreaking a horse--the Obama Justice Department has ruled that
service horses, miniature horses used to accompany people with
disabilities, are no different than guide dogs under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. As a result, shops, restaurants, hotels, even
airlines, can now be sued if they do not accommodate horses in their
place of business.
That regulation joins a long list of rules with which small
businesses must comply. In fact, the New York Times recently reported
on a particularly insidious scheme in which lawyers recruit disabled
people, pay them a fee, and use them to file lawsuits against
businesses that fail to comply with any one of the hundreds of ADA
rules. For small businesses, the cost of compliance with that law that
designates, for instance, 95 different standards for bathrooms alone is
just the beginning.

{time} 2030

They must also pay attorneys' fees to the litigants in such case,
even though many businesses say they would have complied without a
lawsuit.
Some 1.65 million lawsuits are filed each year over enforcement of
Federal regulations, according to Berkeley law professor Sean Farhang,
author of ``The Litigation State.'' Estimates by the Competitive
Enterprise Institute suggest that regulation cost the economy some
$1.75 trillion in 2008 alone. That's a massive drag on the U.S.
economy. With the average of nine new rules appearing in the Federal
Register every day, small businesses with fewer resources struggle to
keep up with the ever-changing regulatory environment.
Some 65 percent of the Nation's net new jobs are created by small
businesses, according to the Small Business Administration.
Overregulation has a direct effect on their ability to create jobs and
compete in the marketplace.
If a person wishes to bring a horse into an establishment, then the
request should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, not through some
new Federal mandate. Ironically, even the Miniature Horse Association--
and I'm sure all good Americans subscribe to the magazine put out by
the American Miniature Horse Association--but their president, Harry
Elder, has looked at this. He does not condone the use of these horses
as a replacement for guide dogs. In fact, he has said:

The American miniature horse can readily be trained to be
led or driven, but in most cases it would not make a suitable
replacement for an animal such as a guide dog.

So there is an association that deals with these miniature horses.
Even that association and the president is saying this is not a wise
move.
If the body feels that this is an imperative thing to do, I suggest a
Member of Congress be brave enough to introduce such a piece of
legislation, that it be properly vetted by having a hearing about this,
and we can move through the legislative process. But since the
administration has introduced this regulation, this is just suggesting
that we should not spend money against this and let this be a little
more vetted. It would help American businesses. Unfortunately, there
are already lawsuits flying.
I would encourage Members on both sides of the aisle to please vote
for this amendment, and 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. I had an opportunity to visit, while I was in Connecticut
with Chairman Larson, with a brave young soldier who lost his eyesight
in Iraq. It was a situation where his ability to function required an
animal to help guide him so that he could go about his normal functions
of daily life.
What the gentleman who made this amendment neglected to share with
the House is that it has been the law that, under the ADA guidelines,
you could have any animal--monkey, horse, so forth and so on--that
could be of use to someone who was disabled. What the administration
has done with this new regulation is limit this to only two types of
animals: one are guide dogs--as we would normally know them--and the
other are miniature horses that meet certain requirements, including
being housebroken and so forth and so on. The reason why people who are
disabled in some cases find this a more useful animal to use is that
they live three times longer than a dog does and they have perfect
vision.
But I see that there has been some, I guess, laughter, as if this is
comical. The fact of the matter is, when I met

[[Page H2532]]

with this young soldier and his wife and their two kids, he talked
about how it just made him feel whole that he could go get the
newspaper from out in front of the house, that he could go to the
store.
So the idea that this is some new policy of the Obama administration
is false, number one. Number two, it's restricting an overly broad set
of allowances in this regard, and it restricts it to only two types of
animals, both of which can be used by people who are disabled.
So I would hope that the House, even those in the majority who seem
to find, for some reason, challenges in this bill, in particular with
the provisions that they want to go after that allow disabled people to
use pools--and we heard yesterday how every group in the veterans
associations around our country opposed this effort yesterday on the
pool access, and now we're here talking about whether or not people who
have lost their sight or are disabled can have a guide animal.
So I oppose the amendment. I hope the House rejects it.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I do want to indicate that I believe it was in March
that the Department of Justice title III regulations issued a new
ruling. So, we may disagree on what to do with this.
Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, you are aware, I assume, that this
ruling was a restriction from a much broader ruling that allowed any
type of animal, including monkeys--and I can go into the different
other animals if you'd like.
I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I would disagree with that assessment. This is a new
regulation, and it has led to lawsuits that have already started to
happen. One news report is of a lawsuit in California.
Mr. FATTAH. Let me reclaim my time just so we can clarify this one
matter of fact here, okay, in that the regulation prior to this
adjustment allowed for service animals of any type--including a dog, a
horse, monkey, bird, rat--trained to assist and alert, okay, that's
number one. So this is a move by the Obama administration to restrict
it to two types of animals. So I just want the House to be able to
operate off of actual information because this is an effort to both
help those who are disabled, and also to avoid unnecessary
circumstances in which regulations are too broad.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I would be happy to work with you on that. I do
disagree with that assessment and that reading of it.
Mr. FATTAH. Let me reclaim my time. This is not an assessment; this
is a fact. So, this was the regulation. The new regulation retreats and
constrains the regulation to two animals versus a multiplicity of
animals.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. If the gentleman will yield.
Mr. FATTAH. I'd be glad to yield.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. I simply disagree with that assessment. We'll have to
agree to disagree, and I look forward to working with you.
Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, because we're not talking about an
assessment, I want the House to be aware of that. This is not the
appropriate place to deal with this matter. But if we insist on it, I
would hope that we would err on the side of that young brave soldier
who risked his life on behalf of our country, and that he should have
whatever assistance that can be provided.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Holt

Mr. HOLT. 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 Department of Justice in contravention of any
of the following:
(1) The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States.
(2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.
2000d et seq.) (relating to nondiscrimination in federally
assisted programs).
(3) Section 809(c)(1) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3789d(c)(1)) (relating to
prohibition of discrimination).
(4) Section 210401(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14141(a)) (relating to
unlawful police pattern or practice).

Mr. HOLT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is simple: to
prohibit any Federal funds from flowing to law enforcement
organizations that engage in any form of racial, ethnic, or religious
profiling.
It's been a matter of concern for decades among minority communities
when policing organizations engage in profiling, but recent events have
brought the problem into sharp focus.

{time} 2040

Starting last August, the Associated Press published a series of
disturbing stories about the systematic racial, ethnic, and religious
profiling conducted by the New York City Police Department against
Muslim and Arab Americans in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, and Louisiana.
In September of last year, I asked the Department of Justice to
investigate what we now know was a pattern of surveillance and
infiltration by the New York Police Department against innocent
American Muslims in the absence of a valid investigative reason. These
Muslim communities were mapped, infiltrated, and surveilled simply
because they were Muslim.
Profiling is wrong. Profiling on the basis of the race, ethnicity,
and religion is a violation of core constitutional principles.
Profiling is also wrong because it is not good policing. Profiling is
an unthinking, lazy, unprofessional approach to police work and
intelligence work, and it only raises the risk that the real plot will
slip through the cracks. Indeed, profiling is counterproductive.
The sloppiness of the NYPD surveillance effort was such that several
non-Muslim establishments were labeled as being owned by Muslims and,
contrary to the blanket assertions by some that the tactics have kept
New York City safe, the NYPD failed to uncover two actual plots against
New York City, those perpetrated by Faisal Shahzad and Najibullah Zazi.
In Shahzad's case, the FBI was surveilling both the mosque he
attended and the Muslim Student Association of his accomplice. In
Zazi's case, the NYPD actually took actions that let Zazi be tipped off
about the FBI's investigation.
The NYPD's surreptitious, uncoordinated, and unprofessional approach
to counterterrorism prevention within the American Muslim community
shows that they have learned nothing from the lessons elucidated from
the
9/11 Commission's report.
Now, let me be clear. This amendment is not aimed solely at one
particular law enforcement organization. Over the decades, law
enforcement agencies across the country have profiled against African
Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities. Indeed, the Department of
Justice has specific guidance prohibiting this practice because it has
become widespread, and it has conducted litigation against Police
Departments for using race or ethnicity to target citizens for arrest
in California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and other States.
My amendment would ensure that no Federal funds are flowing to any
law enforcement entity that the Department has identified as engaging
in racial, ethnic, and religious profiling.
Racial, ethnic and religious profiling by police is not something
taxpayer dollars should be spent for. I urge my colleagues to support
this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H2533]]

People for the American Way,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2012.
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the hundreds of
thousands of members of People for the American Way, I urge
you to support Representative Holt's amendment to H.R. 5326,
the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2013. A vote is anticipated this
afternoon. This amendment would prohibit federal funds made
available through the act to be used for programs or
activities that involve racial, ethnic, or religious
profiling by any federal, state, or local law enforcement
organization.
Such profiling undermines America's status as a nation
founded on Equal Justice Under Law. The story of America is
one of a nation founded on timeless ideals of liberty and
equality, and struggling generation after generation to make
those principles real for those not included. Society's
``outsiders'' are brought in and made to know that they in
fact belong to the community that is America. Profiling
damages that process. It sends a powerful message to entire
communities that they are, in fact, not quite the equal
members of society that we said they were. It tells them that
their very existence raises suspicions. It harms the
individuals profiled, as well as those who live in constant
apprehension of being profiled. The practice undermines our
nation's principles, and our federal government should not be
funding it.
Profiling does not even produce the benefits that it is
purported to provide: It is counterproductive. When limited
law enforcement resources are spent targeting innocent people
simply because of their real or perceived race, ethnicity, or
religion, that is not an efficient use of resources. Nor is
it efficient to alienate entire communities, making them feel
resentful toward or fearful of law enforcement. People living
in America should be able to rely on law enforcement as a
partner in making their lives safer. But those who feel
unfairly targeted by profiling will be far less likely to
cooperate with law enforcement when their cooperation is
needed, whether it is a case of local violent crime or
national security. That does not make our nation or our
communities safer.
A practice that undermines both our principles and our
safety is not one that the federal government should be
funding. We urge you to vote for Representative Holt's
amendment.
Sincerely,
Marge Baker,
Executive Vice President for Policy and Program.
Paul R. Gordon,
Senior Legislative Counsel.
____

Interfaith Alliance,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2012.
Re Interfaith Alliance Recommends Voting YES on Rep. Holt
Amend. to H.R. 5326.

Dear Representative: On behalf of Interfaith Alliance, I
urge you to vote YES on Rep. Rush Holt's (D NJ 12) amendment
to H.R. 5326, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2013. A recorded vote on this
amendment is anticipated on the House floor today. The
amendment states:

``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used
for programs or activities that involve racial, ethnic, or
religious profiling by any Federal, state, or local law
enforcement organization.''

As the only national, interfaith organization dedicated to
protecting the integrity of both religion and democracy in
America, Interfaith Alliance supports Rep. Holt's amendment
because:
Racial and religious profiling is an affront to the
principle of religious freedom on which our nation was
founded. Profiling individuals simply because they belong, or
appear to belong, to a particular religious community turns
First Amendment-protected beliefs and activities into cause
for suspicion.
Racial and religious profiling undermines Americans' trust
in those sworn to protect them. Numerous studies have shown
that singling out individuals for investigation based solely
on their appearance is ineffective and dishonest, alienates
racial and religious minorities, and diminishes cooperation
and effective law enforcement.
Racial and religious profiling fuels divisiveness by
casting suspicion over an entire religious community,
perpetuating discrimination against religion generally and
religious minorities in particular.
Protecting religious freedom is most critical in times of
crisis and controversy. Most law enforcement agents discharge
their duties honorably, and do not engage in racial and/or
religious profiling. Prior to 9/11, both Congress and
President George W. Bush made a commitment to end the
practice of racial profiling. However, the September 11th
attacks caused a dramatic rise in the inappropriate profiling
of Arabs, Muslims, Sikhs, and South Asians. This profiling
based on religion, race, ethnicity, and national origin
continues to persist today.
Again, please vote YES on Rep. Holt's amendment to H.R.
5326 and affirm our fundamental moral and democratic values
of equal protection and religious liberty while making our
nation safer by ending this practice now. Please call Deputy
Director for Public Policy Arielle Gingold with any questions
at 202 238 3266.
Sincerely,
Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy,
President, Interfaith Alliance.
____

National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People,

Washington, DC, May 9, 2012.
Re: NAACP Strong Support for the Anti-Racial Profiling
Amendment to be Offered by Congressman Rush Holt (NJ) to
H.R. 5326, A Bill Making Appropriations for the
Departments of Commerce, Justice and State.

Hon. Members,
U.S. House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's
oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based
civil rights organization, I strongly urge you to support
Congressman Rush Holt's (NJ) amendment to HR 5316, the
Commerce, Justice, State, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act 2013. Congressman Holt's amendment would prohibit federal
funding for programs or activities that involve racial,
ethnic, or religious profiling by any federal, state, or
local law enforcement organization.
Racial profiling betrays the fundamental American promise
of equal protection under the law and infringes on the Fourth
Amendment guarantee that all people be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures. Such discriminatory law enforcement
practices have no place in American life and certainly should
not be supported by federal funds. Racial profiling targets
individuals not because of evidence of criminal activity but
because of the individuals' perceived race, ethnicity,
nationality or religion. It diverts limited law enforcement
resources away from more effective strategies. Racial
profiling also causes resentment in targeted communities and
makes people in those communities less likely to cooperate in
crime prevention reporting or investigations. When
individuals and communities fear the police, they are less
likely to call law enforcement when they are the victims of
crime or in emergencies. Creating a climate of fear
compromises public safety and limits the ability of law
enforcement officials to effectively carry out their
responsibilities. Such counterproductive law enforcement
practices should never receive federal support.
As I stated earlier, I hope that you will support the Holt
amendment to H.R. 5326 and help address the very serious
problem of racial profiling. Thank you in advance for your
attention to this NAACP priority. Should you have any
questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me
at my office at (202) 463 2940.
Sincerely,

Hilary O. Shelton,

Vice President for Advocacy / Director,
NAACP Washington Bureau.

Mr. KING of New York. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I must say that I strongly oppose
this amendment, and I disagree with virtually every word spoken on the
floor tonight by the gentleman from New Jersey.
Let's understand one thing. The NYPD has the most effective
counterterrorism unit in the country. There are 1,000 police working
day in and day out. As a result of that, almost 13 or 14 attempts,
terrorist attempts, Islamist terrorist attempts to attack New York have
been stopped.
Now, let's get something straight. The President's Homeland Security
Advisor, John Brennan, recently visited with the NYPD. During that
meeting, or following that meeting, Mr. Brennan, President Obama's
Homeland Security Advisor, stated:

I have full confidence that the NYPD is doing things
consistent with the law, and it's something that again has
been responsible for keeping this city safe over the past
decade.

Mr. Brennan, the President's Homeland Security Advisor went on to
say:

If we are going to have the ability to identify and stop
terrorist operatives and terrorist attacks here on our
shores, the national government cannot do it alone. The NYPD
is a model of how a community can come together.
He closed by saying to the NYPD:

You have had a very difficult job. I think you've done it
very well. The success is in the record in terms of keeping
your city safe.

In addition to that, FBI Director Mueller has stood by the NYPD, said
that they are in full compliance with the law. CIA Director Petraeus,
there was an IG inspection done, that the NYPD's relationship with the
CIA was in full compliance with the law.
These slanderous attacks by the Associated Press and The New York
Times cannot point out one instance of a law being violated or one
provision of the Constitution being violated.
We should be here tonight giving the NYPD a medal. We sit here, 10\1/
2\ years

[[Page H2534]]

after September 11, and the most effective law enforcement,
counterterrorism unit in the country is being attacked? We are
attempting to cite the Constitution and provisions of law as somehow an
attack on the NYPD, when no one complies with these more than the NYPD.
And again, we go through, whether it's Director Petraeus, whether
it's Director Mueller, or whether it's the President of the United
States, his own Homeland Security advisers have said this.
Now, I work closely with the NYPD, those in New York, whether it's
Mayor Bloomberg, whether it's City Council President Christine Quinn.
She's a Democrat; he's an independent. Both stand by the NYPD because
of what they have done.
And to think that the most effective organization is being attacked
by the Associated Press, The New York Times, and those attacks are
being joined here on the floor of the Congress of the United States,
without one fact to back them up. There is no spying. All this is good
police work.
The reality is we're not going to sit back like we did on September
11 and allow the enemy to come. If we know that an attack is coming and
we're told, for instance, that operatives are coming from a particular
country and there's a community in New York City where those people
live, then obviously you go, you conduct open surveillance. No one's
talking about any violations to the Constitution.
I remember years ago when the Justice Department was going after the
Mafia, they went to the Italian American communities. When they were
going after the Westies, they went to the Irish American communities.
When you're looking for the Russian mob, you go to the communities in
Coney Island and Brighton Beach. That's where the enemy comes from.
Ninety-nine percent of the people are law-abiding. But if you're
looking for the person who is going to that community to carry out a
crime, you look in that community. If you're looking for an Islamic
terrorist, you don't go to Ben's Kosher Deli. When they were looking
for the Italian mob, they didn't go to an Irish bar. They went to the
Italian social clubs.
This is solid law enforcement. That's not profiling. That's an abuse
of the term ``profiling'' to even suggest that.
So I cannot be more emphatic or stronger in my denunciation of this
amendment, calling for its defeat and urging people to stand by the
NYPD, which has kept New York safe for 10\1/2\ years.
I went to too many funerals. I attended too many wakes. I lost too
many constituents. I'm not going to allow it to happen so long as I'm
in this Congress.
I oppose this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's time 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. This is a well-intentioned issue in the sense that all
this amendment says is that none of the funds in this bill should be
used to violate the Constitution of the United States, the Fifth and
the 14th Amendment, so I'm sure there will be those who want to adhere
to it.
But this is not the appropriate place to be dealing with this issue.
This is an appropriations bill. We've had dozens of riders, one after
another, with people trying to get at other issues.
Now, there is no instance, no matter what the purpose, under which we
should be condemning law enforcement when they are carrying out
appropriate responsibilities, and they should be given the benefit of
the doubt. In the same instance, we have a responsibility to uphold the
Constitution. The Constitution is clear in its delineation that you
can't discriminate.
And we shouldn't--it's not good law enforcement practices, no matter
who you're looking for, to act in ways in which you close your eyes to
other possibilities. If you're looking for terrorists, they don't come
in any particular subset or group. And I know that wise law enforcement
is aware of this, and that they look across the board at what the
vulnerabilities may be.
I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his steadfastness
in trying to protect against religious bigotry or ethnic discrimination
or unintentional stepping across the line, however one might want to
look at this. But, again, this is a bill in which we're trying to deal
with the appropriation of Federal dollars for needed law enforcement
activity.
Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HOLT. Thank you.
This is completely consistent with an appropriations bill for the
Department of Justice. Just as we have spent decades getting away from
the practice of harassing people for driving while black, we've got to
get away from the practice of harassing people for shopping while
Muslim.

{time} 2050

Mr. FATTAH. In reclaiming my time, the point here is that, with every
dollar that we appropriate to the Department of Justice, we operate
under the belief that they're carrying out their constitutional
responsibilities, so a limitation that says that they have to operate
within the Constitution, at best, is somewhat redundant.
Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. HOLT. Reference was made to the Deputy National Security Advisor
of President Obama's, Mr. Brennan.
What Mr. Brennan actually said was that, for the NYPD to be
effective, they need the cooperation of the Muslim community. In fact,
if you talk with the Muslim community, they are not only outraged by
this behavior; they are intimidated by it. They see it as profiling. My
colleague from New York and my colleague from Pennsylvania can say,
well, of course everybody is operating under the law.
Mr. FATTAH. In reclaiming my time, I didn't say that. I understand,
from the press reports one could consider this profiling. All I am
suggesting to you is that this is not the appropriate vehicle for us to
deal with it. Profiling would be improper, and I believe the Justice
Department has articulated that their position is not to profile.
Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. HOLT. I would hope that the gentleman would find a place for this
instruction to the Department of Justice in order to make sure that the
recipients of their grants do what they are, indeed, supposed to do.
We're talking about money spent. We should make sure that the taxpayer
money is spent for good policing.
Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman. As I indicated, I commend you for
raising this issue. I know it's unpopular in some areas.
I'm just suggesting that, when in an appropriations bill, a rider
like this, dictating to the Department that it should comply with the
Constitution is similar to some other amendments we've seen today. I
believe that the Department has an ongoing, everyday responsibility to
comply with the Constitution.
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 share the comments made by Mr. Fattah and by my friend
from New York (Mr. King).
At every hearing we have, we raise this issue with Director Mueller.
Director Mueller may be the best--not one of the best--the best
Director that we've ever had at the FBI. I think Director Mueller has
stood with the NYPD. He had an opportunity to speak and to say
something negative. He did not.
My good friend--and he is my friend. I think we throw words around
there, but I like Rush Holt, and he knows how I feel about him. Yet
this is not a good amendment, and it almost makes the FBI or the NYPD
look like they're doing something wrong. It's one thing to have a
colloquy on the floor, but another to have an amendment that looks like
it's a direct kind of attack on it after. I looked at the original
amendment, and you had to kind of change it for it to be in order.
Secondly, I think Ray Kelly is one of the finest police chiefs we've
ever had in the country, and if you were an NYPD policeman, you would
see this and think.

[[Page H2535]]

Thirdly, to validate what Mr. King said, I will read here:

President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser
praised the New York Police Department's work Friday, saying
the agency has struck an appropriate balance between keeping
people safe and protecting their rights.

We have to remember Major Hasan was responsible for the death of 13
people, and there were targets and signs that nobody wanted to kind of
identify. As Mr. King said, there are about 180 people from my
congressional district who died in the attack at the Pentagon.
Brennan goes on to say:

It is not a trade-off between our security and our freedoms
and our rights as citizens, John Brennan said Friday at an
appearance at NYPD headquarters.
I believe that balance that we strike has been an
appropriate one. We want to make sure that we're able to
optimize our security at the same time we optimize those
freedoms we hold and cherish so deeply.

Brennan's comments represent a White House stamp of approval of the
NYPD's tactics. For months, the Obama administration has sized up the
question about the NYPD surveillance program while insisting on the
importance of building partnerships with American Muslims.
Then it goes on to say:

City officials said the police department has done nothing
illegal and argued that the NYPD would have endangered the
city it is charged with protecting if it did not take such
preventative measures. Officers cannot wait to open an
investigation until a crime is committed, they argue. Police
Commissioner Raymond Kelly has said it is a
mischaracterization to describe the department's tactics as
spying.

I will close with this:

In a speech to the police department's officials and
representatives from private security firms, Brennan then
went on to say, The NYPD's counterterrorism work was
essential to the safety of the Nation's citizens.

So I agree with Mr. King, and I agree with Mr. Holt.
Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. HOLT. Since you refer to the Deputy National Security Advisor,
it's worth pointing out that a couple of days later the White House
felt it necessary to back away from his comments and to say:

John, in his remarks, wasn't referring to the NYPD
surveillance.

Of course he was, but they had to say he wasn't because he had
misspoken. Rather, he was stating that everyone in the counterterrorism
and law enforcement community must make sure that we are doing things
consistent with the law.
In other words, Mr. Brennan was out of bounds, and the White House
had to walk that back. So I wouldn't, if I were you, choose his
endorsement of these NYPD activities as the best argument against my
amendment.
Mr. WOLF. In reclaiming my time, I do take Mr. Brennan at his word. I
think Mr. Brennan is actually a constituent who lives in my
congressional district. He has a pretty distinguished career in having
been our station chief in Saudi Arabia and the head of the
Counterterrorism Center, and he probably knows more about terrorism
than any Member here in the Congress but for, perhaps, Mr. Rogers or
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Secondly, Director Mueller, I maintain, is one of the best Directors.
Director Mueller is an honest, decent, ethical guy, who cares deeply
with regard to civil rights. Mr. Serrano is not here, but God bless Mr.
Serrano. At every hearing, Mr. Serrano always bears in to make sure
that the FBI is doing things appropriately. I believe they are, and he
validated what the NYPD did.
It's just not a good idea to be attacking our law enforcement and
saying this when they're actually doing a good job. So I stand with Mr.
Fattah, and I stand with Mr. King.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Fattah, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Wolf was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. I thank the chairman for yielding.
It is not inconsistent for us to want to have support for law
enforcement and also that the Constitution be followed. We have access
to law enforcement. If you want them to come in and brief you on these
tactics and to talk this thing through, that's fine; but I don't
believe that we should take a position of all the angels on one side.
To the contrary, there is no police department that's perfect.
The point here is that the effort is one, I believe, to comply with
the constitutional restrictions that you do not operate without due
process and probable cause. Let's see if we can find a way other than
with this amendment to see if we can get to the heart of this.
Mr. WOLF. 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. Holt).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HOLT. 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.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Cravaack

Mr. CRAVAACK. 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. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to carry out the activities of the Climate Change
Education program of the National Science Foundation.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRAVAACK. I rise today to offer an amendment that would prohibit
any more funding going to a duplicative program. I'd like to think that
everyone in this room is well aware that we are $15.7 trillion in debt.

{time} 2100

Our spending is out of control. We are simply spending money we don't
have and massively indebting future generations of Americans.
The GAO reports duplicative U.S. Government programs costs billions
of dollars. Thirteen agencies fund 209 different science, technology,
engineering, and math education programs. Of those programs, 173
overlap with at least one other program. We have to be responsible for
how the government spends Americans' hard-earned tax dollars. We cannot
afford to borrow money to fund duplicative programs that are already
under the purview of established agencies and protocols.
The Climate Change Education program at the National Science
Foundation duplicates education programs already in place. Currently,
worthy research proposals are subject to rigorous peer-reviewed
processes. The Climate Change Education program sets aside money for a
specific purpose, which is already covered in interagency education
programs. This is just more Big Government and a waste of taxpayer
dollars.
Last year, the Climate Change Education program funded partnerships
among K 12 education, related nonprofit organizations, and relevant
education and/or climate-related policymakers. This year, however, the
program has morphed into the Sustainability Research Network to create
new interdisciplinary learning experiences for graduate and
undergraduate students, as well as literacy programs. In the military,
we call this mission creep.
The National Science Foundation funds basic research and serves as an
engine of our innovation economy. However you feel about global
warming, that is not the debate here today, though I look forward to
engaging in that in the future.
This amendment addresses a duplicative program that is not necessary
and is costing the taxpayers money we simply don't have. We need to
prioritize innovation and research and NSF, and eliminate duplicative
education programs that do nothing to improve the economic outlook of
our future. We need to get back to the basics.
I ask all of my colleagues to join me in this commonsense amendment
in ending a duplicative program that is wasting taxpayer dollars and
further indebting future generations.

[[Page H2536]]

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.
Climate change is a big issue in the world we live in. It affects our
economy, our ability to move goods. We've had the most severe weather
season we've had in history over the last 12 months at a cost of a
billion-plus dollars. Our ability to understand the weather and the
climate and its impact on business and industry and agriculture is
critically important. I think that the National Science Foundation--
which is an entirely merit-based system of scientific awards in which
they fund less than one out of every five meritorious pieces of
research proposals. There is absolutely no politics. The National
Science Board, which is confirmed by the Senate, reviews these
proposals, they make selections. The idea that we don't want to know
more or learn more, I think is interesting. I would hope that the House
would reject that, and that what we would do is seek knowledge as a way
to retain our global leadership as the leading Nation in the world.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, regarding duplicative programs--again,
this is about duplicative programs. The National Science Foundation
already funds STEM education and even climate-change education programs
in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources with worthy peer-
reviewed proposals.
Total U.S. spending for the U.S. Global Change Research program for
13 agencies is more than $2.5 billion, primarily at NASA, NOAA, and
NSF. NSF spending for the U.S. Global Change Research program is over
$333 million. NSF spending for education is $1.2 billion a year.
Climate change education can be addressed through NSF climate research
activities and NSF education activities. There is no need to fund
additional special climate-change education programs.
This newer program under the Obama administration is currently funded
at $10 million a year, $5.5 million from the Education Directorate and
$4.5 million from several research directorates as identified. Again,
this is a duplicative program and a waste of the taxpayer dollars.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. 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 Minnesota
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Brown of Florida

Ms. BROWN of Florida. 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. __. The amount made available by this Act For
``Department of Justice--Office of Justice Programs--State
and Local Law Enforcement Assistance'' for emergency federal
law enforcement assistance, as authorized by section 609M the
Justice Assistance Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10513; Public Law
98 473) is hereby increased by $20,000,000 and the amount
otherwise provided by this Act for PERIODIC CENSUSES AND
PROGRAMS AND STATISTICS is hereby reduced by $20,000,000.

Ms. BROWN of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the
reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I'm very
excited that finally we have an amendment that I think everybody can
support since everyone supports law enforcement.
This amendment fully funds the Emergency Federal Law Enforcement
Assistance Program in the amount of $20 million. This program was
designed to help local government respond to extraordinary law
enforcement emergencies after they have exhausted their own budgets.
The Emergency Law Enforcement Assistance Program authorizes the
Attorney General to provide funds, equipment, training, intelligence,
and personnel to alleviate the financial impact of unforeseeable
emergency law enforcement situations.
This program was authorized in 1984 but has not been funded since
1996. Had it been funded, this program would have helped a community in
my district. In October of 2007, a 7-year-old girl, Somer Thompson,
went missing on her way home from school. The Clay County sheriff's
office followed garbage trucks and found Somer's body in a Georgia
landfill 2 days later. Thanks to this quick thinking, her killer was
captured and will never harm another child.
Investigations like this one cost a lot of money. Overtime, lab
tests, travel costs, and numerous unforeseen expenses can blow even the
most prudent budget. Small communities simply lack the resources to
pursue investigations on this scale. The sheriff told me he had
exhausted his budget for the year on overtime just for this one case.
I did what I could to help scrape together grants from other sources,
but this program would have filled the gap. By the way, the sheriff and
almost everyone in Clay County is a Republican, but this is not about
party. It's about doing what is right. In an era when local government
can barely afford the police they have, a major crime can wipe them out
and leave the community more vulnerable. The basic purpose of
government is to protect the citizens. This amendment will make sure
police can do it without worrying about a crisis that will break their
budget.
Mr. WOLF. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. We have a little concern, but we are going to accept the
amendment with the idea we can work as we go to conference. We will
accept the amendment.
Mr. FATTAH. If the gentlewoman will yield, I thank the chairman, and
I thank the gentlelady from Florida.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Reed). The question is on the amendment offered
by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 2110

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, in lieu of an amendment, I would
like to take this time to engage the subcommittee chairman in a
colloquy about the importance of our Nation's fisheries management
commissions.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for funding our
Nation's fisheries management commissions and the good work they do to
help keep more fish in our waters. NOAA's Inter-Jurisdictional
Fisheries Act, IJFA, program supports the conservation and management
of fish species which occur in both Federal and State waters. Funding
for this program is used to support conservation and management tasks
not currently being undertaken by NOAA or the Regional Fishery
Management Councils. Similarly, fisheries commissions on the Atlantic,
Pacific, and gulf coast represent an important bottom-up stakeholder
approach to managing our Nation's many fisheries and often develop
innovative programs to enhance America's fisheries resources.
I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman from Alaska. We will work with the
other body to ensure that these programs are adequately funded.

[[Page H2537]]

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In these tight budgetary times, hard choices must be made, and we
should ensure that we do our utmost to put funds back into productive
programs that increase the sustainability of fisheries and benefit the
States, and the IJFA and councils and commissions accounts are areas
where current programs are producing proven results for fisheries'
sustainability.
I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

Mr. GARAMENDI. 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. ___. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by--
(1) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Department of Commerce; International Trade Administration;
Operations and Administration'' (and the amount provided
under such heading for official representation expenses
abroad) by $155,979;
(2) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Department of Commerce; Bureau of Industry and Security;
Operations and Administration'' (and the amount provided
under such heading for official representation expenses
abroad), by $6,750;
(3) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Department of Commerce; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office;
Salaries and Expenses'' (and the amount provided under such
heading for official reception and representation expenses)
by $450;
(4) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Department of Commerce; National Institute of Standards and
Technology; Scientific and Technical Research and Services''
(and the amount provided under such heading for official
reception and representation expenses) by $2,500;
(5) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Department of Commerce; Departmental Management; Salaries
and Expenses'' (and the amount provided under such heading
for official reception and representation) by $2,250;
(6) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Department of Justice; Legal Activities; Salaries and
Expenses, General Legal Activities'' (and the amount made
available under such heading to INTERPOL Washington for
official reception and representation expenses) by $4,500;
(7) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Department of Justice; Legal Activities; Salaries and
Expenses, United States Attorneys'' (and the amount provided
under such heading for official reception and representation
expenses) by $3,600;
(8) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Department of Justice; United States Marshals Service;
Salaries and Expenses'' (and the amount provided under such
heading for official reception and representation expenses)
by $3,000;
(9) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Investigations;
Salaries and Expenses'' (and the amount provided under such
heading for official reception and representation expenses)
by $98,640;
(10) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Department of Justice; Drug Enforcement Administration;
Salaries and Expenses'' (and the amount provided under such
heading for official reception and representation expenses)
by $45,000;
(11) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Department of Justice; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
and Explosives; Salaries and Expenses'' (and the amount
provided under such heading for official reception and
representation expenses) by $18,000;
(12) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Department of Justice; Federal Prison System; Salaries and
Expenses'' (and the amount provided under such heading for
official reception and representation expenses) by $2,700;
(13) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Science; Office of Science and Technology Policy'' (and the
amount provided under such heading for official reception and
representation expenses) by $1,125;
(14) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Science; National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Cross Agency Support'' (and the amount provided under such
heading for official reception and representation expenses)
by $31,709;
(15) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Science; National Science Foundation; Agency Operations and
Award Management'' (and the amount provided under such
heading for official reception and representation expenses)
by $4,140;
(16) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Science; Office of the National Science Board'' (and the
amount provided under such heading for official reception and
representation expenses) by $1,250;
(17) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Related Agencies; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission''
(and the amount provided under such heading for official
reception and representation expenses) by $1,125;
(18) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Related Agencies; International Trade Commission; Salaries
and Expenses'' (and the amount provided under such heading
for official reception and representation expenses) by
$1,125;
(19) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Related Agencies; Office of the United States Trade
Representative; Salaries and Expenses'' (and the amount
provided under such heading for official reception and
representation expenses) by $58,032;
(20) reducing the amount made available under the heading
``Related Agencies; State Justice Institute; Salaries and
Expenses'' (and the amount provided under such heading for
official reception and representation expenses) by $1,125;
and
(21) by increasing the amount made available for
``Department of Commerce; National Institute of Standards and
Technology; Industrial Technology Services'' (and the amount
provided under such heading for the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership) by $443,000.

Mr. GARAMENDI (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, day after day, or at least week after
week, my colleagues and I are here on the floor talking about jobs. It
is about jobs and jobs and jobs again. Our agenda, which we call ``Make
It in America,'' is an agenda that would rebuild the American
manufacturing sector, a sector that has lost about 40 percent of its
jobs in the last 20, 25 years from just under 20 million to just over
11 million Americans who are working in manufacturing today.
One of the innovative ways of improving manufacturing has been
developed. It's called the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. It's
actually modeled after another Federal-State program that's been in
existence for more than 100 years. Anyone that's in agriculture would
recognize the Agricultural Extension Program. This is the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership, a program that has actually added another
feature to the old and still very successful Agricultural Extension
Program, and that is a public-private partnership. In this program, the
Federal Government, through the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, runs a program in which funding is provided for local,
private, or nonprofit organizations to become extension program
managers.
In California, this has been a very, very successful program. Some
$447 million in new retained sales have occurred, $128.8 million in new
investments, and some 3,769 jobs have been created.
Some examples exist throughout California. In southern California, a
manufacturer, a small company that makes high-tech parts for the
aircraft industry, has been able to improve their manufacturing
techniques and have been able to stay in business, and they now have
been very successful in bringing down contracts with the aircraft
industry.
In the Bay Area, another program--actually run out of San Ramon, near
my district--has been very successful. This program, called MANEX, has
been very successful working with companies in the area. Morgan Hill
Precision, to be precise, is a company that, again, is a machine shop.
That company has used the MEP program, the Manufacturing Extension
Partnership, to good success.
Now how do we pay for this? Some $437,000. We take a little bit from
some 20 different parts of the Department of Commerce. The result is
it's working. We would like to keep it working at its full level, at
last year's level. The bill before us actually reduces it by 50
percent. So we're adding $437,000 back by taking small amounts from
some 20 different programs.
With that, 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 have no objection. I support the amendment. It's
appropriate to reduce the Agency's representation funds in this austere
fiscal environment. Last year, the House and Senate conference
committee on the bill reduced every representation account in

[[Page H2538]]

the bill by 10 percent. So I think MEP is a great program, and I
support the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. I have no higher priority in the Commerce section of the
bill than MEP. I have visited with them in their meetings with local
manufacturers. I visited with them in Orlando with over 1,000
manufactures from around the country. I know intimately the work that
they're doing. The National Innovative Marketplace, which the gentleman
refers to, has been very helpful.
This is the only program in the last year that left the House at a
higher number than the Senate and left the conference committee at a
higher number than the House or the Senate. So you can tell it rose to
its highest level of funding at $128 million. This program started
under Senator Hollings at $5 million. It's very, very important.
But not only would we accept this amendment--and I thank the
chairman--but I think you have to look at what we've done in this bill
in total in terms of manufacturing because the chairman has been
focused on this. Over $140 million in the National Science Foundation
with the Advanced Manufacturing Initiative. We have money in this for
the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortium.
We, with the chairman's leadership, have an onshoring initiative
funded at $5 million to help businesses think through their cost-
benefit analysis of coming back home. And we actually held a hearing,
as the last hearing of the subcommittee before we marked up our bill,
focused on manufacturing. I've said there's nothing more important to
the country or to my caucus than this matter. It's not a partisan
issue. Manufacturing, making things in America is of importance to our
national security and is important to our economy.
I want to thank you for your leadership. And I also agree with the
amendment.
I will yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Denham

Mr. DENHAM. 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. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement section 10011(b) of Public Law 111 11.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, the amendment that I'm offering is intended to
fortify the underlying appropriations bill. Under the bill, the
National Marine Fisheries Service and this amendment seek to ensure
that funding doesn't have a detrimental impact on my district.
This amendment was adopted on the floor by a voice vote last year and
added to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. Further, it was also
supported in H.R. 1837 earlier this year, and you would have supported
what this amendment will achieve.
The San Joaquin River Restoration Program continues to push forward
on an ill-advised path of wasting water out of the ocean under the
guise of saving salmon. Every year, the San Joaquin River Restoration
Program would require the reintroduction of salmon into the San Joaquin
River if this ill-advised attempt to introduce the species fails.

{time} 2120

The problem is that the river is not yet in a condition where the
salmon can survive.
There's still a number of different problems and projects along the
river that need to be completed, from a bypass to several fish screens,
and even in one section of the river the administration hasn't even
designated a channel from where the river will flow--and will not for
another 2 years.
Premature introduction of salmon in the river will only lead to their
death at a high cost to taxpayers and the local community. This
amendment simply prohibits the premature reintroduction of an
endangered salmon species into an uninhabitable river. Central Valley
salmon runs are struggling to regain healthy numbers. This amendment
ensures that bureaucrats don't purposely reduce the numbers of
available salmon in other streams just to plant them into the San
Joaquin system and further threaten and endanger current runs.
Agencies already possess the necessary authority to make the right
decision and delay the reintroduction of salmon into a river that
cannot sustain the life cycle of the salmon, but they continue to bend
to an environmental agenda. More time is needed to build the
infrastructure required for the San Joaquin River Restoration Program
before the river can sustain the salmon run.
Finally, even the National Marine Fisheries Service has doubts about
the success of reintroduction. Contained within the final draft of
their reintroduction strategies, the Service stated the river would not
support full-scale reintroduction of the salmon. And, further, the
Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce jointly
stated that the completion of phase 1 of the restoration project was
needed before reintroduction of salmon can be successful.
This is a very commonsense amendment. The river needs several
different projects to be completed for the salmon to even survive. So
why would we, year after year, take salmon off of other tributaries,
move them to somewhere they can't survive at a huge expense to
taxpayers?
Mr. Chairman, it's a commonsense amendment to prevent taxpayer
dollars from being wasted on killing an endangered species.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and 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 have no objection to the amendment. I accept 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'm going to be brief.
This amendment seeks to intervene or prohibit a court-supervised
settlement of an 18-year running litigation having to do with some very
delicate issues that he has I think articulated around an endangered
species of salmon. To do this at this hour of the night on this bill I
think is not prudent. I'm opposed to it, and 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. For more than 20 years, there's the question of what
to do with the San Joaquin River, a river that was essentially dried
out and a river in which the indigenous species--salmon and other
fish--were simply nonexistent. That fight went on and on and on. And
after 20 years of fighting and litigation, a settlement was reached--a
settlement that called for the restoration of stream flows in the San
Joaquin River so that the salmon and other species in that river could
be returned. This amendment simply overturns that. It was a Federal
court order that approved the settlement--a settlement between the
water users of the CVPIA and also the environmental groups.
To do this amendment is simply going to once again reignite a major
water war that is totally unnecessary. Certainly, it is going to be
difficult to restore the river, but it can be done and it is going to
take time and it is going to take money--and we should do it. This is
one of the two largest rivers in the State of California. It's a river
that had in the past, before the reservoirs were built and before the
river was dried up, an extraordinary run of salmon. It will never be
able to return to what it once was, but it can return to a viable
river.
To take action at this hour of the night on an amendment that is
going

[[Page H2539]]

to only be heard between half a dozen of us here on the floor seems to
me to be quite wrong. We ought to oppose this amendment. We ought not
allow it to be in the bill, and we ought to allow things to go forward.
I would remind those who are supporting this that this is going to be
a major blowup in the U.S. Senate. I know we don't much care about
that, but, nonetheless, Senator Feinstein has authored legislation to
implement this particular settlement. This unravels all of that. We
ought not be moving forward, and I therefore oppose the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DENHAM. Thank you for yielding.
As my friend from California completely understands, we can't
reintroduce salmon in an area that isn't inhabitable by salmon. It's
just not only a waste of money, but it's going to kill the endangered
species. Why move them from one tributary where they are surviving to
one where they can't survive?
Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the National Marine
Fisheries Service or the Department of the Interior or the Department
of Commerce. Take the opinion of the Exchange Contractors Water
Authority, the San Luis & Delta Mendota. These are the locals that live
there. Why waste the money?
He knows the issue. So either he wants to kill the salmon at a huge
expense or he just wants to waste the money. This does nothing to
overturn the settlement. All it merely says is let's follow what was
originally intended, wait until 2014 when the projects are complete,
give the salmon a fighting chance to survive, and let's not waste a lot
of money in the meantime.
Let's not confuse the issue. He understands this has passed the House
by a voice vote. It has passed the House in a bill. And now, once
again, after being debated several times in committee, in the light of
day, with many amendments, with many opportunities, with the American
public watching, we're going to pass it one more time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Denham

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No.
27.
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 Executive Office for United States Attorneys
(including the offices of United States attorneys), the
United States Marshals Service, or employees of the
Department of Justice, to carry out activities located at a
newly constructed Federal courthouse located on a site
between Broadway, Hill, First, and Second Streets in Los
Angeles, California.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. This
simply just prevents the funds from being used to divert vital
resources to an unneeded Federal courthouse in Los Angeles.
I have the distinct privilege of chairing the Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings & Emergency Management. In that
capacity, I have oversight over the Federal courts.
The last Congress, at the request of this subcommittee, the GAO
completed a review of the 33 courthouses constructed between 2000 and
2010. What the GAO found was incredible. GSA has built over 3.5 million
square feet of courthouse space that we don't need--at a cost of $800
million. As a result, the Judiciary abandoned existing courthouses
across the country and severely underutilizes every single new
courthouse.
The GAO identified three reasons:
First of all, when GSA is not busy taking vacations in Las Vegas,
they continue to build bigger courthouses than Congress authorizes.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
Would the gentleman clarify which amendment he offered: Amendment No.
27 printed in the Record or the amendment at the desk?

{time} 2130

Mr. DENHAM. It is the new amendment that is at the desk that corrects
the printed amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. That is the amendment that was reported by the
Clerk.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I was saying, the GAO identified three different reasons:
GSA continues to build courthouses bigger than what Congress
authorizes. Congress authorizes one thing, but then GSA goes out and
builds not only something completely different, but much bigger and at
much greater expense.
Number two, we don't have the judges that were once proposed.
Third, judges don't share courtrooms. These courtrooms get used about
2 hours a day, and we don't have any courtroom sharing across the
Nation.
We could be utilizing these courthouses quite a bit more than what
they are today. As a result, we demanded that the judiciary conduct a
real courtroom-sharing study so that a third party can figure out how
many judges are needed. And over the last 11 years, the judiciary
projected there would be somewhere between 72 and 81 judges in L.A. by
2011.
The judiciary declared L.A. the number one judicial space emergency
in the United States and proposed a massive, huge new courthouse.
However, today we know the primary justification for an L.A. courthouse
was wrong. There are fewer judges in L.A. today than there were in
1997. Today we have two buildings with 61 courtrooms and 59 judges. We
have 61 courtrooms and only 59 judges, no courtroom sharing, being
utilized less than 2 hours a day.
In that light, I have asked GSA to stop its plans to spend $400
million on a courthouse in Los Angeles. GSA has told me explicitly that
they will continue with the project at whatever cost. After building a
$400 million courthouse, we will have 85 courthouses and 59 judges, 85
courtrooms and 59 judges.
All of these judges--not only do we need less courtrooms, we don't
need to build the one that we currently are proposing to build. You
could put all of these judges in one courthouse, sell off the other
courthouse, and never build the one that's being proposed at $400
million.
We've seen this before at least seven times in other cities where new
courthouses were built and the old ones sit vacant today, a burden to
the taxpayer and eyesores to the community. There's a big courthouse in
Miami, sitting vacant. One being redone in New York, vacant. And yet we
want to spend $400 million on something we don't need in Los Angeles.
I personally toured the L.A. courthouse facilities and found there's
vacant space currently not being used in both the Roybal building as
well as the Spring Street building. GAO ran a centralized sharing model
for L.A. and found that all the judges could fit in the Roybal building
alone.
This country has a $15 trillion debt, and GSA continues to waste
millions of dollars on projects that no one needs. What we do need is
to move everybody into the Roybal building, get rid of the vacant
space, and sell off the other courthouse. At a time like this, we
should be utilizing the best use of taxpayer dollars.
This is why I introduced the Civilian Property Realignment Act, to
get this out of the hands of the legislature, to make sure that we are
actually selling off properties we don't need.
We've sold 82 properties over the last decade, and we have 14,000
that are sitting on the vacant list. We can do a much better job, but
it starts right here with the L.A. courthouse. Before we can sell off
the things that we don't need, we ought to stop building the things
that we don't need. Sell off the property. We can create jobs by
letting the private sector go there and build something to get out of a
lot of the lease space that we have in the L.A. area.
I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.

[[Page H2540]]

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. As best as I could determine, this prohibits the spending
of funds; no funds would be expended under this fiscal year. So I know
that the gentleman is quite energized about this, but I think it is
better handled in the authorizing committees since he has legislation,
and that hopefully will one day get passed and signed into law to deal
with this.
If the Congress could manage buildings and deal with the utilization,
you know, the Capitol Visitor Center, I mean, we can go through a whole
laundry list of our own. We spend a lot of time criticizing other
agencies--the GSA for conferences. You should look at what we spend. I
mean, you could go through it. We could point fingers forever.
I would rather see, rather than curse the darkness, that we light a
candle. We're trying to finish an appropriations bill. I'm in
opposition of this amendment because it prohibits the use of funds
spent on employees in a courthouse that won't have any employees this
year.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the
Denham amendment. The building his amendment targets does not exist.
That's right; the building he wants to prohibit federal agencies from
occupying next year in fiscal year 2013 doesn't exist.
The Central District of California courthouse which is scheduled for
construction in the near future is sorely needed to meet serious safety
and security deficiencies at the current courthouse built in 1940. I am
submitting for the record a memo from the U.S. Marshals Service which
details these concerns. It tells of criminal defendants being escorted
through hallways and in elevators with judges, jurors and the general
public. It talks about the physical limitations of the aging building
to meet the security challenges of the post 911 world. These issues,
along with a shortage of space and concerns for the seismic stability
of the building, have prompted the Judicial Conference to list the
project as its number one priority since 2003.
The courthouse has been reviewed by OMB and GSA and approved in both
Republican and Democratic administrations. For example, President
George W. Bush requested funding for the courthouse in two of his
annual budget requests to Congress and the House Transportation &
Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee authorized it with bipartisan support. Furthermore it is
important to note that this not new money. The House Appropriations
Committee provided funding for this Central District Courthouse several
years ago. This project has enjoyed bipartisan support from the Los
Angeles County congressional delegation.
For the Record, I am also submitting a letter signed by both of our
U.S. Senators and 17 members of the California House delegation urging
the General Services Administration to move forward on the project.
Construction of the Central District courthouse will address long
standing safety and security issues in the current facility in addition
to bringing much needed jobs to the Los Angeles area.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this pointless amendment.

U.S. Department of Justice,

United States Marshals Service,

Los Angeles, CA, Nov. 2, 2011.
Memorandum To: Audrey B. Collins, Chief District Judge.
From: David M. Singer, United States Marshal.
Subject: Security Issues at 312 N. Spring Street.

You have asked me to describe the physical security
deficiencies of the 312 North Spring Street Courthouse. We
can provide you with photographs depicting many of these
deficiencies, if needed.
The United States Courthouse located at 312 North Spring
Street, Los Angeles CA, was built from 1937 to 1940. The age
of this building and design has presented various logistical
problems for The United States Marshals Service (USMS) in
regards to Prisoner Operations, Court Operations, and General
Courthouse Security.

Law Enforcement Gun Storage Lockers

In the Central District of California certain law
enforcement agencies are not authorized to remain armed after
passing the USMS security screening sites. Because of this
rule, there is a need for an area to secure the officers' and
agents' firearms. The only USMS space available out of public
view for the firearms locker, within close proximity to the
screening site, is also the entrance for attorneys to speak
with in-custody defendants. The officers and agents must
remove their firearms in plain view of visiting attorneys and
prisoners, showing where firearms are carried on their
person.

Judge's Underground Parking at the Main Street Entrance

Prisoners transported for court appearances at the
courthouse must be offloaded in the Judges' Main Street
parking garage, in plain view of judicial vehicles, license
plates, make-model-color of judicial vehicles, and at times
while Judges are walking to or from their vehicle.
To reach the USMS cellblock, the prisoner must walk up the
same ramp and pass the same doors as the Judiciary. It is not
uncommon to encounter Judges or court staff while prisoners
are approaching the cellblock area.
There is always the potential for prisoners to attempt
escape or be assisted by an outside threat because the Main
Street garage gate entrance opens directly onto the public
sidewalk and a heavily trafficked entry route to the
freeways.

Movement of Prisoners

The hallway that serves the USMS cellblock, as well as the
only prisoner elevator, is also the only way for Judges to
get to their vehicles.
The area to wait for the prisoner elevator is a highly
traveled common area for various agencies and contractors in
the building. The court's procurement office is located off
this hallway, and court staff, delivery personnel, and
contractors constitute daily traffic.
The prisoner elevator does not connect directly to any of
the courtrooms in the courthouse; instead, USMS staff must
escort the prisoner through the public hallway, passing
potential victims, prisoner family members, witnesses,
jurors, and other prisoners in protective custody.
While walking to courtrooms located at the other end of the
building, USMS staff must pass various entrance doors to
judicial chambers.
Only two courtrooms have usable adjacent prisoner holding
cells. As a result, in-custody defendants sitting in the
courtroom galley across from potential victims and prisoner
family.
The courtroom doors leading to judicial chambers cannot be
secured due to the age of the doors' hardware and design,
which cannot be altered due to the building's historic
status.
All prisoner movement is done through public hallways,
creating unnecessary hazards for USMS personnel, court
employees and the public.
The routes from courtrooms back to the USMS cellblock
require the use of the public corridors providing the
potential for inappropriate verbal contact with witnesses,
jurors, family members, etc.
The prisoner elevator is out of service at least once a
week due to the age of the elevator. Prisoners must be
escorted using the public elevators, walking through the main
lobby.
There is no secure circulation for judges. The elevator
utilized by judges opens to the same public lobbies used to
transport prisoners.
Of the 29 courtrooms in the building, only 12 are
accessible using a tunnel system which originates in the USMS
cellblock.
The tunnel access uses a combination of steep stairs and
narrow, winding hallways with restricted head room in various
areas. The hallways have numerous blind spots from camera
coverage, and an elevator that is usually not operational.
For this reason the tunnel system is not regularly used.
If the tunnel access is used, prisoners must still be
escorted through the rear secured judicial hallway that
connects courtrooms and judicial chambers.

Physical Security Issues

The screening stations located at the Main Street entrance,
the Spring Street entrance, and the Spring Street loading
dock were never designed to accommodate current upgraded
security and the large crowds who visit the courthouse on a
daily basis. Despite the additional concerns and potential
threats posed by high threat criminal court cases and
increased violence in society, we are not able to redesign
these security sites due to the historic nature of the
building, and the limited space available.
The ground floor windows around the courthouse are
continuously a target for vandalism due to the increasing
population of homeless people, as well as anti-government
protests occurring daily at surrounding local and state
government buildings. The windows' general make-up is
inconsistent around the building, with some windows being
bullet resistant, some with a protective mylar film, and some
with just solar tinting film. The historic status of the
building makes it difficult, if not impossible, to install
bullet resistant glass in all first floor windows. Three
ground floor windows have been broken by vandals in the past
year alone.
The courthouse lacks available handicap access on the Main
Street entrance, the most heavily used access. The courthouse
thus must have two entrances, Main Street and Spring Street,
which requires staffing by six court security officers (CSOs)
rather than just one entry where we can put less CSOs,
concentrating staffing more effectively at a single
controlled entry point.

High Threat Trials

The Spring Street Courthouse is an unsafe physical facility
for the transport of even one prisoner. Here are examples of
some of the high threat, multi-defendant trials held in
downtown Los Angeles. They provide a vivid picture of the
type of defendant, defendant families, witnesses, and victims
involved in federal criminal proceedings held

[[Page H2541]]

in the Spring Street and Roybal court facilities.
1. U.S. v. Orozco et al. The indictment names 53 defendants
who are all members or associates of the 38th Street gang,
and charges them with RICO, VICAR, drug trafficking/
possession, firearms trafficking/possession, and conspiracy
to tamper with witnesses.
2. U.S. v. Santiago Rios, et al. The indictment charges 51
defendants who are all members and associates of the Azusa 13
criminal street gang or validated members and associates of
the Mexican Mafia. The charges are RICO conspiracy, civil
rights violations, weapons and narcotics offenses.
3. U.S. v. Darbinyan. The case involved 70 defendants who
were members or associates of the Armenian Power Criminal
Enterprise. Approximately 15 of the defendants would be
categorized as very dangerous based on their criminal
histories and/or criminal conduct during the investigation.
4. U.S. V. Ron Hirsch. This is the synagogue bomber case.
The defendant is charged with attempting to blow up a
synagogue with a large pipe bomb. This case received
considerable national media coverage.
5. U.S. V. Oscar Juarez, et al. The indictment charges 5
defendants, two of whom are Clanton 14 gang members, with
Hobbs Act Robbery, 924(c), and Conspiracy to Distribute
Cocaine charges.
6. U.S. V. Edwin Mauricio Palacios. A 1326 case involving
an MS 13 gang member whose criminal convictions included a
1995 conviction for second degree robbery, 2008 conviction
for terrorist threats, and two arrests for participating in a
prison riot.
7. U.S. v. Raul Mercado Mercado. This is a 1326 case
involving a Sangra gang member with a prior 1996 conviction
for voluntary manslaughter and robbery.
8. Operation Silent Night. There were approximately 30
defendants arrested. Extra manpower was needed at all times
for movement due to the high security risks. The defendants
are charged with numerous homicides, including the murder of
a Burbank Police Officer. They are also charged with
narcotics trafficking, extortion, and racketeering. This is a
capital offense case.
9. Twenty defendants in another case are all gang members
of the East Side Wilmas, and were charged with murder, as
well as conspiracy. They are also charged with distribution
of illegal narcotics.

Terrorism Case

10. U.S. v. Mihalik. The indictment returned August 30,
2011 charges one defendant with making a false statement in a
terrorism matter.

Multi-Defendant Courtroom in Roybal

The availability of this courtroom assists the USMS and
judges in the Spring Street courthouse who need to be
conducting high threat, multi-defendant trials as it was
built out specifically for such proceedings. Use of the
courtroom requires the USMS to provide security
transportation from Spring Street, where the judge has
parking, to Roybal, two blocks away from chambers.
On a regular basis, however, there are far too many
criminal proceedings for the 21 district judges to hold their
criminal calendars all in this one courtroom. In 2011, for
example, 1,685 defendants had proceedings in downtown Los
Angeles, or 48 criminal cases per judge. Virtually all judges
hold criminal calendar on Mondays making use of the Roybal
multi-defendant courtroom unavailable to more than one judge
at a time. Roybal judges also use the courtroom.
____

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, October 28, 2011.
Hon. Martha N. Johnson,
Administrator, General Services Administration, Washington,
DC.
Dear Administrator Johnson: We write to urge the General
Services Administration (GSA) to proceed immediately with
construction of a new federal courthouse for the United
States District Court, Central District of California in Los
Angeles. Congress first authorized site, design and
acquisition in 2000 and the project was declared a space
emergency by the Judicial Conference of the United States in
2003 and has been the Judiciary's top building priority since
that time. It has been delayed too long.
Located in one of the busiest metropolitan areas in the
nation, the Los Angeles court handles a high percentage of
complex criminal cases related to drugs, murder, mafia, and
terrorism. A request to create new permanent judgeships for
the district, many of which will be placed in Los Angeles, is
currently pending before Congress to handle the court's
pressing caseload. Moreover, additional growth is expected in
the near future when several active judges in existing
judgeships assume senior status and their replacements come
on board. The two buildings that currently house the court
already suffer from critical security and operational
deficiencies that will only be exacerbated as the court
grows.
Congress approved the funding for GSA to construct the new
courthouse in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, but escalating
construction costs at the time caused the project budget to
exceed the appropriation. With no additional funding
available to build the project as planned, congressional
committees directed the court and GSA to work together and
agree on a building that could be built within the funds
appropriated. It is our understanding that GSA and the court
have now reached agreement on a proposal that will do just
that. We hope, therefore, that GSA will proceed with the
process of awarding a contract to build the new courthouse.
In closing, we want to stress again the critical need of
the Los Angeles community to have safe, functional and
efficient facilities in which to litigate cases and redress
grievances. The new courthouse that is currently planned will
allow them to do so. Building the courthouse, moreover, will
create thousands of construction and related jobs, which are
sorely needed in an area where unemployment exceeds 12% and a
large percentage of the unemployed are in the construction
industry. We commend GSA and the court for developing a new
courthouse plan that can accommodate the needs of the Los
Angeles community within the funds that have been
appropriated for this project and we ask you to move ahead
without delay.
Sincerely,
Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Lucille Roybal-Allard,
Grace F. Napolitano, Henry A. Waxman, Judy Shu, Howard
L. Berman, Lois Capps, John Garamendi, Doris O. Matsui,
Xavier Becerra, Laura Richardson, Loretta Sanchez,
Barbara Lee, Bob Filner, Adam B. Schiff, Janice Hahn,
Linda T. Sanchez, Karen Bass.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk labeled as Flake No. 2.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:

limitation on funds for selectusa initiative

Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
used to carry out the SelectUSA initiative.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funding for
President Obama's SelectUSA Initiative. It's a program that would
otherwise receive just over $6 million in this bill.
Now, if you've never heard of SelectUSA, you're not alone. Virtually
nobody has heard of it outside of the committee and those who are
funding it.
Last June, President Obama issued an Executive order to establish
SelectUSA. It was called the first-ever Federal effort to attract,
retain, and expand business investment in the United States.
It seems to me that whenever a new Federal program is touted as the
first of its kind, it's usually a pretty good indication that it's
completely unnecessary. This is no exception to the rule.
A quick read of the vague ways in which SelectUSA says it serves the
firms and economic development organizations certainly proves that--
promoting the benefits of investing in the U.S.A., responding to
inquiries about the U.S. business climate, helping investors confused
by regulatory processes, offering guidance--these are hardly the
responsibilities of the Federal Government.
In reality, it seems that the taxpayers are buying little more than a
Web site pitching the benefits of U.S. subsidiaries to foreign
companies. It includes 10 pages of links to Federal subsidized programs
like Grants.gov, AARP-E, and the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee
Program. That was the program responsible for Solyndra. Only the
Federal Government could find a way to waste taxpayer dollars promoting
the waste of taxpayer dollars.
Figuring out what SelectUSA does is one thing; deciphering its actual
accomplishments is downright impossible. The Web site includes
testimonials from companies like Rolls-Royce and Ikea, of plans to
invest and develop in the U.S. These companies already do. This
SelectUSA isn't helping them any more than it is helping anyone else.
All the announcements are dated between 2006 and 2010, long before this
program was even established. So these companies are touting the
benefits of a program that wasn't even established yet; how do they
know?
Hours of research by our staff uncovered only one investment that's
even tied to SelectUSA, and those claims are very dubious. There's a
company that's called AGS, and the President has touted this in his
program as being

[[Page H2542]]

responsible for luring AGS to the U.S. It's mentioned in conjunction
with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and other local
agencies, and it recently elected to invest more than $20 million in
new U.S. manufacturing capabilities. SelectUSA, described as an Obama-
launched program, is said to have facilitated coordination between AGS
and local officials. But if you look at AGS, AGS has been in this
country for more than 40 years, just under a different name. It was
called A.G. Simpson Automotive. It's been in business, as I said, with
General Motors and Ford for more than 40 years. That company has been a
manufacturing presence in the U.S. since it opened a Michigan plant in
1991. Another plant was opened in Louisiana in 2003. This hardly sounds
like a company that needed SelectUSA to help it discover the benefits
of investing in the U.S.

{time} 2140

There is simply no record of this investment outside of the
administration press release and the Commerce Department blog post--not
from AGS, not from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, not
even from SelectUSA. Only an administration press release touts the
involvement of SelectUSA.
Most telling of all, the 2013 Commerce Department budget
justification to Congress--which requested $12 million and 20
additional full-time employees--doesn't even include a word about the
AGS investment. So what does SelectUSA even do? Well, I think the
committee isn't even sure what SelectUSA does because the report
language in this bill asks SelectUSA to justify what it does and
explain what it does because apparently nobody even knows. Yet we took
the request from the administration of $12 million and simply cut it in
half and gave them half of what they requested.
Why in the world are we doing this? At what point are we going to say
we can't afford to throw money away like this? Congress didn't even
create this program. It was just the administration who thought it up
and now is trying to justify it.
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.
Hopefully, this will be the last time when I have to oppose my good
friend on the floor of the House.
Let me just try to put this in some perspective. This is an
administration that, in the last 26 months, 4.25 million new private
sector jobs. In `09, $70 billion in loans to small businesses. An
administration that's well on its way to more than doubling the number
of exports. We have seen a very significant turnaround from the
administration that left a couple of years ago, walking out the door
while we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, and we lost millions of jobs
over the last few months of the last administration.
So now they have a Commerce Department that says we're willing to
build on the efforts to have companies around the world select the
United States as a place where they want to set up manufacturing plants
stretched throughout much of our country now. The President visited the
Rolls Royce plant in Virginia. In Alabama, you have BMWs being built.
All throughout, you see companies that see the United States as a place
that has a world-class workforce, the kind of transparency, the rule of
law, the ability to do transactions and have them protected in a court
system that functions, to attract foreign investment here.
So what the Commerce Department has done, which is not unlike other
administrations, they take in a group of these activities and they've
rebranded them under SelectUSA because it's catchy, it's got a phrase
to it. But these are activities that have been conducted by other
administrations and will be conducted by future administrations because
we want businesses to see the United States as the place to locate--
even in States like Arizona, to locate and put people to work and make
products.
So to come to the floor and say, well, this $6 million is wasted--no.
This is a small investment that leads to billions of dollars in
salaries, hundreds of millions in tax ratables for our country. We want
to be open for business. This is a new day. It's a new administration.
They have been creating jobs. I guess that some want to wish back the
old crowd that were losing jobs, but I think we should follow in the
right direction here.
I disagree with the gentleman. I hope that we vote down this
amendment, and that we support the activities of our Commerce
Department to continue to build this economy.
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. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield to my friend from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would simply submit that when the committee has to ask in report
language, please justify and tell us what you're doing, it's a pretty
good indication that we don't know and that the program is frivolous
and we're wasting money with it.
So, right here, SelectUSA, let me read from the committee report:
``The committee recommends $6.125 million for SelectUSA initiative,
which is $3.425 million more than the fiscal year 2012 level and $6.125
million less than the request''--like I said, simply cut the request in
half. ``The ITA redirected $2.7 million in FY 2012''--on and on and on.
It says:

No later than November 30, 2013, the Secretary shall report
on the location and type of assistance provided, the State to
which firms sought to relocate and why, as well as the number
of foreign firms that actually decided to locate in the
United States as a result of the SelectUSA process.

I would submit that if we didn't know this by now, why in the world
are we giving them 6.125 million more dollars? We're running a deficit
of $1.3 trillion, and we're frittering away money like this when we
don't even know what they're doing.
Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. The gentleman from Georgia, I thank you. And we'll be
together tomorrow morning at the prayer service--8 a.m.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I'm looking forward to that.
Mr. FATTAH. But let me say this: Georgia has benefited from this
effort, and Arizona has benefited, Pennsylvania has benefited. The
report language you see is just the work of the committee to ensure
oversight for the funds that are now being provided, for a report on
those funds and what States benefit so that when we have some other
gentleman on the floor wanting to cut this program years forth from
now, that we'll have an opportunity to be able to specify, as I've
done, the great work that this program is doing.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. FLAKE. Let me simply say that when we don't know what they're
doing and the only justification comes from the administration that a
company called AGS, that has already been investing in this country for
more than 40 years, that needs no help in deciding or having a
matchmaker pair them with U.S. firms--in fact, this is a Canadian firm
investing in the U.S. They actually received trade adjustment
assistance during a downturn when employees were laid off from a
Canadian company in the U.S. I would submit that if a company knows how
to milk the U.S. taxpayer for that, a foreign company, they know how to
invest here. They know it pretty well. We've advertised it. In fact,
what this Web site of this SelectUSA does is tell them the benefits
they can receive if they're here--often subsidies like this.
So I would just submit, Mr. Chairman, we've got to start somewhere,
and this ought to be it. I can't stress enough how we've got to start
cutting some spending. This is a great place to start.
With that, I urge adoption of the amendment and thank the gentleman.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. 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 ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H2543]]

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, designated
as No. 3.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 101, after line 10, insert the following new section:
Sec. 542. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to carry out the functions of the Political Science
Program in the Division of Social and Economic Sciences of
the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences
of the National Science Foundation.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the National
Science Foundation from using taxpayer dollars to fund political
science research.
To be clear, my amendment does not reduce funding for the NSF.
Earlier in consideration of this bill, I offered an amendment that
would reduce NSF funding. This amendment is simply oriented toward
ensuring, at the least, that the NSF does not waste taxpayer dollars on
a meritless program.

{time} 2150

The Nation is closing in on a $16 trillion debt; deficit, more than
$1.3 trillion. Nearly 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed.
Congress can either continue funding unnecessary programs like someone
is printing cash in the basement, or we can face facts that there
simply isn't enough money to go around.
Now, I stand here today and I'll defend responsible Federal spending
on matters of Federal responsibility. Among other things, Congress
ought to ensure funding for strong national defense, a secure border.
There are things, however, given the economic realities, that
Congress ought to reconsider funding on the back of future generations.
Just remember, every dollar we're spending in discretionary spending
this year, we are borrowing from our kids and our grandkids.
Let me simply say I can think of few finer examples to cut than the
National Science Foundation's Political Science Program. According to
the NSF Web site, to date, more than $80 million has been awarded to
the program's nearly 200 active projects. Three-quarters of these
awards, totaling over $46 million, were directed to universities with
endowments greater than $1 billion.
Again, three-quarters of these awards under this program for
political science research, totaling over $46 million, were directed to
universities that have endowments greater than $1 billion.
Think about it. Three out of the four of the grants awarded by the
NSF Political Science Program go to the wealthiest universities in the
country. Would those who would oppose this amendment have believed that
Harvard and Yale would have to close their political science
departments if Federal grants are not available for this program? Of
course not. These universities and the field of political science will
be just fine.
However, my greatest concern is not who received these funds, but how
they are spent. Every dollar Congress spends is money we don't have, as
I mentioned.
So what kind of research is NSF charging to our credit card? $700,000
to develop a new model for international climate change analysis;
$600,000 to try to figure out if policymakers actually do what citizens
want them to do.
Let me say that again: $600,000 here spent trying to figure out if
policymakers actually do what citizens want them to do. I think we can
answer that question in about 5 minutes when we vote on this amendment
because I can tell you, people out there want us to quit funding
projects like this.
$301,000 to study gender and political ambition among high school and
college students; $200,000 to study to determine why political
candidates make vague statements. $200,000 to study why political
candidates make vague statements. That's what we're paying for here.
These studies might satisfy the curiosities of a few academics, but I
seriously doubt society will benefit from them. How can we justify this
outcome?
Now, I hold a graduate degree in political science myself. I agree
that such research has its benefits. The work of political scientists
advances the knowledge and understanding of citizenship and government,
politics, and this shouldn't be minimized. But they shouldn't be
subsidized by the National Science Foundation.
We can't continue to spend money like this. I urge adoption of 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. So hope springs eternal, but here I am again opposing my
friend's amendment.
Let me say, this program has been around for over 30 years, and a lot
of political change has swept across the world from the time that this
program started.
I think that it may appear to be costly, $11 million out of a $7
billion funding for the National Science Foundation, but I think that
however expensive an education may be, ignorance will probably cost our
country more.
It is important that we understand the political dynamics,
radicalization of populations around the world, how political parties
operate in the former Soviet Union, all of the other issues that are
being studied.
I can see that you could probably bring a list of studies in front of
the Congress from the National Science Foundation and get a laugh on
any day. But these studies are important. They're merit based. They're
decided on merit only.
The fact that some of the best funded universities win has to do, in
part, with the fact that they're able to have very good faculty who put
together very good research projects, and they provide our country and
our society a great deal of intellectual benefit.
Now, there's some advantage, I guess, politically to appear to be
anti-intellectual, to have some desire to know little or less about
what's going on in the world about us. But it is not worthy of a great
Nation.
Now, Singapore has 4.8 million people. They put $7 billion in the
National Science Foundation. We put $7 billion, and we spend our time
tonight debating whether we want to cut some money, trying to
understand how their political system got to the point of understanding
that even in a very small country, it was critically important for them
to become indispensable in terms of having a thirst for knowledge.
I would hope that this House would reject this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. 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 good friend from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just say, and I
won't take all the time, but there is something to the ``laugh
factor.'' At some point we've got to realize here that the country's
watching us, and they're looking to see if we're funding programs like
$600,000 to try to figure out if policymakers actually do what citizens
want them to do? $200,000 to study why political candidates make vague
statements?
We're funding this with taxpayer dollars. The acid test ought to be
for all of us, whenever we're spending money here, is this program
worth borrowing money from our kids and our grandkids, from some
countries, that don't like us very much who are buying our bonds?
And this doesn't pass that test. It doesn't even come close. And if
we simply say this is a big NSF budget and this is a very small part of
this, this program, if we continue to say that, we'll never cut it, and
that's the problem here. We aren't.
The NSF funding, overall, is way up from the post-stimulus level. We
said at the time that the stimulus was passed that that's just a one-
time deal, and these rates will come down, or these programs will come
down. They haven't. We're continuing to fund

[[Page H2544]]

them. And programs like this, the country just looks around and says,
this is laughable. Look at what our policymakers are doing.
Again, I would say that we will find out the question, the $600,000
question, as to whether or not policymakers actually do what citizens
want them to do, by how we vote on this amendment right now.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. 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 ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FATTAH. 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.

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:

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 carry out or enforce section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973c).

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply
prohibit any funds in this underlying bill from being used to carry out
or enforce section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Under section 5,
seven States in the South, as well as Arizona, Texas, and a number of
counties scattered across the country, are required to receive Federal
pre-clearance to every change they make in election laws.
The provision stipulates that only changes to election law in those
covered locations which are shown to be nondiscriminatory may be pre-
cleared. Unfortunately, the burden of proving that a change is
nondiscriminatory is on the State or locality which wishes to make the
change.
The standard and practice is known to be highly subjective, with no
presumption of innocence.

{time} 2200

It is also highly unfair to allow some States to make changes to
their election laws while other States wishing to make the same changes
are forced to jump through a bunch of hoops. I know firsthand how
onerous this law is.
My home State of Georgia, as an example, has long struggled with the
U.S. Department of Justice over its voter identification laws. They're
not alone. The State of Arizona is currently suing to be free from
section 5, showing evidence that it made accommodations for Spanish-
speaking voters long ago. On the other side of the country, South
Carolina is challenging the Department of Justice's decision to
overturn its voter identification law.
Mr. Chairman, as Americans, we pride ourselves in our electoral
system, but the integrity of our elections is called into question when
this outdated law bars States from ensuring those who come to the polls
to vote are eligible to do so.
I should note that I'm not the only one who believes that section 5
is an antiquated provision. Earlier this very year, the U.S. Supreme
Court reaffirmed its concern about what they stated: serious
constitutional questions raised by section 5's intrusion into State
sovereignty.
Mr. Chairman, we are supposed to be treated equal under the law. This
section of Federal statute treats some States more equal than other
States. There are States being discriminated against. My home State of
Georgia is one of those. It's time for us to go to what the
Constitution says is the way we should all be treated: equal under the
law. It's long past time to put this provision to rest. I urge the
support of my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FARR. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
First of all, this is an appropriations bill. We're supposed to be
discussing how we appropriate money to the Justice Department, Commerce
Department, and State Department. People are just kind of cavaliering,
coming in here and offering all kinds of amendments to make no funds
available. That isn't the way you set policy, and that isn't the way
you have a discussion on an issue like this. This is a very important
issue. This is about enforcing the Civil Rights Act and the Voting
Rights Act of 1965. You don't think we had discrimination in this
country? Don't you think we still have discrimination and are making it
difficult for people to access the voting booth?
I come from a county, a district, that is under this section. I'm
from California. The gentleman spoke about Georgia. There are States,
even like California, that have counties that qualify to be under this
act because they had so low of a percentage of adults registered to
vote. Obviously, these counties were making it very difficult. What
this says is that in those counties, when you draw political districts,
you've got to have them reviewed by the Justice Department. What's
wrong with that?
We have a history of discrimination. To come in to an appropriations
bill and take a big whack out of it in the Voting Rights Act in an
election year, what message are we sending--that these States that want
to make it very difficult for people to vote are showing how democracy
ought to be practiced around the world?
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. No, I will not yield to the gentleman.
I think these and a lot of other amendments warrant some serious
debate in Congress, but certainly not on this bill and not at this
time--10 o'clock at night, in an election year, on a Voting Rights Act
bill that deals with the basic fundamental rights of individuals being
able to have access to the ballot. No, sir. This amendment is
inappropriate at this time, and it ought to be voted down.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. I yield to my colleague from Georgia.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank my friend.
I would like to remind my good friend from California that Georgia's
voter identification law has been upheld by the courts. The provision
of voter identification is simply to ensure integrity at the polls:
that the people who are voting are the people who are supposed to be
voting.
We have all heard and have joked about the saying in Chicago about
``vote early and vote often.'' The only way we can ensure the integrity
of the vote, the only way we can ensure that people who are voting are
those who are supposed to be voting, is by having some identification.
That's simply what this is all about. It's not to prohibit people from
coming to the polls. It's not to prohibit or to discriminate against
anybody. Who is being discriminated against here are the States, those
jurisdictions that are falling under section 5.
We should all be treated equal under the law. I don't believe in
discrimination for or against anybody. We have a history of
discrimination in my State and throughout the country, and we still
have discrimination. I find discrimination deplorable--and I reject it
in any manner--but we should all be treated equal under the law. We
need to make sure that we have integrity at the polls. We need to make
sure that the people who are voting are truly the people who say they
are.
I know, in some jurisdictions, a person just walks to the polling
area and says, I'm Joe Smith.
Then they say, Fine. I see you here on the polls. Go vote.
We can't have this in this country. It's not right, and it's not
fair. Joe Smith needs to have absolute assurance that the person he
voted for won it fair and square--that elections are not stolen, that
elections are fair, that whoever comes out at the top of the ballot is
the one who really won.

[[Page H2545]]

So this is not about discrimination. It's not preventing anyone from
voting. It's simply just to make sure we have integrity so that the
people across this country can be sure that their votes count and can
be sure that somebody else who may be an illegal in this country or who
may not be qualified to vote for whatever reason or who may have
already voted but who wants to vote a second time is not doing so.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. 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 was the only member of the Virginia delegation to vote
for the Voting Rights Act in 1982. I attended school for 1 year in a
State in which I saw things that were different than I had seen before.
And there is a Simon and Garfunkel song called ``The Boxer'': ``The man
hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.'' We really can't
disregard what has taken place in the country.
Now, we may be reaching a point at which this should be looked at
again. I believe there is no discrimination now in my State. I think
the Judiciary Committee ought to look at this carefully, but this is
not the place to do this, and it is such a sensitive issue.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act applies to jurisdictions
determined to have had a history of discrimination against minority
voters. Section 5 requires certain covered jurisdictions, based on the
formula set forth in section 4, to pre-clear their congressional
redistricting plans with either the Department of Justice or with the
U.S. Court for the District of Columbia before implementation. In order
to be granted pre-clearance, jurisdiction has the burden of proving
that the proposed voting change neither has the purpose nor will have
the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race
or color or membership in a language minority group.
Litigation is pending now in the Federal District Court, including
the case of Texas v. Holder, which challenges the constitutionality of
the coverage formula and pre-clearance requirements in sections 4 and
5. In its 2009 decision in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District
No. 1 v. Holder, the Supreme Court may have signaled a willingness to
reconsider the constitutionality of the pre-clearance regime and
coverage formula.
But this is not an amendment that, I think, is appropriate here.
Again, as we deal with this thing, we have to be very, very sensitive
because, quite frankly, I remember in 1982, when I voted for this,
there were editorials in the Richmond Times-Dispatch that were ripping
me apart for this vote.

{time} 2210

But because I do believe that everyone should have the right to vote,
I voted for it.
But I would also say, to end, we may be approaching a time that this
would go because we want a Nation where no one is discriminated
against, and we may have reached that point. But I think the Judiciary
Committee should hold extensive hearings and we should see what the
Supreme Court does. I don't think this is the place to do it, and I
strongly rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I've
enjoyed a great relationship with the gentleman during his tenure in
the Congress.
You mentioned several times in your remarks that there might be an
appropriate time. How do you objectively determine when there is an
appropriate time for not extending Section 5 to the covered
jurisdictions?
Mr. WOLF. I am not a legal scholar, and at 10:10, I don't think I can
do it, but there may be a time.
I believe now in my State there is not discrimination with regard to
voting. I think our Governor is a good, decent guy, and I don't think
he wants to discriminate against anybody. The members of the general
assembly are of that same mind. Yet there had been in a case in
previous times in the State of Virginia, so I'm not going to be the--I
went to Georgetown Law School. It's an accredited law school, but I'm
not going to sit here tonight and lay it out.
I don't think this is what we ought to do tonight. I initially wasn't
going to speak, but I just feel strongly. Again, I go back. I remember
in 1982 voting for this, and people felt it and I just felt in my heart
this was the right thing to do. As of now in my heart, it tells me we
ought not adopt this amendment, and we can have the Judiciary Committee
hold hearings both in the House and the Senate. We can see what the
Supreme Court will do. I just don't think this is the place for this
amendment, and I strongly oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. It is hard and difficult and almost
unbelievable that any Member, especially a Member from the State of
Georgia, would come and offer such an amendment.
There is a long history in our country, especially in the 11 States
that are old Confederacy--from Virginia to Texas--of discrimination
based on race, on color. Maybe some of us need to study a little
contemporary history dealing with the question of voting rights.
Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it was almost impossible for
many people in the State of Georgia, in Alabama, in Virginia, and in
Texas to register to vote, to participate in the democratic process.
The State of Mississippi, for example, had a black voting age
population of more than 450,000 and only about 16,000 were registered
to vote. In one county in Alabama, the county was more than 80 percent
and there was not a single registered African American voter. People
had to pass a so-called ``literacy test''; interpreting sections of the
Constitution. One man was asked to count the number of bubbles on a bar
of soup and another man was asked to count the number of jelly beans in
a jar.
It's shameful that you would come here tonight and say to the
Department of Justice that you must not use one penny, one cent, one
dime, one dollar to carry out the mandate of Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act. We should open up the political process and let all of our
citizens come in and participate. People died for the right to vote--
friends of mine, colleagues of mine--to speak out against this
amendment. It doesn't have a place.
I agree with the chairman.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. No, I will not yield.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me first associate myself
with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Lewis), who paid the price for this Voting Right Acts of 1965 on the
Edmund Pettus Bridge. He paid beyond measure. He sacrificed beyond
measure to make this a reality for every American.
This near midnight attack is an unprecedented attack on the
implementation legislation of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution,
the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It took this Congress 95 years from the
moment that the 15th Amendment was added to the Constitution of the
United States for this Congress to wake up after Selma to Montgomery to
pass legislation to implement the Voting Rights Act.
For me to stand here and listen to my distinguished colleague, the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the
subcommittee, for him to argue that there may be a time and we may be
approaching a time when the Voting Rights Act preclearance provision of
Section 5 is no longer necessary couldn't be further from the truth.
Here's how the State legislative process works within most of the
State legislatures. First, whoever is in the political majority,
Democrat or Republican, usually draws legislative lines consistent with
their political advantage, whether it's the Democratic Party or whether
it is the Republican Party.

[[Page H2546]]

Such is the case in Illinois. Such is the case of every State in the
Union.
Almost never before the 1965 Voting Rights Act had racial minorities
or language minorities ever been considered as a factor in the ongoing
partisan debate for the last 150 years between Democrats and
Republicans. Only the Voting Rights Act of 1965 says that if a language
minority or a racial minority in a protected jurisdiction can draw a
congressional district or can draw a State Representative district or
can draw a State Senatorial district to give a racial minority an
opportunity to represent their own people in a legislative body, the
State legislative body must take that into account.
For us to be standing here on the floor of the Congress arguing about
the right to vote, we're not discussing at that level the right to
vote. We're discussing whether or not legislators will be effective in
representing their constituents by protecting Section 5, the
preclearance provision, because most of us can't go to our Governors or
our State legislatures to protect the franchise from minorities.
I know that the First Congressional District, the Second
Congressional District, the Seventh Congressional District, the Fourth
Congressional District of Illinois are all Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act congressional districts, from Virginia around to Texas,
because we still cannot trust Democrats, because we still cannot trust
Republicans in Virginia, all the way around to Texas, to consider
racial minorities in the drawing of congressional districts. Sure,
those States must implement their plans by submitting their plans to
the Federal Government for preclearance.
Look at the language minorities. Look at what's taking place in
Texas. Look at what's taking place in New Mexico. New Mexico, a State
that is 25 percent Latino, and the State legislature played games with
what constitutes an effective congressional district that might give a
Latino an opportunity to represent a congressional district in
Congress. It plays both sides against the middle.
Both Democrats and Republicans, through history, Mr. Chairman, have
used race as a partisan advantage in trying to draw congressional
districts and legislative districts.
I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, to reject this amendment at midnight;
reject this unconstitutional, unprecedented attack on the civil rights
of every American; reject efforts to undermine the implementation
legislation of the 15th Amendment earned through an American Civil War,
along with No. 13, 14, and 15; reject this effort to roll back the
civil rights gains of 1965 by undermining the funding in the Federal
Government's capacity to ensure that minorities have a chance to
represent themselves in the Congress of the United States; reject this
effort on this evening. Both Democrats and Republicans should reject it
in a bipartisan manner.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 2220

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, one of the
proudest moments of my experience here in the House is having worked on
a bipartisan basis on the extension of the Voting Rights Act in the
1980s. I had been involved in the extension of the Voting Rights Act
several Congresses ago. But also, as attorney general of the State of
California, I was involved in the preclearance procedures by the
Justice Department with several of the jurisdictions in my home State.
The Voting Rights Act has stood as one of the great efforts of
progress in this country; but as the U.S. Supreme Court said, as it
reviewed the preclearance requirements some years ago, There will come
a time when this unprecedented power of the Federal Government versus
the sovereignty of the States will end.
The preclearance requirement contained in the Voting Rights Act is an
anomaly, a necessary anomaly over history, but it is an anomaly. And we
should understand that the Court viewed it as such.
The problem I have with the current status of the Voting Rights Act
is that it gives no opportunity for an escape clause by those
jurisdictions that have proven, over the decades, that they have, in
fact, changed their practices. There is no means by which a
jurisdiction can come forward and show that over a decade, they have
not, in fact, discriminated but have acted appropriately and,
therefore, this tremendous Justice Department authority will be no more
there.
But this is not the place to deal with it, I would say. A funding
resolution is not the place to deal with it. This is an important issue
that ought to be addressed; and I would hope that my friends on the
other side of the aisle would recognize that when you have a
jurisdiction that has for 10, 20, 30, 40 years followed the law,
perhaps we ought to reward them and provide incentives for other
jurisdictions to do the same. Also, historically, there is a reason--
almost a historical accident by which some of the jurisdictions in
California are covered. It had to do with a low turnout election in
which a large percentage of the people who were considered citizens
happened to be military folks who didn't vote in that area in that
particular election. And there's been a static analysis which has
resulted in those jurisdictions continuing to be covered under that
section of the law which allows this unprecedented authority of the
Justice Department to preclear.
And I would hope that we would have the courage to stand up and look
at the changes that have taken place and give credit to the consensus
of conscience of civil rights that I think has prevailed in this
country and has aided us greatly.
But I would just say, this is not the time nor the place for us to,
within a short period of time on the floor of the House, try to make a
significant change in that. And, therefore, with all due respect to my
friend from Georgia who points out some of the problems here, I would
have to oppose this amendment. But I would hope that we would have the
courage to come to the floor and recognize that changes may be
necessary.
This is an unprecedented authority that is granted to the Justice
Department. No other jurisdictions are required to come before the
Justice Department and ask for their permission as to whether they
could make a change as simple as changing a date or making any change
with respect to any election process in that jurisdiction.
So I would hope my friends on the other side who have, I think,
appropriately opposed the gentleman's amendment would also recognize
that there is a large area in which we should discuss the current
status, vis-a-vis the current fact situations that exist with all
jurisdictions.
Let us hope that as bad as the conduct has been in the past, that we
believe in redemption and that we believe that there can be changed
hearts, and we believe that we can change practices and that we believe
that, in fact, maybe the good will of our fellow citizens will prevail.
And when it has done so, let us recognize that, give them credit for
it, and in the law provide incentives for other jurisdictions to also
change their ways.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I ask that we not support this amendment,
but at the same time recognize the legitimacy of the shortcomings of
the law, as applied currently, and the failure of the Congress to make
the changes to give credit to those jurisdictions that have, in fact,
acted in good faith.
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 just make a couple of comments. I think that we've
seen why this is not the process for these types of riders on a bill.
In States that are not covered by section 5, there have been outrageous
circumstances as it relates particularly to African Americans and
access to the franchise. In Philadelphia, Octavius Catto was beaten to
death just a few blocks from my childhood home when he tried to
exercise his right to vote.
But our country has come a long way. We've made a lot of progress.
But section 5 is there for a reason. In these States in the South, Nazi
prisoners of war were treated better than African Americans who had
served in the war.

[[Page H2547]]

For the party of Lincoln to be on the floor of the House today on this
issue, when there were really Republicans that had joined in in the
passage of the Voting Rights Act, where Members of my party refused to
be willing to grant these rights to African Americans and to others, I
think, is unfortunate. But I think we may be at a point where we can
move forward.
To my friend from Georgia, who we are going to be in worship together
tomorrow morning at 8 a.m., I yield to you.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
I apologize to my dear friend from Georgia if he's gotten angry with
this amendment. It was never my intent to do so. And I am going to ask
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
I deplore discrimination of any kind. As far as I am concerned, I
believe in the Bible. I think it's the only standard of truth that we
have. As far as I am concerned, there is only one race of people: it's
the human race because we all came from Adam and Eve. And no one--no
one should be discriminated against for any reason.
I have the same dream that Martin Luther King had, where people are
accepted for their character and are not discriminated against for
their skin or their forefathers or anything else. And any insinuation
that I would ever believe in any kind of discrimination or that I would
try to suppress anyone from having their constitutionally given rights,
I detest that accusation, frankly.
Mr. FATTAH. The hour is late. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank you
for withdrawing your amendment. And I thank the chairman for his
previous statements in this regard.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I apologize for any hurt feelings that anyone
has because I certainly wasn't meaning to try to hurt anybody's
feelings.
Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, I thank you very much.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Huelskamp

Mr. HUELSKAMP. 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. __. None of the funds made available under this Act,
may be used in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act
(Public Law 104 199).

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late; but as I think
many of us believe, our Nation is not a Nation of men; it's a Nation of
laws. When a Congress passes and a President of any party signs a bill
into law, Mr. Chairman, it is the law of the land. And if a new
President or a new Attorney General does not like an existing law when
they come into office, it's not his or her prerogative to decide
whether or not to enforce that particular law.

{time} 2230

It is his or her constitutional obligation to defend it. But somehow,
Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to say this fact is lost on the current
administration. In a very clear and flagrant violation of its
responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Justice, under the direction
of Attorney General Eric Holder, and with the blessing of the
President, have decided not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act,
which has been the law of the land since Joe Biden voted for it in 1996
and it was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Tonight, I'm offering an amendment to prevent the Department of
Justice from spending taxpayer money to undermine the Defense of
Marriage Act and stop the Department of Justice from ultimately
undermining the rule of law.
As many of us know, just last night the 30th State actually passed an
amendment to amend its Constitution to protect traditional marriage.
That would be the State of North Carolina. In my opinion, it likely
becomes an easy target for the administration. My amendment would also
prevent the Department of Justice from interfering in North Carolina,
or any other State, over its marriage amendments and marriage laws.
We have 30 States that have marriage amendments: Alaska, Nevada,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oregon Colorado, Tennessee, Arizona,
California, Nebraska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Texas, my favorite State, Kansas,
Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Florida, North
Carolina, Michigan, and Virginia.
The population of each of these States passed the marriage amendment
to define marriage as they saw fit, and this amendment would protect
those definitions from any contribution by this Department.
The Department of Justice and the President of the United States do
not have to agree with the law, Mr. Chairman, but they certainly have
to enforce it and respect it.
Even though I believe it would be in their political best interest to
do so, 30 States have constitutional amendments, again, defining
marriage between one man and one woman. We have current officials of
this administration that have expressed their political preferences
against traditional marriage, against the Defense of Marriage Act, and
against various marriage amendments. But whatever the platform
contains, whatever their personal preferences are, unless those laws
are changed, unless those amendments are repealed by the people of
these States, they stand to remain the law of their States and they
remain the law of the land.
It's clear, in my opinion, the administration is turning the Justice
Department into a legal mouthpiece for its campaign rather than its
purpose: to enforce the law. Most concerning is the fact that in
turning the Justice Department into an instrument for legislating
political favors rather than enforcing the rule of law, this becomes
the Department of Politics, in my opinion--not the Department of
Justice.
So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment,
support the folks of 30 States, the citizens who have made decisions,
and also the citizens of 50 States that have passed their marriage
laws. These are protected under the Defense of Marriage Act under
contravention by those of us in Washington.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, to begin, I have read this
amendment. And if it were to be law in an hour, it does not appear that
it would affect anything that's now happening in the Federal
Government.
The gentleman said that they were trying to undermine the act and
that they should enforce it. In fact, the administration has been very
clear: while they disagreed with the act, they would like it repealed,
they in fact believe it's unconstitutional, it is now on the books, and
nothing is being done in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act.
That is, there are no things now going on where the Federal Government
recognizes the rights of same-sex marriage.
So I guess my main opposition to this is that the bill is already big
enough, but it doesn't add anything in substance. It adds a few words.
I would yield if anyone can tell me what the reference is to not
enforcing the act.
Now it is true the administration declined to defend the act in
court, but not defending an act in court in no way means that you are
contravening any enforcement. Going to court is a different story. As a
matter of fact, the House Republican leadership has voted to go to
court to defend it.
So I, again, would be glad if someone would tell me. The Defense of
Marriage Act says the Federal Government will grant no rights to same-
sex married couples that come from marriage. It's not doing that. I
agree the administration doesn't like that, but the suggestion that
they are undermining the law is simply wrong.

Now I understand--and this may be the confusion--that the gentleman

[[Page H2548]]

originally planned to offer a different amendment, and that amendment,
he was told, was not in order. Maybe he changed the amendment and
somebody forgot to change the speech, because the speech he gave may
apply to the earlier amendment, but it doesn't apply to this one. So it
seems to me kind of a waste. It's late in the evening. But the evening
is shot anyway.
It does not say the administration shouldn't go to court. That is not
contravening the Defense of Marriage Act. Contravening the Defense of
Marriage Act would be extending benefits. And I want to reassure the
gentleman, when I get married in July to Jim, I will not be looking for
any Federal benefits. He wouldn't be eligible for my pension, even if I
got one--I won't get one. But he wouldn't be eligible if I got one. I
am very familiar with this.
In fact, nothing being done now by the Federal Government or
contemplated by this administration contravenes the Defense of Marriage
Act. What the administration says is: We think it's unconstitutional,
and we are going to oppose it.
Now I know there are some who say--the gentleman from Kansas, I
agree, didn't say that--some have said, How dare you to ask the court
to throw out a law passed by Congress. You've heard that rhetoric.
After all, Congress passed this. How does the court dare to overthrow
it? Well, that's an argument I used to hear from my conservative
friends a lot more before the health care bill came up.
So let's be clear, there are now two major pieces of legislation
passed by this Congress--not this particular one--that are being
contested and people are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to throw them
out. One is the Defense of Marriage Act, one is the health care bill.
You can be against, in principle, the court's throwing out an act of
Congress as unconstitutional. You can be for it in principle and differ
as to the application. But there isn't any way that you can say it is
perfectly legitimate to cancel the health care bill through judicial
intervention but not to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act.
So I assume they're going to want a roll call because they went
through all this effort, they'd like to be able to talk about it in
campaigns. It literally means nothing because there is no contravention
going on now. So I'll be glad to vote against it. If other people vote
for it, they can do so.
Again, the Defense of Marriage Act says you don't grant benefits to
same-sex couples as if they were married. Nobody is doing that. That
isn't happening. It isn't planned. It won't happen until and unless the
Supreme Court finds unconstitutionality. And refusing to defend an act
in court, in the English language, is not contravention. As a matter of
fact, it says none of the funds made available may be used in
contravention. Well, not going to court is not using funds. Maybe he
meant to say none of the funds under this act may be not used in
contravention, because we certainly aren't spending by not spending any
money. So maybe he meant to say we should spend the money, I don't
know.
But I understand his original intention was ruled out of order. He
had a place in the agenda, so he offered an amendment. But it doesn't
mean very much.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I had anticipated and we had been told that
the gentleman was going to offer an amendment that said none of the
funds in this Act may be used by the Justice Department to argue for
the Defense of Marriage Act in court. And I was going to object on the
same grounds that I have in some other such amendments earlier day--
that we should not be politicizing the Justice Department. We should
not be telling them: Do defend this in court; don't defend that in
court.

{time} 2240

But as the gentleman from Massachusetts says, this amendment seems to
do nothing at all. None of the funds made available under this act may
be used in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act. Well, none of
the funds are being use in contravention of the Defense of Marriage
Act. The only circumstance I can envision under which funds might be
used in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act would be after the
Supreme Court declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. If
the Court declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, then
the Constitution frankly would demand under the equal protection clause
that funds be spent against the will of what had been the Defense of
Marriage Act.
If the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, then someone who
is married under the laws of some State that permits same-sex marriage
will demand to have joint filing of income taxes or demand the tax
benefits that a spouse gets, and it would be unconstitutional not to
grant that.
So this amendment is frankly silly and shouldn't clutter the statute
books because until and unless the Defense of Marriage Act is declared
unconstitutional, it means nothing. And once the Defense of Marriage
Act is declared unconstitutional, if it is, then this itself would be
unconstitutional as against the equal protection clause.
So I urge people to vote against it because, one, we shouldn't pass
meaningless statutes, which this is or would be, unless DOMA is
declared unconstitutional. And we shouldn't pass clearly
unconstitutional statutes which this would be if DOMA is declared
unconstitutional. So it is either meaningless and unnecessary in the
one case or unconstitutional in the other and, frankly, ought to be
withdrawn, but certainly should not be voted for; and so I urge my
colleagues not to vote for this, whatever you think of DOMA, frankly.
Because if DOMA is declared unconstitutional, this would be
unconstitutional; and if it's not, it's unnecessary and has no effect
in any event. So I don't know what the point of wasting our time with
it is, but we should oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very strange amendment, as my
colleagues have pointed out. We are obviously a very diverse country.
Some States allow same-sex marriages; others do not. Some have civil
unions. My home State of Colorado is currently discussing this issue in
the State legislature. It is certainly very contentious, and I wish
them well in coming to a speedy resolution.
What this amendment does is simply contravene something that doesn't
occur. It talks about funds being used in contravention to the Defense
of Marriage Act. There are no such funds. This administration, as the
last administration, has followed the Defense of Marriage Act.
Certainly out of political convenience, I would say would that it
were, if only this administration had been granting immigration rights
or inheritance and survivorship rights to committed same-sex couples
that were married in the States that have them; but it is simply not
the case.
Now, I understand that there might be fears that perhaps some day a
future administration might seek to violate the law in this area, but I
think it shows a fixation to try to single out this area. I mean, a
future administration or any administration might try to violate the
law in any one of any number of areas. But to have a fixation on and
support for a government takeover of the institution of marriage is a
very dangerous precedent. And I wish my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle would help preserve the integrity of marriage in this country
and its importance to all families, including mine, and my colleague
from Massachusetts and many others.
We do not currently use any funds in contravention of the Defense of
Marriage Act. There are a number of us in this body who seek to repeal
this act. This House as a whole has not repealed this act. It very much
has the rule of law. But just like other laws, the administration and
the executive branch are charged with implementing that law.
I think it is a bizarre step to single out one particular area of law
with many, many, many laws that the executive branch operates under and
say we

[[Page H2549]]

don't want them to violate this law when there is of course no
evidence, no sign, no indication that any administration, Democratic or
Republican, has any desire to violate this law.
The decision not to defend this law is unaffected by this amendment.
To be clear, if this amendment passes, it has no bearing on the
administration's decision not to defend the undefensible, namely, the
government takeover of marriage that my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle seem to support.
Marriage is a very personal relationship between two people who are
in love. And, of course, it's precise definition is up to each State in
terms of who they allow and under what conditions they allow to marry.
And to have the Federal Government enter this debate is very contrary
to the definition of marriage itself and frankly debases the thousands
of same-sex marriages that have occurred in this country.
So again, while this amendment would do nothing and certainly
wouldn't jeopardize the administration's decision not to defend the
undefensible, namely, the government takeover of marriage, I still urge
opposition to this measure because I think it is bizarre to single out
one particular area or one particular type of marriage that some
Members of this body may not personally approve of.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I rise in support of the Huelskamp amendment. I
listened to the gentleman from Colorado say at least three times, a
government takeover of marriage. Yes, the faith and the church and the
churches have been the ones who have established marriage over the
centuries and over the millennia. But when it comes to civil marriage,
the government writes the rules. If the government is writing the
rules, it's not a takeover of marriage. The definition of marriage from
the beginning of time has been a man and woman joined together,
hopefully in holy matrimony, for the purposes of encouraging a family
unit and raising children and pouring our values down through that
crucible of marriage into the next generation because that's the most
successful and effective way that we can advance civilization.
Government has an interest in promoting marriage for the purposes of
holding together the continuity of our culture and our civilization. It
is not a nefarious thing. It's not the government taking over marriage.
It is the voice of the American culture and the American people seeking
to advance into the following generations the best values that we have.
And those that say it is discrimination to determine what marriage
is, I would argue instead, Mr. Chairman, that government provides a
license. The States provide licenses for marriage. A license is a
definition to do that which is otherwise illegal. A license to hunt, a
license to carry a gun, a license to fish, for example.
Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I want to finish my statement, but if I have time,
I will yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
States issue marriage licenses because they want to promote and
encourage an activity and a behavior, not because they want to punish
another behavior. It is because there is something that they have
determined has value, and so they give a permit to do that which is
otherwise illegal, and that's what a definition of a license is.
With regard to the President and the executive branch, the
Constitution and the oath that's implied in the Constitution, the oath
that the President takes that is implied that he adheres to in the
Constitution says he shall take care that the laws are faithfully
executed.
And so the law of the United States is DOMA, the Defense of Marriage
Act. The President's obligation, and his appointees and all of those in
the executive branch of government, is to take care that the laws are
faithfully executed. The appointments of the President and the
executive branch are bound by his oath, and they take their own oath to
uphold this Constitution. And when the President of the United States
decides he is going to flip on his position, or maybe let it evolve
into a condition, and then direct, and I believe it is direct, the
Department of Justice to first refuse to support and have the Solicitor
General no longer support Federal law passed by a majority of this
Congress, the House and Senate and signed by President Clinton and then
turn around, and now we're concerned that they are going to use
taxpayer resources to defy a legitimate law that is the will of the
people and on the books in the Federal Register.
That's what the amendment does that Mr. Huelskamp has offered. It
says it's bad enough that you don't keep your oath to take care that
the laws of the United States are faithfully executed, and we want to
say to you, Don't at least turn a 180 on us and go against the will of
the American people and use taxpayer dollars to work against the will
of the American people, against your oath of office and against the
statute.
So out of courtesy, I would yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Iowa.
Just for a brief question, the gentleman's home State of Iowa does
allow same-sex couples to marry, and I would just like to ask in
reference to the first part of your remarks whether your home State of
Iowa in any way, shape, or form, whether civilization is in jeopardy or
if any of the things that you mentioned in the early part of your
remarks have, in fact, hurt your home State of Iowa?
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, civilization is in jeopardy.
It's in jeopardy when you have seven supreme court justices in the
State of Iowa who declare that they have found rights in the
Constitution that were up to this point ``unimagined.'' If you have
justices that find unimagined rights in the Constitution, they are
completely unqualified to legislate from the bench or determine what's
constitutional and what's unconstitutional; and three of the seven were
up for a retention ballot a year ago last November, and they were all
three voted off the bench, the first time in the history of the State,
partly because people disagreed with the policy they sought to impose
by legislating from the bench, mostly because the people in the State
understood that you cannot have judges that will find rights in the
Constitution that were up to this point unimagined.
Judges that can imagine rights in the Constitution will take your
rights away. A President that will change his position, that will not
uphold his oath of office to take care that the laws are faithfully
executed, that will direct the Department of Justice to work against
and the Solicitor General to work against Federal law will turn this
thing 180 and use the Federal resources against the will of the people
of the United States, and that's the Huelskamp amendment, and I support
it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I didn't plan to speak on this
amendment; but I have to tell you, I find it to be an unfortunate
amendment. I find it to be an unfortunate amendment not for what some
people might suspect. I was here for the Defense of Marriage Act. I
supported the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe the Defense of
Marriage Act is constitutional.
But this amendment is symptomatic of what I think the problem of this
Congress has been since it convened last January, and that is first the
CR and then some other bills, and now the appropriations bills. Some
folks have decided that they should just be a pinata, filled with all
kinds of extraneous issues that have nothing to do with the core
mission.
This issue that is the subject of this amendment, I would tell the
author who was not here when DOMA was passed, is being resolved. The
Justice Department, I think wrongly, made a decision not to defend the
lawsuit. But as Mr. Nadler said in a previous amendment, and I commend
him for saying it, that's the executive's prerogative. But once they
make that decision, the Congress is not powerless, and the Congress has
taken action. And so the committee that exists here in the House voted
to employ outside counsel. Outside counsel is vigorously defending the
House's position in the Defense of Marriage Act, and I think there are
30 lawsuits across the country.

[[Page H2550]]

{time} 2250

This matter will be resolved, and the courts will either say that
it's constitutional or unconstitutional, and then we will all abide by
that decision.
Now, where I find fault with my Democratic friends is that we've had
a couple of markups in the legislative branch, and they're all
exercised about the money that it's costing us for outside counsel.
Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the administration is going
to defend it through the Justice Department, or we're going to avail
ourselves of our constitutional responsibilities, hire outside counsel.
So you can't criticize the speaker for paying a lawyer to defend their
position.
Likewise, I would suggest to my side of the aisle that this doesn't
belong on Mr. Wolf's bill. There is not a problem. This matter will be
resolved; it is being resolved. I think that this entire string of
limitation amendments is disturbing because they continue a pattern now
that's gone on for 18 months, and I don't think that's what an open
rule is all about.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio who just spoke on the floor of the House. He's an appropriator,
and he sees this litany of limitations as being challenging. I know
that Members are probably drafting some more limitations as we speak,
and I certainly respect their prerogative.
I would just add this point: as I listened to my good friend from
Iowa--who I know is certainly a civil libertarian and believes in
individual rights, and I would imagine the proponent of this amendment
does as well--I would ask the proponent of the amendment, as he has
listened to the debate, to simply withdraw the amendment.
There are several factors that would contribute to that: one, the
query that was made by the gentleman from Massachusetts as to whether
the amendment even does anything. But as well, if we look at the 10th
Amendment--which my friends on the other side of the aisle have always
paraded before us--that even though there is a Federal law, the DOMA
law, that there are matters that should be left to the States.
As recounted by the gentleman from Colorado, there are many different
positions on this issue throughout the different States. Some have
positions, some do not. Now we have an amendment that simply seems to
deal with actions stated by the executive on this very day.
My friend from Iowa wanted to speak about what the President has said
and what he has not said. What are we discussing here, the views of the
President or the actions of the executive? The actions of the
executive, as has been stated, are their prerogative. And clearly,
there have been no actions by the government that should be
contravened.
More importantly, I believe in the civil liberties of all people and
the rights of all people. I believe that this amendment undermines the
rights of all people and would graciously ask this Member to look at it
from both the perspective of individual rights, of civil liberties, of
the 10th Amendment, and whether or not the executive has done anything
that relates to his amendment.
I, lastly, will say that the President of the United States, who
commented today, has every right to speak either his conscience, his
heart, or his mind. An amendment on the floor attempting to question
that has no relationship to speech today versus actions which need to
be contravened. There are no actions to be contravened, so I ask the
gentleman to respectfully withdraw his amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to
speak, but I have heard this argument made time and time again that
it's the prerogative of the executive branch to decide whether it's
going to defend a law legally passed by the Congress and signed by the
President. That is hyperbole. That is incorrect.
There is an obligation, by tradition and by the law, that the
Attorney General is duty bound to defend duly constituted laws of the
United States so long as he or she can find a constitutional basis for
it. It is not the purpose, nor has it been in the past, in Democratic
and Republican administrations, for a Justice Department to arrogate to
themselves the responsibility of deciding which laws they like and
which laws they did not like. You are supposed to be the attorney for
the United States and recognized as such.
I recall as Attorney General of California I was required at times to
defend laws that I had voted against, but I could find a constitutional
basis for it. My real problem with this administration is they strained
to find any constitutional basis to not defend. That is turning it on
its side.
The point of fact is when the executive branch does not do what they
should do, it requires us to make a decision as to whether we should
now pay for outside counsel. That has not been the tradition of the
United States.
This Justice Department, in my judgment, based on the experience I've
had here in this Congress, 18 years, my years as the chief legal
officer of the State of California, and 35 or 40 years as a practicing
attorney, tells me that this administration has fundamentally failed in
its obligation to attempt to faithfully carry out the laws of the
United States, not to wake up every morning and decide: I think I can
find an unconstitutional basis for a law passed by the Congress.
Think of what that would mean. It would mean that you have an
administration in every instance deciding what laws they want and what
laws they don't want that are on the books, instead of coming here to
the Congress and attempting to change what the law is. If we believe
that we have an obligation when we hold up our hands to uphold the
Constitution, that means we don't just turn over things to the courts
and say you decide whether it's constitutional.
We are duty bound to pass what we think are constitutional laws. And
the administration--of whatever stripe--is obligated to attempt to
defend those laws unless they can't find a constitutional basis for it,
not to seek every possible unconstitutional basis so they don't have to
defend. That's what the problem is here.
And so while I understand many of the arguments made here and I
understand what my friend from Ohio said--and I agree with much of what
he said--let's not just say, well, it's the prerogative of the
executive branch to decide if they want to defend laws passed by the
United States. That has not been the tradition of this country. It has
not been the experience. It has not been the legacy of Democratic and
Republican administrations going back to the founding of this Republic.
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield to the gentlelady.

{time} 2300

Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from
California. I'm not sure if he misinterpreted comments that have been
made on the floor of the House, but I will just speak to this point.
That is too broad a statement to say about the present Department of
Justice when every single day lawyers in the Department of Justice,
including the Attorney General, go out and defend the laws of this
land. And so I'd ask the gentleman to reflect on that broad statement
because that is not accurate.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I take back my time.
I will not accept the gentlelady's argument that I was condemning the
actions of those people in the Justice Department who are excellent
civil servants.
I am specifically talking about the Attorney General of the United
States who, evidently, made the decision or, if he didn't make the
decision, failed to make the proper decision to uphold the laws of the
United States duly enacted by this Congress.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

[[Page H2551]]

The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FATTAH. 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 Kansas will
be postponed.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
esteemed subcommittee chair.
First of all, I wanted to support the inclusion of $47 million in the
National Science Foundation Educational and Human Resources Account.
This is going to really further the effort to help educate Americans in
the area of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It will
help inspire many of our young people to study math and science and
then go into these engineering and technology fields as careers.
Some of the most engaging ways to inspire young people to study math
and science involve informal education settings, such as our science
centers throughout this country, most notably, the Detroit Science
Center, which engages in programs that inspire many inner-city youth
and metro-Detroit youth to get involved in education in science and
mathematics.
So I wanted to thank the chair and the ranking member for including
the resources in the National Science Foundation's budget to help
provide competitive grants to many organizations such as the Detroit
Science Center to help further inspire and engage our young people to
study math and science.
And we have a lot of jobs available, even in metro Detroit in
manufacturing and technology. We just need the people trained in those
areas. This effort, this funding will help encourage many of our young
people to enjoy the intellectual stimulation of math and science, and
then encourage them to go into careers that are not only fruitful for
them, but will help our country's economy become more competitive in
the global marketplace.
Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman for his interest in and advocacy for
STEM education. I share his belief that STEM education must be a
national priority, and I think the more we invest in it, it is very
important for this country so the 21st century is the American century
and not the Chinese century. And I look forward to working with him on
this issue as we move forward.
Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
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.
Westmoreland) having assumed the chair, Mr. Price of Georgia, 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.

____________________