Congressional Record, Volume 160 Issue 82 (Thursday, May 29, 2014)

[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 82 (Thursday, May 29, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H4927-H4955]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2015

General Leave

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 4660,
and that I may include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 585 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. 4660.
Will the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) kindly take the chair.

{time} 1244

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. 4660) making appropriations for the Departments of
Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, with Mr. Duncan of
Tennessee (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.

{time} 1245

The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming) had
been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 25, line 2.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

Page 23, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $8,000,000)''.

[[Page H4928]]

Page 44, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
Page 48, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $8,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which
seeks to bolster an important program in the Commerce, Justice,
Science, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act. This an amendment is
fully paid for by cutting wasteful spending, and specifically takes $8
million from the office space for the Department of Justice bureaucrats
in order to bolster the prescription drug monitoring activities. This
program is the Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring Program.
The gentleman, Mr. Rogers, is the chairman of the House
Appropriations Committee, and he has spent years on the issue of
combating prescription drug abuse in our great country. The problem is
truly plaguing our streets, our youth, and our communities.
Prescription drug abuse is contributing to addiction, health
deterioration, and even untimely death amongst many of our friends and
loved ones.
Prescription drug abuse also fuels demand for other illicit drugs
such as cocaine, methamphetamines, ectasy, and heroine, much of which
flows over our southwest border and into my home State of Arizona,
along with human trafficking, gunrunning, and murder. I have seen drug
abuse all over my State, and I know I am not the only Member who has
been affected by the rampant drug abuse in my community.
As a dentist of 25 years, I am well aware of how easy it is and can
be for doctors and patients to abuse the prescription drug system. With
a background in chemistry and biology, I know how easy it can be for
people, both young and old, to become addicted to these substances.
The primary purpose of the Harold Rogers Prescription Drug Monitoring
Program is to enhance the capability, the capacity, of regulatory and
law enforcement agencies to collect and analyze controlled substance
prescription data through a centralized database administered by an
authorized State agency. States that have implemented prescription drug
monitoring programs can collect and analyze prescription data much more
efficiently than States where the collection of the prescription
information requires the manual review of pharmacy files.
It is this body's duty, through the annual appropriations process, to
evaluate which programs are worthwhile and which ones are not. We must
decide which programs should have their funding increased, which should
be reduced, and which should have theirs zeroed out. It is not an easy
job, but it is a job that each of us was elected to do.
The Prescription Drug Monitoring Program has shown promising results,
but we must not give up on it. It is easy to overlook these issues, but
I think our families, our friends, and our future generations deserve
it. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
With that, Mr. Chairman, 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. Mr. Chair, I accept the amendment and yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

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

salaries and expenses, antitrust division

For expenses necessary for the enforcement of antitrust and
kindred laws, $162,246,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision
of law, fees collected for premerger notification filings
under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of
1976 (15 U.S.C. 18a), regardless of the year of collection
(and estimated to be $100,000,000 in fiscal year 2015), shall
be retained and used for necessary expenses in this
appropriation, and shall remain available until expended:
Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the
general fund shall be reduced as such offsetting collections
are received during fiscal year 2015, so as to result in a
final fiscal year 2015 appropriation from the general fund
estimated at $62,246,000.

salaries and expenses, united states attorneys

For necessary expenses of the Offices of the United States
Attorneys, including inter-governmental and cooperative
agreements, $1,970,000,000: Provided, That of the total
amount appropriated, not to exceed $7,200 shall be available
for official reception and representation expenses: Provided
further, That not to exceed $25,000,000 shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That each United
States Attorney shall establish or participate in a United
States Attorney-led task force on human trafficking.

united states trustee system fund

For necessary expenses of the United States Trustee
Program, as authorized, $225,908,000, to remain available
until expended and to be derived from the United States
Trustee System Fund: Provided, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, deposits to the Fund shall be
available in such amounts as may be necessary to pay refunds
due depositors: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, $225,908,000 of offsetting
collections pursuant to section 589a(b) of title 28, United
States Code, shall be retained and used for necessary
expenses in this appropriation and shall remain available
until expended: Provided further, That the sum herein
appropriated from the Fund shall be reduced as such
offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 2015,
so as to result in a final fiscal year 2015 appropriation
from the Fund estimated at $0.

salaries and expenses, foreign claims settlement commission

For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, including services as
authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
$2,326,000.

fees and expenses of witnesses

For fees and expenses of witnesses, for expenses of
contracts for the procurement and supervision of expert
witnesses, for private counsel expenses, including advances,
and for expenses of foreign counsel, $270,000,000, to remain
available until expended, of which not to exceed $16,000,000
is for construction of buildings for protected witness
safesites; not to exceed $3,000,000 is for the purchase and
maintenance of armored and other vehicles for witness
security caravans; and not to exceed $11,000,000 is for the
purchase, installation, maintenance, and upgrade of secure
telecommunications equipment and a secure automated
information network to store and retrieve the identities and
locations of protected witnesses.

salaries and expenses, community relations service

For necessary expenses of the Community Relations Service,
$12,000,000: Provided, That notwithstanding section 205 of
this Act, upon a determination by the Attorney General that
emergent circumstances require additional funding for
conflict resolution and violence prevention activities of the
Community Relations Service, the Attorney General may
transfer such amounts to the Community Relations Service,
from available appropriations for the current fiscal year for
the Department of Justice, as may be necessary to respond to
such circumstances: Provided further, That any transfer
pursuant to the preceding proviso shall be treated as a
reprogramming under section 505 of this Act and shall not be
available for obligation or expenditure except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.

assets forfeiture fund

For expenses authorized by subparagraphs (B), (F), and (G)
of section 524(c)(1) of title 28, United States Code,
$20,514,000, to be derived from the Department of Justice
Assets Forfeiture Fund.

United States Marshals Service

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals
Service, $1,199,000,000, of which not to exceed $6,000 shall
be available for official reception and representation
expenses, and not to exceed $15,000,000 shall remain
available until expended.

construction

For construction in space controlled, occupied or utilized
by the United States Marshals Service for prisoner holding
and related support, $9,800,000, to remain available until
expended.

federal prisoner detention

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses related to United States prisoners
in the custody of the United States Marshals Service as
authorized by section 4013 of title 18, United States Code,
$1,595,307,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That not to exceed $20,000,000 shall be considered ``funds
appropriated for State and local law enforcement assistance''
pursuant to section 4013(b) of title 18, United States Code:
Provided further, That the United States Marshals Service
shall be responsible for managing the Justice Prisoner and
Alien Transportation System: Provided further, That any
unobligated balances available from funds appropriated under
the heading `General Administration,

[[Page H4929]]

Detention Trustee' shall be transferred to and merged with
the appropriation under this heading.

National Security Division

salaries and expenses

For expenses necessary to carry out the activities of the
National Security Division, $94,800,000, of which not to
exceed $5,000,000 for information technology systems shall
remain available until expended: Provided, That
notwithstanding section 205 of this Act, upon a determination
by the Attorney General that emergent circumstances require
additional funding for the activities of the National
Security Division, the Attorney General may transfer such
amounts to this heading from available appropriations for the
current fiscal year for the Department of Justice as may be
necessary to respond to such circumstances: Provided further,
That any transfer pursuant to the preceding proviso shall be
treated as a reprogramming under section 505 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except
in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.

Interagency Law Enforcement

interagency crime and drug enforcement

For necessary expenses for the identification,
investigation, and prosecution of individuals associated with
the most significant drug trafficking and affiliated money
laundering organizations not otherwise provided for, to
include inter-governmental agreements with State and local
law enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and
prosecution of individuals involved in organized crime drug
trafficking, $515,000,000, of which $50,000,000 shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That any amounts
obligated from appropriations under this heading may be used
under authorities available to the organizations reimbursed
from this appropriation.

Federal Bureau of Investigation

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for detection, investigation, and prosecution
of crimes against the United States, $8,356,857,000, of which
not less than $8,500,000 shall be for the National Gang and
Human Trafficking Intelligence Center, and of which not to
exceed $216,900,000 shall remain available until expended:
Provided, That not to exceed $184,500 shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses: Provided
further, That up to $1,000,000 shall be for a comprehensive
review of the implementation of the recommendations related
to the Federal Bureau of Investigation that were proposed in
the report issued by the National Commission on Terrorist
Attacks Upon the United States.

construction

For necessary expenses, to include the cost of equipment,
furniture, and information technology requirements, related
to construction or acquisition of buildings, facilities and
sites by purchase, or as otherwise authorized by law;
conversion, modification and extension of Federally-owned
buildings; preliminary planning and design of projects; and
operation and maintenance of secure work environment
facilities and secure networking capabilities; $110,982,000,
to remain available until expended.

Drug Enforcement Administration

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Drug Enforcement
Administration, including not to exceed $70,000 to meet
unforeseen emergencies of a confidential character pursuant
to section 530C of title 28, United States Code; and expenses
for conducting drug education and training programs,
including travel and related expenses for participants in
such programs and the distribution of items of token value
that promote the goals of such programs, $2,053,320,000; of
which not to exceed $75,000,000 shall remain available until
expended and not to exceed $90,000 shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

Mr. COHEN. I rise, Mr. Chairman, to greet my fellow Tennessean, and I
have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Page 32, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.
Page 44, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 47, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, first, I would like to express my appreciation
for the career of Chairman Wolf, in particular, his cochairmanship of
the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission. He has done tremendous work
during his time in Congress on human rights issues that are of great
import, and chairing that commission named for our great colleague Tom
Lantos is impressive, and I thank you for that.
The amendment I have before us would increase by $5 million the
bill's funding for grants to address the backlog of sexual assault kits
at law enforcement agencies. DNA analysis has been revolutionary in
helping to catch criminals and prevent crimes from occurring in the
first place, but this evidence does us no good if it remains untested
and sits on the shelf in a lab somewhere. Despite progress over the
last few years, the number of untested rape kits continues to number in
the hundreds of thousands in our Nation. That is hundreds of thousands
of victims whose assailants have never been brought to justice, left to
prey on yet more women.
A recent article in the Memphis Commercial Appeal highlighted the
need to end this backlog once and for all. It described a serial rapist
who was finally caught by the police in 2012. He could have been
stopped nearly a decade earlier if only his first victim's rape kit had
been tested. It was not, and instead he was able to and did attack five
more women over the next 8 years.
Missed opportunities like this happen all across our country every
day. The trauma inflicted on victims of rape can be compounded when
they know their assailants roam free while critical evidence goes
untested.
Sadly, I must say the city of Memphis leads the country in untested
rape kits, with a backlog of over 12,000 built up over decades. The
mayor and our city leadership have committed to addressing this problem
and have devoted significant resources to eliminating the backlog, but
they need our help. The estimates are that it would cost at least $6.5
million to test each rape kit, far beyond the means of a city forced to
tighten its belt in these difficult times and deal with our economic
problems. This makes the Federal assistance essential.
I appreciate the chairman's commitment to eliminating the backlog,
and the funds in this bill are an important start. They put in $36
million, $1 million more than I think the President recommended. It is
merely a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed.
This amendment would take $5 million from the Drug Enforcement
Administration, which is a $2 billion agency that receives a $35
million increase in this bill, even though their work product will go
down because of the lack of need to enforce marijuana laws in States
where it has been legalized or medical marijuana has been legalized.
With the growing number of States in that category, DEA can and will
shift its resources from marijuana and still have plenty of money to
prevent prescription drug abuse, stop major heroin and cocaine
traffickers and the other drug trade that they should make as their
priority.
DEA would barely notice these funds, but for a small investment we
can make an even more significant cut in the rape kit backlog at law
enforcement agencies. Women will be spared being raped, and justice
will be served.
I think the choice should be clear. We should stand with the victims
of this most heinous crime that we know in this Nation and ensure their
assailants are brought to justice.
I urge the adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I have no objection to the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. This is an extraordinary and important amendment, and the
issue is important not just in Tennessee, but throughout the country.
So I also support the amendment, and I urge its adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

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

Page 32, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $18,000,000)''.
Page 74, line 13, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $15,000,000)''.

[[Page H4930]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chair, this amendment which I offer with Mr. Quigley
of Illinois, who is a champion of equal access to justice, would
restore the bill's cuts, devastating cuts, to the Legal Services
Corporation.
This Nation is justifiably proud of its legal system. In fact, when
we visit with foreign folks or travel in foreign lands, the thing I
hear most about America that they appreciate is our legal system. It
can be impossibly complex, with a language all its own, unfamiliar to
many people with its laws and procedures. It can be a bewildering maze
even for highly educated people, even for lawyers.
Now imagine that you are poor, uneducated, scared, and trying to
navigate the legal system by yourself. Without legal representation,
too many people are simply unable to vindicate their rights under the
law. Think about victims of domestic violence who need protective
orders from abusive partners, homeowners facing foreclosure--and indeed
we have had too much of that in the last few years--or seniors who have
been victimized by fraudulent lenders. Legal assistance is vital to
ensure that these parties are treated fairly and made aware of their
rights. That is why I have been a champion of Legal Services, which
helps fund legal aid programs throughout the country.
Unfortunately, this bill cuts $15 million from Legal Services
Corporation, which will mean untold numbers of Americans will go
unrepresented in court and unable to pursue justice. Even if this
amendment passes and the funding is restored to the $365 million level,
it will be a far cry from what is really needed.
Consider this statistic, Mr. Chair. In 1995, the Legal Services
Corporation was funded at a $400 million level. That is higher than it
was last year and higher than it would be if this amendment passes, by
$35 million. In today's dollars, that $400 million figure would be $600
million, and all we are asking is to get it to $365 million.
Unfortunately, we have cut our commitment to this program, and it is
having serious consequences. Nationally, nearly 50 percent of all
eligible potential clients are turned away because of lack of funding.
In the Memphis area, Legal Services lost 5 percent of its funding due
to sequestration. When you add in State and local funds lost over
recent years because of budget cuts, its funding was reduced by more
than $300,000, and its staff was reduced from 50 to 38.
The attorneys do heroic work, but to further reduce its funding will
have serious consequences for their ability to serve those in need. The
rights we are guaranteed under the law mean nothing if they can't go to
court to enforce those rights. With no money to hire a lawyer, no
ability to navigate this system on their own, too many people are left
without justice. Unless we ensure legal assistance, we effectively shut
the courthouse doors to Americans who rely on attorneys to protect
their rights.
This amendment would increase funding for LSC by reducing funds for
the Drug Enforcement Administration, a $2 billion agency that receives
a $35 million increase in this bill. This does not intend to stop DEA's
important work to prevent prescription drug abuse or go after heroin
and cocaine traffickers, but they can do their work with the funds that
will be in this bill after this money is given to Legal Services.

{time} 1300

DEA would barely notice this loss of funds, but in the hands of Legal
Services it would change the lives of thousands of people who need
legal representation.
We are still coming out of the Great Recession, and the disparity and
wealth is greater than ever. So those people in the middle class, and
those people who are poor particularly, which are greater than ever,
have more and more and more need for Legal Services. It should not be
cut at this time.
I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) for
cosponsoring this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
The gentleman's amendment would cut the DEA by $18 million to pay for a
$15 million increase for LSC.
The DEA primarily targets high-level drug trafficking organizations,
disrupting and dismantling them, attacking the economic basis of the
drug trade and contributing to counterterrorism activities tied to and
financed by drugs. It does not focus on low-level criminals nor on
users.
It has seen a huge challenge not only internationally but from the
cartels. Every drug area in the Nation now is controlled pretty much by
the Mexican cartels.
Also, our funding level for LSC is $50 million above last year's
House level. It is above the FY12 enacted level. The bill also includes
an additional $43 million under the Violence Against Women program
specifically for legal assistance for domestic violence victims. This
amount is nearly 50 percent above the enacted level.
Lastly, later today, we will likely consider amendments that
significantly reduce or eliminate LSC. I plan to oppose those
amendments that are going to cut Legal Services. I oppose this
amendment, and I ask for a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Oregon is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I rise to support the Cohen amendment. Legal
aid programs are Federal, State, and private partnerships.
In Oregon and around the country, legal aid offices work hard to
diversify funding, but cuts from a number of sources, including Federal
cuts in recent years, have severely impacted their ability to serve
low-income families.
Legal Services Corporation funds legal aid around the country, and
they make a real difference for low-income and elderly Oregonians and
Americans. Legal aid serves people with the most critical legal needs:
food, shelter, medical care, income maintenance, and physical safety.
In my State of Oregon, about 40 percent of the cases handled by legal
aid attorneys involve helping victims of domestic violence and their
families, protecting them from abuse. About 80 percent of legal aid's
clients are women, most with children to support.
Under current levels, legal aid is able to assist only a fraction of
the eligible population. In Oregon, legal aid serves only about 20
percent of the civil legal needs of eligible Oregonians.
I was proud to work at legal aid. Early in my career I spent many
years there, and I will never forget the people we were able to help.
They desperately need legal assistance at a time in their lives when
they can least afford it.
Not low-income by choice--and that was the most poignant message
about helping low-income people--most had unexpected medical bills, had
lost a job, or lost a spouse. Legal aid helps real people.
Today, I am here for people like Beth, who thought she had escaped
her son's abusive father, only to have him turn up, kick in the door,
and threaten her, all while she was pregnant. Legal aid was able to
help her get a restraining order and custody of her son, who has asthma
and only one kidney. Now Beth and her son are building safe and stable
lives free from abuse.
I am here for people like Jennifer, a stage IV cancer survivor and
Oregon Health Plan member, who got a bill from a medical center for a
procedure performed years earlier. They threatened to shut her off from
seeing her doctor, and took actions clearly illegal under Oregon law.
Legal aid stepped in, and she was able to continue her followup visits
with her doctor without collection agency harassment.
I am here for people like Natalie and her son, Zach, who has severe
gastrointestinal disorder. When he was 3 years old, he was finally able
to take food orally, but then Social Security cut off his disability
benefits. Natalie tried to hire a lawyer but she couldn't afford the
fees. Legal aid stepped in

[[Page H4931]]

and got those benefits restored, giving Zach a better chance at a
normal, active life.
And today, I am here for people like Michael. He and his family lost
everything in Hurricane Katrina and they came to Oregon to start over.
Then the IRS penalized him for unpaid taxes. Legal aid helped him amend
his tax return to fully account for his losses from Katrina, and
instead of penalties, he was able to receive a refund.
These are the faces of legal aid. They are real people who have real
needs who need real help. They need access to justice.
Low-income people can't just open up a phone book and pick out an
attorney to take a case. These are not cases that lawyers take on a
contingency fee basis. Lawyers don't help tenants who are wrongfully
evicted on a contingency fee.
The President has asked for $80 million more than what this bill
provides for. This amendment asks for just $15 million in addition. It
is the least we can do.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Cohen amendment, and 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. Chairman, to establish justice, the Founders had
embraced at the earliest moments the notion that access to our court
system was a critically important, indispensable right of citizenship
in our country. We had a Republican President, President Nixon, who
created the Legal Services Corporation to provide access to our courts,
notwithstanding the economic circumstances of Americans.
Legal Services operates in each of our States, and we have a
responsibility as we consider this bill to think about where the gaps
in justice exist. The chairman has been extraordinarily helpful in
trying to focus on this question. However, I think that in terms of the
numbers as presented, I side more with the author of the amendment
inasmuch as that DEA we are funding--and it is critically important in
a city like my own and in communities all across our country--but we
are funding DEA at $35 million above the request. That is after OMB,
after DEA walked through their numbers, looked at the budget,
ascertained what was needed. The committee's mark at the moment, the
chairman's mark, would provide more than what was requested, whereas,
when we look at Legal Services, it is $80 million shy of what was
requested.

So I think that if we are trying to balance the scales of justice
here, the idea that thousands of active service military personnel have
relied on Legal Services to protect their homes from foreclosure, to
deal with other types of issues, that we have veterans who depend on
access to community Legal Services or Legal Services as provided under
this program, that the House at this moment should consider the author
of the amendment and his point, which is that we should provide an
additional--it is less than $20 million--is it $15 million?--for the
Legal Services Corporation; and that in terms of the DEA we would still
be funding it higher than the requested level, but we would be making
sure that not only citizens could have access to the courts, but that
Active Duty military and our veterans would have access to lawyers that
they otherwise could not afford to protect their legal rights, given
the fact that they wear or have worn the uniform to protect our due
process rights.
I stand in support of this amendment, and I hope that the House would
vote in favor of it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me take this moment to thank the
chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Wolf, for his longstanding service
and commitment to so many issues that so many of us have worked on for
such a very long period of time, helping the most vulnerable and
helping those who often cannot help themselves.
Let me associate myself with the remarks that have been made by the
author of this amendment, and also the ranking member, Mr. Fattah, who
spoke to the question of justice.
Mr. Chairman, I have served on the reiterations of the Legal Services
Corporation in my own community way before coming to the United States
Congress.
I am reminded of the early words of the Constitution that said that
we organize to create a more perfect union. Then I matched that with
our Bill of Rights that so many people, if they cannot recite all of
them, they know issues like due process, right to a trial by jury,
freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of access and movement.
All of those things are deprived to persons in many instances who
cannot access the courts.
I remember, in particular, my Gulfcoast Legal Services Corporation,
which worked extensively on issues dealing with housing, for good
hardworking people sometimes come up against a brick wall, a hard wall,
where they have done everything they could but they are facing
eviction, they have come upon difficulty. There is relief for that
eviction if they can get to the courthouse either to explain to their
landlord or find some relief. Many have experienced housing
discrimination, but they do not have access to the courts or to
resources necessary to provide them with a lawyer to be able to address
their injustice or their indignity.
I too am a strong supporter of the DEA. I sit on the House Judiciary
Committee. I was hoping that we could find some pathway to move forward
in recognizing that the numbers of those needing Legal Services
Corporation dollars is mounting.
Lawyers in law firms have come to me who are members of the State Bar
of Texas, the American Bar Association, and begged for the funding of
the Legal Services Corporation. I believe that all of us on this floor
have good intentions, and I know that we have a respect for the Legal
Services Corporation.
I am hoping we can find a way to work with the gentleman's amendment
and support it because I am, in essence, providing the documentation
that I have seen firsthand, where people have stood under the scales of
justice emptyhanded. They were not balanced, they did not receive
support, because they could not access the courthouse, a vital and
important part of democracy in America.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. COHEN. 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 Tennessee
will be postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment by Mr. Pompeo of Kansas.
Amendment by Mr. McNerney of California.
Amendment by Mr. Bridenstine of Oklahoma.
Amendment by Mr. King of Iowa.
Amendment by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
Amendment by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Pompeo

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Pompeo) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the 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.

[[Page H4932]]

A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 129,
noes 280, not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 243]

AYES--129

Amash
Bachmann
Bachus
Barton
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Byrne
Carter
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
Meadows
Messer
Miller (FL)
Mullin
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Paulsen
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (IN)

NOES--280

Aderholt
Amodei
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Granger
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McAllister
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Noem
Nolan
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Welch
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--22

Bera (CA)
Campbell
Capito
Cleaver
Dingell
Edwards
Esty
Green, Al
Hanna
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Lankford
Lewis
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Palazzo
Ros-Lehtinen
Shuster
Slaughter
Thompson (MS)
Waters

{time} 1344

Mr. LUCAS, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. NUNNELEE, Ms.
CASTOR of Florida, Messrs. FLEISCHMANN, TIERNEY, RUSH, Ms. GRANGER,
Messrs. GIBBS, AMODEI, CAMP, RICHMOND, and CRAMER changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BURGESS, ROONEY, FLORES, ROYCE, ISSA, YOUNG of Indiana, and
ROTHFUS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Moment of Silence in Remembrance of Members of Armed Forces Who Lost
Their Lives on the Beaches of Normandy During the Allied Invasion of
June 6, 1944

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Michaud was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Chairman, the Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman
Jeff Miller and I rise to ask that the House pause to remember the
courageous sacrifice that our men and women went through when they lost
their lives on the beaches of Normandy, France, during the Allied
invasion of June 6, 1944.
We request a moment of silence in honor of the brave Americans who
were lost 70 years ago on D-day and the families who mourn their loss.
The Acting CHAIR. Will all Members rise for a moment of silence.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McNerney

The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. McNerney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 306,
noes 106, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 244]

AYES--306

Amodei
Bachmann
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole
Collins (NY)
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gosar
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Harper
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Horsford
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Jones
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn

[[Page H4933]]

Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Webster (FL)
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--106

Aderholt
Amash
Bachus
Barton
Bentivolio
Blumenauer
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks (AL)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Byrne
Cantor
Carson (IN)
Carter
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Clay
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cummings
DeSantis
Doggett
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellison
Farenthold
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Gardner
Garrett
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Grijalva
Hensarling
Hinojosa
Holding
Holt
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hurt
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Latta
Long
Lucas
Lummis
Marchant
Massie
McClintock
McKeon
Meadows
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nunnelee
Olson
Perry
Petri
Pitts
Pompeo
Rangel
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanford
Scalise
Schakowsky
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stockman
Stutzman
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Velazquez
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Yoho

NOT VOTING--19

Campbell
Capito
Cleaver
Dingell
Esty
Green, Al
Hanna
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Lankford
Lewis
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Palazzo
Ros-Lehtinen
Shuster
Slaughter
Waters

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1353

Messrs. COLE, WESTMORELAND, PITTENGER, Mrs. ELLMERS, Messrs. LaMALFA
and McCAUL changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bridenstine

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Bridenstine) 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. 245]

AYES--340

Aderholt
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonamici
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Coble
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Harper
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Holding
Honda
Horsford
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--71

Amash
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Blumenauer
Brown (FL)
Capuano
Castro (TX)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Connolly
Conyers
Cummings
Davis, Danny
Deutch
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Farenthold
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Garrett
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hinojosa
Holt
Hoyer
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kelly (IL)
Kind
Labrador
Lee (CA)
Levin
Long
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Matheson
Matsui
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
O'Rourke
Payne
Rangel
Richmond
Rooney
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sires
Smith (WA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tsongas
Velazquez
Visclosky
Welch
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--20

Bilirakis
Campbell
Capito
Cleaver
Dingell
Esty
Green, Al
Hanna
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Lankford
Lewis
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Palazzo
Ros-Lehtinen
Shuster
Slaughter
Waters

{time} 1359

Messrs. ADERHOLT, SHERMAN, and Ms. McCOLLUM changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''

[[Page H4934]]

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 246]

AYES--218

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Olson
Paulsen
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOES--193

Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McAllister
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
Nunes
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Sinema
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--20

Campbell
Capito
Cleaver
Dingell
Esty
Green, Al
Hanna
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Lankford
Lewis
McCarthy (NY)
McIntyre
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Palazzo
Ros-Lehtinen
Shuster
Slaughter
Waters

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1405

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

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

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 127,
noes 282, not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 247]

AYES--127

Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Braley (IA)
Brownley (CA)
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gibson
Grayson
Gutierrez
Hahn
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Horsford
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Massie
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Negrete McLeod
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Quigley
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Speier
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--282

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Carney
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
Denham

[[Page H4935]]

Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Enyart
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Harper
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Holt
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--22

Campbell
Capito
Cleaver
Dingell
Esty
Green, Al
Hanna
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Lankford
Lewis
McCarthy (NY)
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Palazzo
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (OH)
Shuster
Slaughter
Waters

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1409

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 248]

AYES--173

Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Gerlach
Grayson
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jolly
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Yoder

NOES--238

Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Bustos
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rokita
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--20

Campbell
Capito
Cleaver
Dingell
Esty
Green, Al
Hanna
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Lankford
Lewis
McCarthy (NY)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Palazzo
Rangel
Ros-Lehtinen
Shuster
Slaughter
Waters

{time} 1415

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

{time} 1415

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.

[[Page H4936]]

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of engaging in a
colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Wolf, and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
NOAA's habitat restoration programs yield substantial, long-term
economic value and help create jobs, not only along the Jersey Shore,
but among all coastal areas throughout this Nation. It is my
understanding that the fiscal year 2015 Commerce-Justice-Science
appropriations bill provides $25 million for habitat conservation and
restoration, including sustainable habitat management, but it appears
that no funding is specifically designated for the fisheries habitat
restoration.
As you move forward with this bill, I ask that you try to fund NOAA's
fisheries habitat restoration programs and thereby allow NOAA to
continue supporting community-based restoration and provide expertise
to the natural resource damage assessment restoration efforts.
Fisheries habitat restoration directly supports the volunteer
rebuilding of sustainable fisheries and recovery of these federally
listed species.
Mr. KEATING. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KEATING. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and also the
gentleman from Virginia for addressing this important matter. I agree
with my colleagues that habitat restoration programs are vital to
coastal areas, including Massachusetts, and elsewhere throughout this
country. In March, I led a letter with over 70 cosigners to the
Appropriations Committee supporting funding for this important program.
NOAA's coastal programs serve as the front lines of defense in the
fight to keep our communities resilient, create domestic jobs, and
promote local economies while benefiting fish and wildlife and
improving coastal ecosystems.
Further, each public-private partnership directly creates jobs and
benefits local and regional coastal economies that generate more than
half the Nation's GDP. These projects are improving lands that will
benefit and be able to filter pollutants from storm water runoff,
control flooding after storm events, provide vital nursery habitat for
fish and shellfish, and create nesting and foraging habitat for coastal
birds. The resulting clean water and more abundant habitats will
benefit local economies by improving land values, supporting commercial
fishing, improving tourism, and creating new business, and they also do
beneficial work to enhance recreational opportunities.
I stand with my colleague from New Jersey in urging for adequate
funding for NOAA's fisheries habitat restoration programs in order to
allow NOAA to continue supporting community-based restoration programs
that create jobs and help protect fragile communities like the ones in
my district.
Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentlemen from New Jersey and Massachusetts. I
recognize the importance of NOAA's restoration programs, especially the
community-based restoration program, and we will work to address your
concerns as the bill moves forward toward conference with the Senate.
Mr. LoBIONDO. I thank the chairman. I thank Mr. Keating.
Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LoBIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, this is extraordinarily important, and I
want to share that I also am interested in seeing what we can do. Our
support of these coastal communities is vitally important. Woods Hole
and its work in your great State, and the work of NOAA, have made a
vital difference, and I share the chairman's concern on this matter,
and we will work together on this issue.
Mr. LoBIONDO. I thank the chairman, I thank my colleagues, and I
yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Polis

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

Page 32, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $35,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join my colleague from
Georgia (Mr. Broun) to offer this bipartisan and commonsense amendment.
The underlying CJS appropriations bill provides $2.42 billion for the
Drug Enforcement Administration's salaries and expenses. That is $35
million above last year's--fiscal year 2014--enacted level and above
the President's budget request.
The report says the increase will ``help DEA offset its necessary pay
and non-pay base costs'' and will also ``support DEA's growing
enforcement workload.''
Again, a mysterious $35 million above and beyond what the agency
requested that Congress is adding without any description of where it
is even going that means anything besides bureaucratic gobbledygook, as
if we have all the money in the world to hand out to every agency above
and beyond what they want at a time of deficits, Mr. Chairman, when
this body, like the American people, needs to tighten our belts and
where we can try to save money. And here is an opportunity to save $35
million.
I have noticed that this same $35 million has been targeted by other
Members of this body for their project that is important to their
district. Why don't we just add it to the deficit reduction account?
What has the DEA done to deserve a $35 million raise when many
Americans are not getting raises? At a time when agencies across the
board are being asked to tighten their belt, why are we singling out
the DEA for receiving funds above what the DEA itself requested in the
President's budget?
The DEA has demonstrated time and time again that it can't
efficiently manage the resources that it already has. It is diverting
funds to ridiculous things like impounding industrial hemp seeds which
have no narcotic content, intimidating legal marijuana businesses in
States like mine, and wasting money on marijuana infractions that are
legal in States where they occur.
If they simply refocus those resources, frankly, Mr. Chairman, we
should be talking about cutting their budget to better meet their
limited scope. Instead, we are giving them a raise?
Although legal under federal law, the DEA recently seized and
impounded harmless, non-narcotic industrial hemp seeds in Kentucky. To
be clear, industrial hemp is an agricultural commodity, not a drug.
Don't they know this?
In testimony before a committee of this body, DEA Administrator
Michele Leonhart refused to acknowledge that drugs like heroin and
cocaine are worse or more addictive than marijuana. This is the head of
our chief Drug Enforcement Agency? This is the type of thinking that
leads to this kind of continued misappropriation of tax dollars.
Examples like these demonstrate that the DEA doesn't have a growing
enforcement workload--other than in their own minds--but rather the DEA
has simply allocated its enforcement workload in pursuit of misguided
priorities. When they should be focused on prescription drug abuses,
and on the rising heroin problem, they continue to focus on harmless
seeds that have no narcotic content to the point of actually impounding
them. Is that what they are using this over $35 million more of
taxpayer money for?
This amendment will ensure that DEA will have to tighten their belt
just like agencies from DOD to the Department of Education. They have
the money they need to complete their mission. We don't need to
increase our deficit to fund misguided and misinformed priorities.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
simple, commonsense amendment that simply strikes $35 million from the
DEA's budget, returns the DEA budget to the same funding levels as 2014
and the same funding levels as the President's budget.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H4937]]

Mr. WOLF. The reason the numbers are what they are, there was an
indiscriminate cut by the administration of $75 million. Secondly--and
I know the gentleman from Colorado didn't mean this--but you kind of
just blew off the DEA agents. A number of DEA agents have died--a
number of DEA agents died in Afghanistan. A number of DEA agents have
risked their lives for us here.
The head of the DEA is a career civil servant who was a city of
Baltimore police officer who has given her life to law enforcement for
the last 30 years. So I don't think you meant it, but if I were a DEA
agent somewhere back in some remote area maybe watching C-SPAN in
Afghanistan, where there is a number of DEA agents who are risking
their lives when we are in a very safe community surrounded by
policemen, but maybe they are in Kabul right now where there were just
some killings the other day--
So, I oppose the amendment. DEA is striving to cope with significant
challenges. There is surging heroin. We have increased heroin. Members
of Congress have come up, the committee has tried to address their
needs--heroin Midwest, heroin Virginia, heroin all over, heroin,
heroin. The DEA is dealing with that. The trafficking of prescription
drugs, we just increased money for prescription drug abuse because it
has the number one impact on young people.
DEA is the line of defense. DEA is the one that is fighting the
Mexican drug cartels. Every community in the United States, the drug
operations are impacted by the Mexican cartels, and it is the DEA that
is doing this. This bill tries to help.
Also, it helps DEA out of the impact that they will hit with regard
to sequester. So, I urge a ``no'' vote for the amendment.
Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Virginia.
The DEA folks on the ground in Afghanistan deal with opium and heroin
production, not marijuana. My remarks were with regard to marijuana.
In addition, with regard to the head of the DEA, she may, in fact,
have been a fine line officer and cop on this beat, but she is a
terrible agency head, and she has repeatedly embarrassed her agency
before this body in committee.
Mr. WOLF. Let me say she has not embarrassed herself before the body.
If this institution is going to go criticizing people who have served
us that way, I think she has done an honorable job. I think she has
represented the DEA well.
Also, I think there has been an effort by some in the administration
to attack her in a way, it almost reminds me of the Nixon
administration. I was in the Nixon administration. They had policies
whereby they would go after civil servants and career people--I think
some of the things that have been done against her. So I think this is
a very bad amendment.
If you want to allow the cartels to come in--you can't just take $35
million and say it has no impact on the agents that are working and
giving their life and sacrificing their life in Afghanistan. This is a
bad amendment, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1430

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. It is said that you need to be able to hold opposing,
competing views all at once, so here we go.
First of all, I think that the DEA is one of our extraordinary law
enforcement agencies under DOJ. I think the Attorney General has done a
great job, and I definitely believe that the administrator of DEA has
done a great job rounding up cartel members and doing all kinds of
work, interfacing with Interpol in its efforts.
So on one level, I disagree with my colleague in his
characterization. However, I also agree that the $35 million plus-up
over the requested amount is too large, which is why I supported and
will support the notion that some percentage of those dollars should go
into legal services versus going to an agency that didn't need it or
request it, so I don't think we should be plussing it up by $35
million, notwithstanding the fact that I don't agree with the
gentleman, in terms of their performance, per se, on a host of issues.
Now, I think that the gentleman is really concerned about the
underlying question about his home State and States similarly situated,
and I agree with him there that the State has made a different decision
and that there should not be unnecessary harassment relative thereto,
but if we are going to repeal prohibition every 100 years or so--we did
alcohol in 1933--maybe we are at the moment where we are going to do
something similar on marijuana.
It does not mean, however, that we think every illegal narcotic in
the world should be available without penalty or punishment for every
single person who might desire it. So the country is trying to make
some decisions, and we have to kind of parse through this as we work
forward.
So I rise to say that I don't support the amendment in which we would
take this $35 million and put it into what is called deficit reduction.
I suggest that the 41,000 veterans who are able to fight off
foreclosure and other challenges by using legal services last year,
those dollars should go to legal services, so that our veterans can
have the legal services that they need in order to interface with our
civil court system and to have the rights that they fought for
protected.
So I think the House will be able to work its will. I hope that we
vote against this amendment and that we support the effort to put these
dollars into legal services and that we continue to hold high the great
courage and sacrifice of our law enforcement agencies as they fight
crime here and abroad.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my
chairman.
Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to read, just briefly to the House,
some of the names that are on the Wall of Honor of DEA agents who have
given their life for our country, and I will put the whole list in the
Record:
Special Agent James Terry Watson, June 21, 2013; Special Agent
Michael E. Weston, October 26, 2009; Special Agent Chad L. Michael,
October 26, 2009; Special Agent Forrest N. Leamon, October 26, 2009;
FBI Special Agent Samuel S. Hicks, November 19, 2008; Special Agent
Thomas J. Byrne, August 30, 2008; Task Force Officer Jay Balchunas,
November 5, 2004; Special Agent Donald C. Ware, October 12, 2004;
Special Agent Terry Loftus, May 28, 2004; Telecomm Specialist Elton Lee
Armstead, March 18, 2003; Diversion Investigator Alice Faye Hall-
Walton, March 1, 2001; Special Agent Royce D. Tramel, August 28, 2000;
Pilot Instructor Larry Steilen, September 25, 1998; Special Agent Shaun
E. Curl, December 12, 1997; Special Agent Kenneth G. McCullough, April
19, 1995; Carrie A. Lenz, April 19, 1995; Office Assistant Carrol J.
Fields, April 19, 1995; Rona L. Chafey, April 19, 1995; Shelly Bland,
April 19, 1995; Special Agent Frank S. Wallace, Jr., August 27, 1994;
Special Agent Juan Vars, August 27, 1994; Special Agent Meredith
Thompson, August 27, 1994; Special Agent Jay W. Seale, August 27, 1994;
Special Agent Frank Fernandez, Jr., August 27, 1994; Special Agent
Richard E. Fass, June 30, 1994; Detective Stephen J. Strehl, November
19, 1993; Special Agent Becky Dwojeski, October 21, 1993; Special Agent
George D. Althouse, May 28, 1992; Special Agent Alan H. Winn, August
13, 1991; Special Agent Eugene T. McCarthy, February 2, 1991;
Investigator Wallie Howard, Jr., October 30, 1990, and the list goes
on.
I will put the whole list in the Record. This is to make up for what
happened in sequestration. These people are literally giving their
lives. We will also insert into the Record with regard to the
helicopter crash that took the lives of those agents. For those
reasons, I strongly oppose the amendment.
Mr. CULBERSON. Reclaiming my time, I join the chairman in strong
opposition to this amendment. The last

[[Page H4938]]

thing we need to do is take resources away from our men and women in
uniform on the front line defending us, enforcing our laws.
The date that the chairman mentioned, April 19, 1995, it is important
to remember that was the Oklahoma City bombing, when a lot of law
enforcement officers lost their lives in Oklahoma City. I urge all
Members to oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting discussion. I
want to join Chairman Wolf in commending the DEA agents who have lost
their lives, most of which I am sure lost their lives way before
sequestration and whose lives would have been lost--they are good men
and women, but it is not because we didn't give them enough money.
When we are cutting other areas of the government and we just saw
legal services getting cut by $15 million, why are we giving DEA $35
million more?
They just did a book here, ``The Dangers and Consequences of
Marijuana Abuse.'' I don't know how many of these were published, but
it is almost a comic book when you read it.
They go so far as to have a section--and I love pets, I miss my cat,
and I miss my dog--but they have a section that pets are also at risk.
More dogs are being poisoned by marijuana.
They are really going to the bottom line, to try to find some
rationalization for their work that they are protecting pets, and these
pets are in areas where marijuana is not legal.
They also have a section in here about other consequences of
marijuana use, and that is where they get the pet section. Then they
have this section here, and they have this whole area about somebody
breaking in and stealing cash from a marijuana dispensary and saying
it is a problem.

Well, sure, it is a problem, just like people break into liquor
stores and rob them. The reason they do is because there is a lot of
cash money there, and the Federal Government hasn't allowed the
marijuana dispensaries to use credit cards. Because of the fact that
they have to use cash, they attract robbers and burglars.
That is not something that the marijuana causes. That is something
that the government causes by requiring there to be a lot of cash
there, and that is independent of the fact that it is marijuana. That
is listed under other consequences of marijuana use.
That is not a consequence of marijuana use. That is a consequence of
the government not allowing those people to use credit cards and,
instead, having large amounts of cash on hand.
The director there has embarrassed herself time after time after
time. She is the last supporter of the failed war on drugs. She refuses
to accept the fact that President Obama said that alcohol has more
damage to consumers than marijuana. She questioned the President on
that, and she is wrong.
She also questioned mandatory minimums and thinks mandatory minimums
are still the right thing to do. I think most all of us know mandatory
minimums are a colossal failure and waste of time. It is $30,000 a year
to put people in jail.
She criticized Mitch McConnell. Senator Mitch McConnell criticized
her because they went and confiscated hemp seeds in Kentucky that were
there for study. They are out of control, and the $35 million
additional that we are intending to give them is throwing money away.
It is not going to have anything to do with DEA agents being killed. In
fact, it might save some.
The fact is that we have to prioritize where we spend our moneys, and
this is not a spot. If we want to put that money into education, if we
want to put it into health care, if we want to put it into other areas
that are important--and probably the $35 million should go to the
National Institutes of Health where we could find a cure for cancer or
diabetes, find treatments for stroke or illnesses that deal with heart
disease, AIDS, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, that is where money needs to
go.
That is money that saves American people's lives, and giving money to
DEA is not going to save a DEA agent, and more DEA agents are going to
die from heart disease and cancer and diabetes and Parkinson's and AIDS
than die because they have been shot, and that money would be better
spent to save them by putting it into NIH in Bethesda, Maryland, and
finding treatments and cures for the diseases that will kill us all,
but we are not doing NIH, we are doing DEA. That is a mistake.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I was going to submit an amendment today
regarding surveys on the red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, but
instead, I rise to engage Chairman Wolf in a colloquy.
I am pleased that the committee has recognized in its committee
report the shortcomings of current methods used by NOAA fisheries to
conduct stock assessments, specifically affirming the inadequacy of
generated data, infrequency of surveys, and the insufficient use of
independent research in developing these stock assessments.
However, I am inclined to stress that further efforts must be taken
to address the agency's faulty data. In the Gulf of Mexico, for
example, stock assessments meant to provide data for the Gulf of Mexico
Fishery Management Council's Reef Fish Management Plan, which includes
the red snapper, do not include data retrieved from reef structures on
which these fish live and thrive, nor do they acknowledge that reef
structures, both natural and artificial, are even relevant to
conducting stock assessments.
I have personally spent time with scientists from the Gulf Coast,
including scientists from the University of South Alabama and the
Dauphin Island Sea Lab and have seen for myself the overabundance of
fish which live on these reefs, of which there are 17,000 off the coast
of Alabama alone.
Last Friday, Congressman Scalise and I went out and fished in the
Gulf of Mexico. It took us 45 minutes to go out. We fished for 15
minutes and caught our limit, and it took 45 minutes to go back. Those
reefs are absolutely filled with fish.
Today, stock assessment data provided by NOAA fisheries has proven
unreliable, and it has helped result in a broken management system.
Just in March of this year, the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia found that the NOAA survey process and the data is
totally insufficient. That was a finding of a court in a court case.
In my district, we will experience, as a result of that, a 9-day red
snapper season this year, starting June 1 and ending June 9, despite
the fact that these fish are so abundant it is difficult to catch
anything else.
In short, current stock assessments generated by NOAA fisheries lack
the ability to adequately determine whether overfishing has occurred or
to inform fishery managers how to prevent overfishing from occurring in
the future.
I join the committee in calling for greater accountability over NOAA
fishery stock assessments. It is simply insufficient, and they are not
being responsive to the needs of the fisheries.
If NOAA fisheries are to receive a Federal appropriation at all for
scientific data collection, it must prove that it will vastly improve
the methods with which it conducts stock assessments, including taking
into account the relevant habitats and biological features of the stock
in question, and produce a stock assessment that can truly account for
our fishery resources.

{time} 1445

I appreciate the gentleman's attention to this matter, and I thank
him for his time.
Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BYRNE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and we will continue
to work on this. I thank the gentleman for his comments. We will work
on this in an appropriate way for the people of your region.
Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BYRNE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

[[Page H4939]]

Mr. FATTAH. I also will work on behalf of the red snapper.
Mr. BYRNE. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chair, first I would like to register my concern and
support over the issues raised by Mr. Polis. The question on the
amendment that he offers has not to do with much of the policy, but the
fact that we have to make budget decisions that are based on
priorities. I think he is correct to raise the question as to whether a
$35 million plus-up is the proper priority when compared to the other
competing interests that we are all trying to facilitate.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Chair, very clearly there are two issues here. Why are we
plussing up an agency above their own request level for a vague
bureaucratic purpose--that is question number one--when other agencies
are being cut? That is what this amendment addressed. However, there
has been a lot of discussion on the floor about some of the wasted
efforts in DIA. I wanted to address the very moving testimony that my
colleague from Virginia gave with regard to names of the brave agents
of the Drug Enforcement Agency that have given their lives in service
to this Nation.
I would like to inquire of him: How many of those whose names he
read, who gave their lives, would be alive today, with their families
today, if it weren't for the failed Federal policy of prohibition with
regard to marijuana?
I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Virginia if he has an
answer.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan controls the time.
Mr. POLIS. I am happy to further yield to the gentleman from
Virginia.
How many of those agents would be alive today with their families?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan controls the time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I would like to know if anybody in this body
can answer the question and tell the surviving husband, the surviving
wife, a 10-year-old child who lost their father to a failed Federal
policy, how many of those agents would be alive today if it were not
for the failed Federal policy on prohibition.
Does anybody have an answer?
I thought that might be the case, Mr. Chair.
Mr. KILDEE. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOSAR. I would like to speak on the amendment, and I yield to the
chairman.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman.
Four agents have died since 2009. Four agents have died since 2009.
Mr. GOSAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I would like to submit the full list of DEA
agents who gave their lives to keep our communities safe.

Agent Stafford E. Beckett, March 22, 1921; Agent Charles
Archie Wood, March 22, 1921; Agent Joseph W. Floyd, May 17,
1922; Agent Bert S. Gregory, October 25, 1922; Agent James T.
Williams, October 16, 1924; Agent Louis L. Marks, October 24,
1924; Agent James E. Brown, June 7, 1928; Agent James R.
Kerrigan, December 27, 1928; Agent John W. Crozier, November
16, 1934; Agent Spencer Stafford, February 7, 1935; Agent
Andrew P. Sanderson, September 23, 1944; Agent Anker M.
Bangs, September 24, 1950; Agent Wilson M. Shee, December 12,
1957; Agent Mansel R. Burrell, December 19, 1967; Agent
Hector Jordan, October 14, 1970; Officer Gene A. Clifton,
November 19, 1971; Special Agent Frank Tummillo, October 12,
1972; Special Agent George F. White, March 25, 1973; Special
Agent Richard Heath, Jr., April 1, 1973; Special Agent Emir
Benitez, August 9, 1973.
Detective Gerald Sawyer, November 6, 1973; Investigator
Leslie S. Grosso, May 21, 1974; Special Agent Nickolas
Fragos, August 5, 1974; Secretary Mary Keehan, August 5,
1974; Special Agent Charles H. Mann, August 5, 1974;
Secretary Anna Mounger, August 5, 1974; Fiscal Assistant Anna
Pope, August 5, 1974; Spvr Clerk-Typist Martha Skeels, August
5, 1974; Clerk-Typist Mary Sullivan, August 5, 1974; Special
Agent Larry D. Wallace, December 19, 1975; Special Agent
James T. Lunn, May 14, 1976; Special Agent Ralph N. Shaw, May
14, 1976; Special Agent Octavio Gonzalez, December 13, 1976;
Office Assistant Susan Hoefler, August 16, 1986; Special
Agent William Ramos, December 31, 1986; Special Agent Raymond
J. Stastny, January 26, 1987; Special Agent Arthur L. Cash,
August 25, 1987; Detective Terry W. McNett, February 2, 1988;
Special Agent George M. Montoya, February 5, 1988; Special
Agent Paul S. Seema, February 6, 1988.
Special Agent Everett E. Hatcher, February 28, 1989;
Special Agent Rickie C. Finley, May 20, 1989; Investigator
Joseph T. Aversa, March 5, 1990; Investigator Wallie Howard
Jr., October 30, 1990; Special Agent Eugene T. McCarthy,
February 2, 1991; Special Agent Alan H. Winn, August 13,
1991; Special Agent George D. Althouse, May 28, 1992; Special
Agent Becky L. Dwojeski, October 21, 1993; Detective Stephen
J. Strehl, November 19, 1993; Special Agent Richard E. Fass,
June 30, 1994; Special Agent Frank Fernandez, Jr., August 27,
1994; Special Agent Jay W. Seale, August 27, 1994; Special
Agent Meredith Thompson, August 27, 1994; Special Agent Juan
C. Vars, August 27, 1994; Special Agent Frank S. Wallace,
Jr., August 27, 1994; Shelly D. Bland, April 19, 1995; Rona
L. Chafey, April 19, 1995; Office Assistant Carrol J. Fields,
April 19, 1995; Carrie A. Lenz, April 19, 1995; Special Agent
Kenneth G. McCullough, April 19, 1995.
Special Agent Shaun E. Curl, December 12, 1997; Pilot
Instructor Larry Steilen, September 25, 1998; Special Agent
Royce D. Tramel, August 28, 2000; Diversion Investigator
Alice Faye Hall-Walton, March 1, 2001; Telecomm. Specialist
Elton Lee Armstead, March 18, 2003; Special Agent Terry
Loftus, May 28, 2004; Special Agent Francis J. Miller, March
5, 1977; Special Agent Robert C. Lightfoot, November 23,
1977; Special Agent Thomas J. Devine, September 25, 1982;
Special Agent Larry N. Carwell, January 9, 1984; Detective
Marcellus Ward, December 3, 1984; Special Agent Enrique S.
Camarena, March 5, 1985; Deputy Sheriff James A. Avant, July
24, 1986; Investigator Charles M. Bassing, July 24, 1986;
Investigator Kevin L. Brosch, July 24, 1986; Special Agent
Donald C. Ware, October 12, 2004; Task Force Officer Jay
Balchunas, November 5, 2004; Special Agent Thomas J. Byrne,
August 30, 2008; FBI Special Agent Samuel S. Hicks, November
19, 2008; Special Agent Forrest N. Leamon, October 26, 2009;
Special Agent Chad L. Michael, October 26, 2009; Special
Agent Michael E. Weston, October 26, 2009; Special Agent
James Terry Watson, June 21, 2013.

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POLIS. 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 Colorado
will be postponed.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chair, I rise to engage in a colloquy.
Mr. Chair, there is a situation right now that you and I have
discussed several times already involving a former U.S. marine
imprisoned in Mexico for making a wrong turn at the U.S.-Mexican border
while in possession of three legally owned firearms.
Andrew Tahmooressi endured two combat tours in Afghanistan. He was
meritoriously promoted to sergeant on the battlefield, a high honor for
any serviceperson; and he, like others returning from war, has been
diagnosed with posttraumatic stress. That is why he was in San Diego,
so he could seek therapy at the high-level institutions we have for
that disorder in San Diego.
For 2 months now, Andrew has been in jail in Mexico. He has been
mistreated. We found out yesterday he had been beaten. He had been
chained to the wall and beaten by his Mexican imprisoners. He has been
threatened; and he has been looking for a way out since that night he
was pulled over in secondary screening, he acknowledged his mistake and
disclosed his firearms and wanted to come back to America. That was not
good enough for Mexican authorities, and the legal proceedings in
Andrew's case are only just beginning.
My problem, Mr. Chair, is that the State Department, beyond the
consulate in Tijuana, has done nothing. Our Justice Department has done
nothing, despite numerous appeals from me and a growing list of others,
including yourself.
Mr. Chair, I know that we agree that Andrew served with honor and
distinction, and an all-hands-on-deck approach is owed to him in
return. I hope we can continue working together to ensure this Federal
Government is doing all it can for Andrew. I hope you

[[Page H4940]]

can weigh in also with the Department of Justice, encourage their
coordination with the Department of State and urge greater action to
support Andrew's legal defense.
Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman for his efforts on this. I want to
personally tell you that I appreciate it.
I also appreciate the fact that Greta Van Susteren was down there. I
watched one of the interviews. It is painful to watch, to see how a
United States citizen--I appreciate the gentleman's service, too, in
the Marine Corps. I know you were in Fallujah. Your dad was very proud
of what you had done. I know you have to have a feeling for this, but
why we cannot get someone out.
We will do everything we can to work with you, to help you. We will
call the Attorney General's Office tomorrow. I will try to talk to Mr.
Holder, who I know will be very sympathetic and help to see what we can
possibly do to get the gentleman out. I thank the gentleman. We will do
anything you ask us to do.
Mr. HUNTER. Thank you.
Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. I also would like to join in in whatever we can do from
our side to help in this matter so they can come to a positive
resolution.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chair, my initial intention was to offer an
amendment today, but after consultation with both the offices of the
chair and the ranking member, I now rise for the purpose of entering
into a colloquy with Chairman Wolf and with Ranking Member Fattah.
Seven years ago when the House considered reauthorization of the
America COMPETES Act, I offered an amendment at that time with my
colleagues, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and Congressman Jerry
McNerney, to correct a longstanding inequity at the National Science
Foundation.
Unlike their counterparts of the Historically Black Colleges and
Universities and Tribal Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving
Institutions have not benefited from a specific program at the NSF to
provide them with the grants for research, curriculum, and
infrastructure development. The amendment corrected this inequity,
requiring the NSF to create a separate program for HSIs. It was adopted
and it became law at that time. To this day, the NSF has not
implemented the programs as codified in law and funding has yet to be
provided.
Hispanic-Serving Institutions serve the majority of nearly 2 million
Latino students enrolled in college today. My district alone has about
10,000 students attending Hispanic-Serving Institutions offering
degrees in the field of science.
Without access to targeted grants, HSIs have difficulty increasing
the ranks of Latinos in the STEM fields, where they have been
historically underrepresented. We must ensure the Latinos, the youngest
and fastest-growing ethnic group in our Nation, are prepared with the
knowledge and skills that will contribute to our Nation's future,
economic strength, security, and global leadership.
I would like to work with Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah to
aim for a dedicated stream of funding at the NSF to support STEM
education programs at Hispanic-Serving Institutions.
At this time, I would be pleased to yield to Ranking Member Fattah.
Mr. FATTAH. Let me thank the gentleman from the great State of New
York, and I pledge to him that I would be more than willing to work
with him to increase the number of Latino or Hispanic students who
pursue STEM education and in support for Hispanic-Serving Institutions
through the National Science Foundation.
I pledge to work with you on this matter.
Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Fattah.
I would also like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Mr. WOLF. Thank you.
I want to thank Mr. Crowley for raising this issue. Mr. Serrano, I
think, also raised it at one of the hearings, and also Mr. Diaz-Balart.
I will do everything I can to work with you and see if we can deal with
this.
Thank you for raising the issue.
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the chair and the ranking member for agreeing to
work towards this funding stream, and with that, I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

salaries and expenses

For necessary expenses of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives, for training of State and local law
enforcement agencies with or without reimbursement, including
training in connection with the training and acquisition of
canines for explosives and fire accelerants detection; and
for provision of laboratory assistance to State and local law
enforcement agencies, with or without reimbursement,
$1,200,000,000, of which not to exceed $36,000 shall be for
official reception and representation expenses, not to exceed
$1,000,000 shall be available for the payment of attorneys'
fees as provided by section 924(d)(2) of title 18, United
States Code, and not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain
available until expended: Provided, That none of the funds
appropriated herein shall be available to investigate or act
upon applications for relief from Federal firearms
disabilities under section 925(c) of title 18, United States
Code: Provided further, That such funds shall be available to
investigate and act upon applications filed by corporations
for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under section
925(c) of title 18, United States Code: Provided further,
That no funds made available by this or any other Act may be
used to transfer the functions, missions, or activities of
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to
other agencies or Departments: Provided further, That the
Federal Building at 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC,
headquarters of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives, shall hereafter be known and designated as the
Ariel Rios Federal Building.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kildee

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

Page 33, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $15,000,000)''.
Page 63, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $23,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment. I represent Flint,
Michigan, and Saginaw, Michigan, two cities that have dealt with
significant violence. There are cities across the country that are
plagued with extreme violence and are unable themselves, these
communities, to deal with the challenges, simply having the resources
to deal with the sorts of crime that they are seeing every day.
On occasion, the ATF has been able to provide support to these
communities through their Violent Crime Reduction Partnership program,
so-called ``surge.'' What my amendment would do would be to provide an
additional $15 million to the ATF's budget to conduct additional surge
operations in America's most violent communities.
As I said, there is a high correlation between communities
experiencing serious violence, high rates of murder and other violent
crime, and cities that are experiencing enormous problems, significant
financial stress, such that they simply don't have the resources to
deal with the tidal wave of violence and in fact, in many cases, see
the loss of police and prosecutorial capacity. This amendment would
address that by allowing ATF to utilize the additional funding to
support those communities, those most violent communities. It makes a
difference. It pays off.
In 2012, when a surge was executed in my hometown of Flint, the
murder rate, the homicide rate, was cut in half for that period. In
Oakland, California, we saw violent crime go down, in just a 4-month
period, by 14 percent.
These programs do work, because what they do is that they support
those local law enforcement officials, local prosecutors to make cases
against the most violent offenders. It is really an important thing.
The offset--and I know this will rankle some. I know the chairman is
particularly concerned about this, as is

[[Page H4941]]

the ranking member. I completely understand it. The offset comes from
the NASA exploration fund.
I understand and I support the work--don't get me wrong--and the
important priority that this Congress places on the work that NASA is
doing in this regard. From my perspective, I think it is important that
we keep, for this conversation, a sense of priority and proportion.
In the case of NASA's budget for exploration, we see a $191 million
increase over what was requested.

{time} 1500

I understand if we could do that, and if we could do that and still
deal with the other priorities I would be all for it. But when I see my
hometown and other cities like it literally seeing their kids die
because we don't have adequate resources to deal with the violence, it
seems to me reasonable to take a small portion of a very large increase
in funding to an important program--don't get me wrong, a very
important program--but to take a small portion of an increase in order
to support this kind of work that the ATF is doing when, if I could
turn to the ATF and say: use your increased budget to fund this, I
would certainly be willing to say that.
But in this case, what we see is the ATF with a modest reduction over
what was being proposed, what was requested, and the budget within NASA
that I am addressing seeing $191 million added. It is a question of
competing important priorities, I understand.
Where I live and where I come from, it is very difficult for me to
find a higher priority than getting resources to help make cases
against the bad guys who are killing kids on the streets of America's
most violent cities.
With that, 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. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman raises a good point. I am going
to oppose the amendment--and I will get into it--but we will be glad to
work with them to see what we could. Because I think when you have--and
Mr. Fattah knows--when we have had different areas, we will be glad to
meet with you and ATF to get them to do this.
The budget really hasn't been cut. It is flat. I think they are $1
million off. This is the only agency that didn't get a big hit in
sequestration.
But the reason I oppose the amendment--and I will get to your issue
at the end--is it would take a reduction from NASA's commercial crew.
You have seen the stories where Putin said, and the head of their space
program, their general, said: If we want to get their space station, we
are going to have to use a trampoline.
Funds for this program are critical to allow NASA to name the
development schedule and to end our reliance on the Russians so we can
get up there. Right now we pay them roughly $60 million a ticket almost
to get up there.
Less funding would mean fewer development testing activities being
carried out, which in turn will put pressure on the overall program.
So for that reason, I oppose the amendment and ask for a ``no'' vote.
But I would say, let's talk after this and we can have a meeting with
you and Mr. Fattah and myself with the ATF and see if we can get them,
as we have in some communities, to kind of focus like a laser beam on
your community because, rightly so, your people ought to know they can
live in safe areas. We will be glad to do that no matter what the
outcome of the amendment is.
But I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment because of where he takes
it from and what the impact would have on the commercial crew.
With that, 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. Chairman, early one morning, I went over and visited
the ATF and met with Todd Jones, the administrator, and met a large
number of his critical leaders there at the agency. They are doing an
extraordinary job under difficult circumstances.
The chairman points out that they have had success where they have
been able to focus. I would be willing to work with the gentleman on
his area of concern to try to get some focus.
But to deal with his broader point, it is true that we need to be
doing more to make the lives of Americans safer. We have 1,000 marines
off the coast of Libya today because we are going to evacuate
Americans. We have had eight or so hearings, and we have a new
investigation, over the tragic attack that took place that took the
lives of our Ambassador and three others in Libya.
But we saw a shooting right here in America over the weekend in
California, and you won't see a big clamor here for us to have hearings
or to do a lot. And we do need to rebalance these issues. We need to be
doing more. It is our responsibility to do more to protect the American
people not just when they are abroad but here at home. The ATF and
these other agencies play a critical role.
This amendment, its offset is problematic. I would hope, as the
chairman said, that we can work with you on this so that we can try to
provide more resources to ATF and not necessarily take it away from
this particular activity in terms of what we have to do in terms of a
commercial crew.
I hope that the gentleman will find a way to work with us on this
rather than proceed forward with a vote. He would have my pledge that
we would work with him and the chairman as we go forward into
conference.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

Page 33, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $6,000,000)''.
Page 44, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,000,000)''.
Page 48, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to stand with veterans
throughout the country and offer a simple amendment that seeks to
bolster funds in this act for the Veterans Treatment Court initiative.
My amendment pays for this modest increase for this critical
initiative by reducing funds for salaries and expenses from the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives by $6 million. The
Bureau's salaries and expenses were increased by $21 million from
fiscal year 2014 levels, with a proposed appropriation of $1.2 billion
overall on this bill for the agency.
My amendment redirects funds from the bureaucrats in the mismanaged
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agency of to a
worthy treatment program for our Nation's veterans.
Veterans Court promotes sobriety and recovery through coordinated
local partnerships among community corrections agencies, drug treatment
providers, the judiciary, and other important community support groups.
Veterans Treatment Courts have been extremely successful since they
were first created in 2008 by a Buffalo judge to combat the growing
number of veterans appearing before the court who were addicted to
drugs and alcohol, as well as suffering from mental illness.
Many of our Nation's heroes returning from combat are traumatized due
to the associated violence and pressure of war and often cope with such
feelings with substance abuse. They need focused treatment and a
helping hand, and these courts provide such an avenue.
The alternative to funding the Veterans Treatment Court initiative is
jail. I think we would all agree that providing treatment for our
veterans through a community partnership at the local level is a far
better option.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the
passage of my commonsense amendment and this worthwhile program.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H4942]]

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. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the 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. Mr. Chairman, I want the House to take note that we have
increased this account already in last night's action, so this would be
duplicative. Plus, it would take away funds from the agency that we
were just referring to, that is Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. It
doesn't make sense for us to take money away from this agency at a time
when we need to be providing more resources to it.
Therefore, I will stand in opposition to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Federal Prison System

salaries and expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Federal Prison System for the
administration, operation, and maintenance of Federal penal
and correctional institutions, and for the provision of
technical assistance and advice on corrections related issues
to foreign governments, $6,865,000,000: Provided, That the
Attorney General may transfer to the Health Resources and
Services Administration such amounts as may be necessary for
direct expenditures by that Administration for medical relief
for inmates of Federal penal and correctional institutions:
Provided further, That the Director of the Federal Prison
System, where necessary, may enter into contracts with a
fiscal agent or fiscal intermediary claims processor to
determine the amounts payable to persons who, on behalf of
the Federal Prison System, furnish health services to
individuals committed to the custody of the Federal Prison
System: Provided further, That not to exceed $5,400 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses:
Provided further, That not to exceed $50,000,000 shall remain
available for necessary operations until September 30, 2016:
Provided further, That, of the amounts provided for contract
confinement, not to exceed $20,000,000 shall remain available
until expended to make payments in advance for grants,
contracts and reimbursable agreements, and other expenses:
Provided further, That the Director of the Federal Prison
System may accept donated property and services relating to
the operation of the prison card program from a not-for-
profit entity which has operated such program in the past,
notwithstanding the fact that such not-for-profit entity
furnishes services under contracts to the Federal Prison
System relating to the operation of pre-release services,
halfway houses, or other custodial facilities.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

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

Page 34, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $500,000)''.
Page 38, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, again, let me offer my appreciation to
Mr. Wolf and Mr. Fattah for leading this appropriations legislation.
Commerce, Justice, Science--Commerce, Justice, Science--the reason I
say it in that way is because many of us are on the authorizing
committee that is impacted greatly by the appropriators. I sit on the
Judiciary Committee and have sat on the Foreign Affairs Committee and
now sit on Homeland Security, which has a very, very important
commitment to fighting human trafficking.
Just a few weeks ago, on March 20, in Houston, Texas, we held a field
hearing on human trafficking. Interestingly, the day before, 115 people
were found in a stash house, women and children, all compounded, living
in dire and devastating conditions. The witness testimony was
overwhelming.
I know the leadership that both the chairman and ranking member have
given to this issue. I want to thank them for their funding of the
Violence Against Women Act, as it has grown to provide more resources
for those who are impacted by domestic violence, but also by human
trafficking.
My amendment is very straightforward. In the testimony given to us by
law enforcement officers, one of the local law enforcement officers--in
fact, local sheriff--indicated the importance of providing local law
enforcement officers the training needed to ensure that these victims
who are traumatized will be willing to testify against a perpetrator,
and the perpetrators are vile, they are vile. This has become one of
the largest businesses in this Nation, billions of dollars, human
trafficking and sex trafficking. It is an ugly thing to say, but in sex
trafficking the product can be used over and over again, as interpreted
by the person who has the business.
Houston has been known to be called the epicenter of human
trafficking, sex trafficking. But it is a scourge on this Nation.
My amendment strengthens the ability by providing a half a million
dollars to the Violence Against Women Act. It strengthens the ability
of State and local law enforcement to identify, apprehend, and
prosecute domestic child traffickers by requiring the Attorney General
to make available the training and education that will empower them to
gain the cooperation and active assistance of victims of human
trafficking, who would otherwise refuse for fear of reprisal.
This, in fact, as I indicated, was clear in all testimony that was
given and explained by those who were victims who were witnesses in
this hearing and others.
Just recently, in the Border Security markup, I added an amendment to
address the question of human trafficking resources in another agency,
Department of Homeland Security. But trafficking in humans, and
especially domestic child trafficking, has no place in a civilized
society. In fact, it has been called ``modern day slavery.''
Those who engage in this illicit trade should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law. We need the cooperation of victims.
Sometimes they are scared. There are various resources, such as visas
for nonimmigrant persons who are fearful of their present condition.
That means we need to ensure that State and local law enforcement
agencies have the tools, resources, and the training necessary to
identify, apprehend, and prosecute criminals who ruthlessly traffic in
children and young persons.
I think it is important that Commerce, Justice, Science is involved
in this particular area and covers this particular area. As I said, my
amendment would cover the education on the availability of certain
nonimmigrant visas for victims trafficked who cooperate in the
investigation or the prosecution of the crime which the individual was
a victim of.
So, in essence, this helps the victims. It gives them time, it gives
them the ability to understand. It starts sometimes with local law
enforcement. In the instance of these 115 persons in Houston, the
arrest came, the notice came, or the call came to the local law
enforcement, who later called ICE and others.
I would hope that this amendment would be passed because it, again,
adds to our commitment to eliminate human trafficking, and it commits
us to recognizing the vileness of child trafficking and sexual abuse of
these individuals who come and the repetitiveness of this. In the
instance of Houston, 99 were men; 16 were women, one of whom was
pregnant; and 19 were juveniles. This happens over and over again.
The Jackson Lee amendment does strengthen the idea of making sure we
are linked to local law enforcement, and that we are committed not only
in the Federal system but we are committed in the system that we are in
locally.
Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman, by indicating that I hope that my
colleagues will support this amendment.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, let me offer my appreciation and thanks to Ranking Member
Fattah and to Chairman Wolf for their work on this legislation and
decades long commitment and advocacy on behalf of victims of crime,
especially child victims, who are the most vulnerable and innocent
victims.
Trafficking in humans, and especially domestic child trafficking, has
no place in a civilized society. Those who engage in this illicit

[[Page H4943]]

trade should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
That means we need to ensure that state and local law enforcement
agencies have the tools, resources, and training necessary to identify,
apprehend, and prosecute criminals who ruthlessly traffic in children
and young persons.
And one of the most effective resources in bringing criminals to
justice is the cooperation and assistance of their victims.
Perpetrators of crime know that they are more likely to evade
detection and punishment when their victims refuse to assist or
cooperate with law enforcement. That is why they make it a point to
instill fear in their victims--for their own safety or that of family
and loved ones.
My amendment strengthens and complements the bill by providing
another tool in law enforcement's arsenal to tip the balance in favor
of victims.
The Jackson Lee Amendment will help ensure that: The U.S. Attorney
General shall provide training for State and local law enforcement
agencies on the immigration law that may be useful for the
investigation and prosecution of crimes related to trafficking in
persons, including education on the availability of certain
nonimmigrant visas for victims of trafficking who cooperate in the
investigation or prosecution of the crime of which the individual was a
victim.
In 2007, Congress passed the Victims of Trafficking and Violence
Protection Act (VTVPA), which created the T-Visa, and reserved it for
those who are or have been victims of human trafficking.
The Nonimmigrant Status (``T-Visa'') protects victims of human
trafficking and helps law enforcement by allowing victims to remain in
the United States to assist in the investigation or prosecution of
human traffickers.
Unfortunately, many victims of crime and victims of human trafficking
are unaware of the existence and availability of this temporary relief.
And that is in part because many local and state law enforcement
officers are not fully aware of the legal requirements governing this
relief.
The Jackson Lee Amendment is intended to help fill this information
gap by providing the informational resources to local law enforcement
who will be able in turn to share that information with the victims.
On March 20, the Homeland Security Committee, of which I am a senior
member, held a field hearing in my home city of Houston on ``Combating
Human Trafficking in Our Major Cities.''
It was a fitting venue because, regrettably, Houston is the human
trafficking capital of the United States.
Ninety-nine were men, 16 were women, one of whom was pregnant, and 19
were juveniles.
All of them had been kidnapped or smuggled into the United States.
Who knows what those women and children may have faced had they not
been rescued and the perpetrators caught?
The Jackson Lee Amendment strengthens the bill by strengthening the
hand of state and local law enforcement in combating the scourge of
human trafficking.
By helping them, we will catch more human trafficking criminals. And
we help rescue and save children from becoming victims.
I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment.
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.

{time} 1515

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the gentlelady makes a very powerful case,
and I think she is absolutely right. I support the amendment. I will
accept 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.
Mr. FATTAH. I enthusiastically support the chairman's decision to
accept it.
I thank the gentlelady from Texas, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Delaney

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

Page 34, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,000,000)''.
Page 44, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 49, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases funding for Pay for
Success within the existing evidence-based Justice program account by a
modest $1 million.
While it is a modest number, it does increase the account by 5
percent, which we think is important, and we think it is important for
two reasons--first, as it relates to the merits of the program; but,
secondly, as we think the government should be embracing the Pay for
Success framework across all aspects of government services. We believe
this for three reasons.
First, the Pay for Success model has been proven--and we believe it
will continue to prove out--that it delivers a better service to our
citizens. It does that by encouraging innovation and best practices
within government.
The method it uses to do that is a unique partnership model within
which the government partners with the private sector or with the
philanthropic sector in developing specific programs that are designed
to have better outcomes at lower costs. That is the first reason we
like the Pay for Success model.
The second reason we like the Pay for Success model is that the model
encourages the development of better metrics and of the better tracking
of outcomes, which encourages creativity and the advancement of best
practices within the government sector.
The third reason that we like the Pay for Success model is that it is
very taxpayer friendly. By definition, under a Pay for Success
framework, the government is only paying when certain predetermined
outcomes are, in fact, delivered.
In addition to putting the government in a position in which it is
only paying when outcomes are, in fact, met, it also encourages,
through the process of the development, not only more effective
methods, but more cost-effective methods.
For all of these reasons, we encourage Pay for Success generally
across government services. In this particular program, we think the
additional $1 million, while modest, will encourage the development of
innovative programs that are designed to reduce the burdens on our
prisons. I encourage the passing of my amendment.
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 have no objection to the amendment, and I support the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in favor of the amendment
offered by my colleague Congressman Delaney.
This amendment would increase funding for Pay for Success programs
within the Department of Justice to reduce recidivism and improve
reentry services for individuals returning to their communities after
incarceration. It shifts funds from the federal prison system to
support these programs because if we can reduce recidivism, we will
reduce the number of people in our criminal justice system.
The Pay for Success model allows the government to use limited
resources wisely. We can invest in innovative social programs intended
to improve lives while only paying for those that actually make a
difference.
The United States releases 700,000 prisoners every year. Most of
these individuals struggle to find a job or a place to stay. Within
three years, two-thirds of them are back in prison. We need to do more
to help them turn their lives around and stop this vicious cycle, but
we also need to ensure that our efforts are effective. This amendment
will help us do both.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

buildings and facilities

For planning, acquisition of sites and construction of new
facilities; purchase and acquisition of facilities and
remodeling, and equipping of such facilities for penal and
correctional use, including all necessary expenses incident
thereto, by contract or force account; and constructing,
remodeling, and

[[Page H4944]]

equipping necessary buildings and facilities at existing
penal and correctional institutions, including all necessary
expenses incident thereto, by contract or force account,
$115,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$25,000,000 shall be available only for costs related to
construction of new facilities, of which not less than
$76,000,000 shall be available only for modernization,
maintenance and repair, and of which not to exceed
$14,000,000 shall be available to construct areas for inmate
work programs: Provided, That labor of United States
prisoners may be used for work performed under this
appropriation.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Connolly

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

Page 35, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,200,000)''.
Page 35, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,200,000)''.
Page 44, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 48, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONNOLLY. I want to thank Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah
and their staffs for working with me and my staff and with other
Members on a bipartisan basis to support this and similar amendments.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for Veterans
Treatment Courts by $1 million. It does not cut the Census Bureau,
however, to do it. With the additional funds provided by the amendment,
a total of $6 million would be available for Veterans Treatment Courts
in fiscal year 2015.
Our Nation's heroes are returning home from more than a decade of
war, including from the longest war in American history, in
Afghanistan. Upon their return, they bear the visible and the invisible
wounds of deployment.
Substance abuse, posttraumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain
injury--various disabilities--and various mental health disabilities
can lead our returning heroes often down a difficult and lonely road in
their attempts to transition to civilian life.
Twenty percent of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans suffer from
posttraumatic stress disorder or from major depression. One in six
battles with substance abuse. Left undiagnosed or untreated, these
illnesses can result in an encounter with the justice system. Worse
yet, these illnesses can also lead to suicide, which veterans commit at
twice the rate of the civilian population.
Fortunately, specialized Veterans Treatment Courts are being
developed across the country to assist veterans who do find themselves
in the justice system and who suffer from substance addiction or mental
health disorders, so that they can alter their courses and find the
assistance they deserve. The first such court was established in
Buffalo, New York, in 2008.
Virginia, which is my home State and that of the distinguished
manager of the bill, is home to the six largest veterans' populations
in the United States, with nearly 850,000 veterans, a large number of
whom live in my district and in that of Mr. Wolf's, the distinguished
manager.
I am pleased that, locally, our State and local leaders in Fairfax
County have had preliminary conversations about creating their own
Veterans Treatment docket, and that is great. We have 76 veterans in
our local detention centers today--that is just in Fairfax County--more
than half of whom are there for nonviolent violations. Of course, those
are just the veterans who have self-identified themselves as veterans.
Clearly, we need to look at our intake process to ensure we are
identifying these veterans who are in need of assistance. By bringing
veterans service organizations, State veterans services departments,
and volunteer mentors into the courtroom, Veterans Treatment Courts
promote community collaboration and can connect veterans with the
programs and benefits they have not only earned, but need.
Having a veteran-only court docket ensures that everyone--from the
judge to the volunteers--specializes in veterans' care, and the
involvement of fellow veterans allows the defendant to experience the
camaraderie to which he or she became accustomed in the military
itself.
We know this model works, and it is our hope that this amendment
provides Veterans Treatment Courts with some of the resources they are
going to need in order to help veterans who fall into the justice
system get back on the right track and transition back into the society
they swore to defend, as we swore to protect them when they came home.
Mr. Chairman, finally, let me take a moment of personal privilege to
congratulate my friend and colleague, Frank Wolf, on shepherding what
is probably his last appropriations bill in the Congress.
Frank has been a leader on gang prevention in our community, on
transportation--the Silver Line going to Dulles Airport--and on human
rights all across the world.
Our community and Congress are very grateful for his service and
especially for the integrity he brings to this institution. I am proud
to call him a colleague. I am even prouder to call him my friend. I
will miss him.
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. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's
amendment.
As he stated better than I could, as more veterans return from
combat, we are seeing their increased involvement in the justice
system. The committee established the Veterans court program in fiscal
year 2013, and it has increased its funding.
I thank the gentleman for offering an amendment. I urge an ``aye''
vote for it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

federal prison industries, incorporated

The Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated, is hereby
authorized to make such expenditures within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available, and in accord with
the law, and to make such contracts and commitments without
regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by section 9104
of title 31, United States Code, as may be necessary in
carrying out the program set forth in the budget for the
current fiscal year for such corporation.

limitation on administrative expenses, federal prison industries,
incorporated

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

State and Local Law Enforcement Activities

Office on Violence Against Women

violence against women prevention and prosecution programs

For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance for the prevention and prosecution of violence
against women, as authorized by the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) (``the 1968
Act''); the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994 (Public Law 103-322) (``the 1994 Act''); the Victims of
Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-647) (``the 1990
Act''); the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the
Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-
21); the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.) (``the 1974 Act''); the Victims
of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public
Law 106-386) (``the 2000 Act''); the Violence Against Women
and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public
Law 109-162) (``the 2005 Act''); and the Violence Against
Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Public Law 113-4) (``the
2013 Act''); and for related victims services, $425,500,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That except as
otherwise provided by law, not to exceed 5 percent of funds
made available under this heading may be used for expenses
related to evaluation, training, and technical assistance:
Provided further, That of the amount provided--
(1) $195,000,000 is for grants to combat violence against
women, as authorized by part T of the 1968 Act;

[[Page H4945]]

(2) $25,000,000 is for transitional housing assistance
grants for victims of domestic violence, dating violence,
stalking or sexual assault as authorized by section 40299 of
the 1994 Act;
(3) $3,000,000 is for the National Institute of Justice for
research and evaluation of violence against women and related
issues addressed by grant programs of the Office on Violence
Against Women, which shall be transferred to ``Research,
Evaluation and Statistics'' for administration by the Office
of Justice Programs;
(4) $10,000,000 is for a grant program to provide services
to advocate for and respond to youth victims of domestic
violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking;
assistance to children and youth exposed to such violence;
programs to engage men and youth in preventing such violence;
and assistance to middle and high school students through
education and other services related to such violence:
Provided, That unobligated balances available for the
programs authorized by sections 41201, 41204, 41303 and 41305
of the 1994 Act, prior to its amendment by the 2013 Act,
shall be available for this program: Provided further, That
10 percent of the total amount available for this grant
program shall be available for grants under the program
authorized by section 2015 of the 1968 Act: Provided further,
That the definitions and grant conditions in section 40002 of
the 1994 Act shall apply to this program;
(5) $50,000,000 is for grants to encourage arrest policies
as authorized by part U of the 1968 Act, of which $4,000,000
is for a homicide reduction initiative;
(6) $29,500,000 is for sexual assault victims assistance,
as authorized by section 41601 of the 1994 Act;
(7) $31,000,000 is for rural domestic violence and child
abuse enforcement assistance grants, including as authorized
by section 40295 of the 1994 Act;
(8) $11,500,000 is for grants to reduce violent crimes
against women on campus, as authorized by section 304 of the
2005 Act;
(9) $42,500,000 is for legal assistance for victims, as
authorized by section 1201 of the 2000 Act;
(10) $4,250,000 is for enhanced training and services to
end violence against and abuse of women in later life, as
authorized by section 40802 of the 1994 Act;
(11) $16,000,000 is for grants to support families in the
justice system, as authorized by section 1301 of the 2000
Act: Provided, That unobligated balances available for the
programs authorized by section 1301 of the 2000 Act and
section 41002 of the 1994 Act, prior to their amendment by
the 2013 Act, shall be available for this program;
(12) $5,750,000 is for education and training to end
violence against and abuse of women with disabilities, as
authorized by section 1402 of the 2000 Act;
(13) $500,000 is for the National Resource Center on
Workplace Responses to assist victims of domestic violence,
as authorized by section 41501 of the 1994 Act;
(14) $1,000,000 is for analysis and research on violence
against Indian women, including as authorized by section 904
of the 2005 Act: Provided, That such funds may be transferred
to ``Research, Evaluation and Statistics'' for administration
by the Office of Justice Programs; and
(15) $500,000 is for a national clearinghouse that provides
training and technical assistance on issues relating to
sexual assault of American Indian and Alaska Native women.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gallego

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

On page 38, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert:
``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
On page 39, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert:
``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
On page 44, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert:
``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
On page 45, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert:
``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GALLEGO. I, too, want to start by thanking Chairman Wolf for his
service and by wishing him the best of luck on his next steps after
retirement.
I would also like to take a moment to thank Representative John
Culberson and Representative Cory Gardner for their help on this
amendment and for making this effort bipartisan.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to add additional revenue to the
Rural Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking
Assistance Program. It is a rural program that enhances the safety of
children, youth, and adults who are victims of domestic violence or who
are victims of stalking or of dating violence or of sexual assault.
Frankly, in rural areas across the 23rd District and in much of the
country, domestic violence shelters survive on grant programs of
various kinds, and money like this is the lifeblood of many of these
shelters.
This amendment provides additional revenue to keep those shelters
open and operating and protecting these victims of crimes, victims who
so desperately need protection.
It also adds additional revenue to the Violence Against Women
prevention and prosecution programs, which are programs that also help
to assist the victims of crime. In addition to that, it helps to make
sure that we put these people behind bars.
I have had a long history of being involved with the criminal justice
movement, and I have had the opportunity in the Texas legislature to
serve as chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over crime victims
and crime victims' rights, and I can think of no better way to spend
revenue than to make sure that victims are protected and taken care of,
particularly the victims who are children, who are so in need of our
assistance.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that this amendment be adopted.
Again, I thank my colleagues, Mr. Culberson and Mr. Gardner and
Chairman Wolf and our ranking member as well for their help in drafting
the amendment and in making sure that all of the i's were dotted and
the t's were crossed.
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 thank the gentleman for the amendment. I think it helps
those who need help, particularly in the rural areas. I accept the
amendment.
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. Mr. Chairman, in rural areas, a lot of times, these
challenges go without the same notice that they might bring in a large,
metropolitan area. I think it is so useful that the gentleman has
brought this matter to our attention, and I am glad that we were able
to work through this.
I indicate our support for this amendment, and I thank the gentleman.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1530

Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment
to H.R. 4660.
This amendment transfers $2.5 million to the Office on Violence
Against Women. The amendment provides additional resources for domestic
violence and child abuse enforcement assistance grants.
My colleague from Texas and I each represent significantly rural and
large geographic districts. In fact, my district is the size of South
Carolina.
I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to bring this bill to the
floor today, and I ask for its adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gallego).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of Justice Programs

research, evaluation and statistics

For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act''); the Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (``the 1974
Act''); the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5771
et seq.); the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end
the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Public Law
108-21); the Justice for All Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
405); the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162) (``the 2005
Act''); the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Public Law
101-647); the Second Chance Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-199);
the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-473); the
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Public
Law 109-248) (``the Adam Walsh Act''); the PROTECT Our
Children Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-401); subtitle D of
title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-296) (``the 2002 Act''); the NICS Improvement Amendments
Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-180); the Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Public Law 113-4) (``the 2013
Act''); and other programs, $124,250,000, to remain available
until expended, of which--
(1) $47,250,000 is for criminal justice statistics
programs, and other activities, as authorized by part C of
title I of the 1968 Act:

[[Page H4946]]

Provided, That beginning not later than 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, as part of each National Crime
Victimization Survey, the Attorney General shall include
statistics relating to honor violence;
(2) $42,000,000 is for research, development, and
evaluation programs, and other activities as authorized by
part B of title I of the 1968 Act and subtitle D of title II
of the 2002 Act; and
(3) $35,000,000 is for regional information sharing
activities, as authorized by part M of title I of the 1968
Act.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

Page 42, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $4,250,000)''.
Page 42, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,250,000)''.
Page 42, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
Page 44, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $4,250,000)''.
Page 44, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $4,250,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which
seeks to bolster a critical law enforcement program within the
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
That program is the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
Program, also known as Byrne-JAG.
My amendment is fully paid for by cutting unnecessary spending
elsewhere in the bill. Specifically, the Office of Justice Programs,
Research, Evaluation, and Statistics budget was increased by $4.25
million from the FY14 levels. This amendment takes that increase and
redirects those funds to the Byrne-JAG Grant Program to bolster law
enforcement nationwide.
As we all know, one of the Federal Government's core responsibilities
is to secure the peace.
The government establishes a National Guard and a standing military
for security purposes, but it can also assist local law enforcement
with funding, critical information, and joint efforts between local,
State, and Federal officials, or any of these combined.
My home State of Arizona, in particular, has some serious issues and
needs when it comes to law enforcement. Being that Arizona shares an
international border with Mexico, we have seen increased amounts of
illegal trafficking operations--from noncitizens to illicit drugs to
illegal firearms.
I believe the Federal Government, in conjunction with State and local
law enforcement, has a duty to uphold the rule of law and to combat
these activities in the best ways possible.
My State of Arizona uses multijurisdictional task forces, or MJTFs.
It also funds probation-based drug monitoring programs and other
probation-related services, including drug courts, pro bono defense
services, and other metrics-based programs aimed at curbing drug abuse.
In the 2010 fiscal year, Byrne-JAG contributed to 58 worthwhile
Arizona programs. This local investment assisted Arizona's 16
multijurisdictional drug task forces with arresting over 6,000 drug
offenders. These same drug task forces seized over 847,000 grams of
cocaine, nearly 50,000 grams of heroin, more than 200,000 grams of
methamphetamine, over 300,000 pounds of marijuana, and more than 40,000
marijuana plants.
Finally, and perhaps most satisfying, the combined efforts of these
drug task forces and tandem prosecution resulted in over $23 million in
forfeited assets.
These Byrne-JAG programs nationwide have proven themselves worthy of
sustained Federal resources.
As a member of the Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, I will
strive to keep American homes and communities safe by providing
important resources to worthwhile law enforcement programs that protect
local communities.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my commonsense amendment.
With that, 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 have no objection to the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my fame
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. I rise to object to the amendment, not because of the
purpose thereof, but because of the offset.
The Byrne-JAG Grant Program has enjoyed a great deal of support in
the chairman's mark, and obviously we need to do more, if we could. But
the gentleman seeks to take money away from the research efforts at
DOJ, and I want to make a point about this.
The notion that we should continue to do what we have been doing as a
country flies in the face of all the facts. We imprison more people
than any other country on the face of the Earth on a per capita basis.
We have created a circumstance in which we have violent crimes at
levels that are not seen in any other developed country on Earth.
We need to be thinking anew about this. That is what the Criminal
Justice Task Force that the chairman and I have worked on has been
created to do. That is why we moved to evidence-based justice
investment activities, so that we can measure safety of communities
based on what is being done.
The idea that being tough on crime is going to make our families
safer hasn't worked out all that well. What we need to do is to be
smart on crime.
So the idea that we want to take money away from researching and
understanding what works and what doesn't work works against--
normally--the position of the other team. The other team usually is
here on the floor saying that we should fund those things that work and
not fund those things that don't work.
The research efforts at DOJ are designed exactly for that purpose.
They are designed to determine what is actually working.
I met with the heads of court systems and criminal justice efforts
throughout our country, Democrat and Republicans alike. They say that
this research effort has enabled them to focus in on what can make
communities safer in terms of policing in criminal justice and prison-
related activities.
So I support his goal, but I reject his offset. I would ask for
Members to oppose this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) (``the 1994
Act''); the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968 (``the 1968 Act''); the Justice for All Act of 2004
(Public Law 108-405); the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990
(Public Law 101-647) (``the 1990 Act''); the Trafficking
Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law
109-164); the Violence Against Women and Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162)
(``the 2005 Act''); the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-248) (``the Adam Walsh
Act''); the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection
Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-386); the NICS Improvement
Amendments Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-180); subtitle D of
title II of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-296) (``the 2002 Act''); the Second Chance Act of 2007
(Public Law 110-199); the Prioritizing Resources and
Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (Public
Law 110-403); the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (Public Law
98-473); the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime
Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2008 (Public
Law 110-416); the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act
of 2013 (Public Law 113-4) (``the 2013 Act''); and other
programs, $1,235,615,000, to remain available until expended
as follows--
(1) $376,000,000 for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant program as authorized by subpart 1 of part E
of title I of the 1968 Act (except that section 1001(c), and
the special rules for Puerto Rico under section 505(g) of
title I of the 1968 Act shall not apply for purposes of this
Act), of which, notwithstanding such subpart 1, $2,500,000 is
for an initiative to improve the quality of juvenile indigent
defense services, $15,000,000 is for a Preventing Violence
Against Law Enforcement Officer Resilience and Survivability
Initiative (VALOR), $4,000,000 is for use by the National
Institute of Justice for research targeted toward developing
a better understanding of the domestic radicalization
phenomenon, and advancing evidence-based strategies for
effective intervention and prevention, and $3,000,000 is for
competitive

[[Page H4947]]

grants to distribute firearm safety materials and gun locks;
(2) $210,000,000 for the State Criminal Alien Assistance
Program, as authorized by section 241(i)(5) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)(5)):
Provided, That no jurisdiction shall request compensation for
any cost greater than the actual cost for Federal immigration
and other detainees housed in State and local detention
facilities;
(3) $8,000,000 for competitive grants to improve the
functioning of the criminal justice system, to prevent or
combat juvenile delinquency, and to assist victims of crime
(other than compensation);
(4) $45,365,000 for victim services programs for victims of
trafficking, as authorized by section 107(b)(2) of Public Law
106-386, and for programs authorized under Public Law 109-
164;
(5) $41,000,000 for Drug Courts, as authorized by section
1001(a)(25)(A) of title I of the 1968 Act;
(6) $9,000,000 for mental health courts and adult and
juvenile collaboration program grants, as authorized by parts
V and HH of title I of the 1968 Act, and the Mentally Ill
Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Reauthorization and
Improvement Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-416);
(7) $12,000,000 for grants for Residential Substance Abuse
Treatment for State Prisoners, as authorized by part S of
title I of the 1968 Act;
(8) $2,000,000 for the Capital Litigation Improvement Grant
Program, as authorized by section 426 of Public Law 108-405,
and for grants for wrongful conviction review;
(9) $10,000,000 for economic, high technology and Internet
crime prevention grants, including as authorized by section
401 of Public Law 110-403;
(10) $21,000,000 for sex offender management assistance, as
authorized by the Adam Walsh Act, and related activities, of
which $1,000,000 is for the National Sex Offender Public
Website;
(11) $22,250,000 for the matching grant program for law
enforcement armor vests, as authorized by section 2501 of
title I of the 1968 Act;
(12) $58,500,000 for grants to States to upgrade criminal
and mental health records for the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System, including as authorized by the NICS
Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-180);
(13) $125,000,000 for DNA-related and forensic programs and
activities, of which--
(A) $117,000,000 is for a DNA analysis and capacity
enhancement program and for other local, State, and Federal
forensic activities, including the purposes authorized under
section 2 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000
(Public Law 106-546) (the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant
Program): Provided, That up to 4 percent of funds made
available under this paragraph may be used for the purposes
described in the DNA Training and Education for Law
Enforcement, Correctional Personnel, and Court Officers
program (Public Law 108-405, section 303);
(B) $4,000,000 is for the purposes described in the Kirk
Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program (Public Law
108-405, section 412); and
(C) $4,000,000 is for Sexual Assault Forensic Exam Program
grants, including as authorized by section 304 of Public Law
108-405;
(14) $36,000,000 for grants to address backlogs of sexual
assault kits at law enforcement agencies;
(15) $6,000,000 for the court-appointed special advocate
program, as authorized by section 217 of the 1990 Act;
(16) $35,000,000 for assistance to Indian tribes;
(17) $62,500,000 for offender reentry programs and
research, as authorized by the Second Chance Act of 2007
(Public Law 110-199), without regard to the time limitations
specified at section 6(1) of such Act;
(18) $5,000,000 for a veterans treatment courts program;
(19) $1,000,000 for the purposes described in the Missing
Alzheimer's Disease Patient Alert Program (section 240001 of
the 1994 Act);
(20) $8,000,000 for a program to monitor prescription drugs
and scheduled listed chemical products;
(21) $15,000,000 for prison rape prevention and prosecution
grants to States and units of local government, and other
programs, as authorized by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of
2003 (Public Law 108-79);
(22) $2,000,000 to operate a National Center for Campus
Public Safety;
(23) $30,000,000 for a justice reinvestment initiative, for
activities related to criminal justice reform and recidivism
reduction, of which not less than $1,000,000 is for a task
force on Federal corrections;
(24) $75,000,000 for the Comprehensive School Safety
Initiative, described in the report accompanying this Act:
Provided, That section 213 of this Act shall not apply with
respect to the amount made available in this paragraph; and
(25) $20,000,000 for existing evidence-based criminal
justice programs as described in the report accompanying this
Act:

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Cicilline

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

Page 44, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $8,500,000)''
Page 66, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $8,500,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by acknowledging the
extraordinary leadership of Chairman Wolf, who, as I was recounting
earlier, I remember as a young law student arriving in Washington, and
hearing about his work.
So much of his work has been longstanding. I particularly want to
acknowledge his work on gang violence and gang violence reduction. I
know this will be his last appropriations bill, so I thank him for his
many years of service to our country.
I also want to thank and recognize our ranking member, Congressman
Fattah, for his great work.
I rise today to offer an amendment that will invest in making our
communities safe from gangs and gun violence.
This amendment restores $8.5 million in funding for the Violent Gang
and Gun Crime Reduction Program, also known as Project Safe
Neighborhoods. It provides the same level of funding that was provided
for this critical program in fiscal year 2014.
Project Safe Neighborhoods is a proven, effective program for
intervening in communities in order to enhance public safety and combat
gang violence.
Today, this competitive grant program invests in partnerships led by
U.S. attorneys and allows local and State law enforcement, community
leaders, and prosecutors to collaborate together on efforts to fight
gang crime and reduce gun violence--and to do it in a strategically
thoughtful way and to bring resources to this important work.
Project Safe Neighborhoods provides communities across the country
with the resources they need to coordinate effectively and to prevent
violence. Most importantly, this program employs a multifaceted
approach to address the ongoing problem of gang and gun violence. Many
communities use this funding for both prevention and enforcement
efforts.
Stakeholders have used fund from Project Safe Neighborhoods to scale
up efforts related to prosecuting and investigating gang activity. They
have also used these resources to engage at-risk populations with
innovative outreach and intervention strategies.
The positive results of this initiative have been very well
documented. A 2009 National Institute of Justice evaluation
demonstrated that communities receiving Project Safe Neighborhoods
funding saw a four times greater decline in crime than those in cities
that did not receive funding.
When I was mayor of Providence, I saw firsthand the importance of
this approach to prevent and stop gang crime and gun violence.
Together, we targeted gangs by both prosecuting criminals and also
dispatching street outreach workers through community leaders like the
Institute for the Study and Practice of Nonviolence. These street
workers could successfully convince our young people to end the cycle
of violence. This is a program that has a proven record of saving lives
by preventing gun violence and proactively working in the community to
prevent violence.
Importantly, this has always been a bipartisan experience. I know my
colleagues, many of whom are former prosecutors, community activists,
and local and State-elected officials, have seen the tremendous benefit
of Project Safe Neighborhoods.
In fiscal year 2013, 16 communities from Nebraska and Tennessee to
Rhode Island and Maine received funding. Since its inception in 2001,
dozens of other communities have also relied on funding from Project
Safe Neighborhoods to make communities safer and to reduce gun
violence.
So I am asking my colleagues to support this proven program. This is
literally about saving the lives of young people in this country. I
urge my colleagues to support the critical investments in this very
collaborative public safety approach led by our U.S. attorneys and to
support funding for Project

[[Page H4948]]

Safe Neighborhoods. The safety of our communities and our ability to
help reduce gun violence and gang violence depends on it.
With that, 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 rise in opposition to the amendment, but I do appreciate
what the gentleman said. As we move on and we get to conference, there
may be something we can do. I know Mr. Fattah feels the same way with
regard to gang violence in the inner city.
The underlining bill has already reduced NASA's construction budget
by $69 million. Further reductions--which this would do--would
negatively impact NASA's ability to meet mission critical construction
needs for the human spaceflight program, address urgent safety-related
repairs at centers around the country--which certainly need them--and
discharge legal requirements to remediate environmental damage.
Construction projects are, by definition, long lead items that must
be started early in order to be ready. By cutting these funds now, we
will create a programmatic ripple effect that will be felt in our high-
priority space program for the years to come.
So for these reasons--and where the money is taken from--I urge a
``no'' vote.
With that, 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. There is no one in this House that has been more focused
on the problems of gangs and has talked about it more than Chairman
Wolf. So when he says that this is a matter he is concerned about, he
has shown that over the years.
This is an important effort. It is a program that, if we can find a
way to fund it, we should.
My colleague, who served as mayor of one of America's great cities
and is now a Member of the Congress, is right to point this out. I look
for an opportunity where, perhaps as we move to complete this bill in
conference, we can see if there are other resources available.
I think in the offset there probably is some wiggle room, but we need
to pay a little bit closer attention to it.
So I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, but I may have
some concerns about the offset. And whatever the result of the
amendment, you have heard the chairman say--and I join in--that we
would be glad to work with you on this effort.
Thank you for offering the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CICILLINE. 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 Rhode Island
will be postponed.

{time} 1545

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me, again, express my appreciation
for this appropriation and make a statement regarding some of the
jurisdiction that comes under Commerce and Justice that is not
particularly being discussed at this moment, but I thought it was
appropriate because we do have discussions regarding civil rights.
I wanted to mention that, over the last couple of months, we have had
some unfortunate discussions around the National Basketball Association
regarding issues of discriminatory conversations that were not
responsible to the vastness of the NBA or its regulatory scheme.
We regulate, on Judiciary, the National Basketball Association, the
NFL, and Major League Baseball and many other sports. Over the years,
we have had the opportunity to raise questions about diversity and
about the outreach into minority communities.
Today, in Houston, Major League Baseball is having what they call the
civil rights weekend. I will be looking forward to calling in Major
League Baseball to address some of the questions of diversity and race
in their particular support.
It is interesting that they are having an event in Houston now, with
not one local elected official present, or respected or asked to be
present. To me, that raises the question of whether or not Major League
Baseball even gets it.
We are delighted that they have chosen to honor some icons, and I
honor them as well and will, hopefully, have the opportunity to
recognize them by way of my office tomorrow.
Again, as we talk about justice questions, as I sit on the Judiciary
Committee, over the years, have dealt with players' associations and
antitrust issues, questions of discrimination that cross the gamut of
sports organizations, it is really disturbing that we come to the 21st
century and 2014 and have these same issues being raised again.
Just as I turn, for a moment, to the NBA, I just want to make the
point that, as there is a decision to look at options for the Clippers,
I am not from the area, but I would hope that, as there are options to
look at a purchase of the Clippers, that it is not done without
opportunities for minority purchasers to be involved--investors.
We are not where we need to be, and, again, the Justice Department
deals with civil rights, and Major League Baseball is not where it
needs to be when it comes to a city, has an event on civil rights, and
has no local elected officials that are engaged, no outreach programs
that are extensive the way they need to be.
I thank the chairman for allowing me to raise this point regarding
the question of civil rights that falls under the jurisdiction of this
committee, the funding of the Civil Rights Division of the Department
of Justice, but also, under my authorizing committee, and raise a
concern that we have work to do, not only in this Congress, but we have
work to do into these major sports organizations that represent
diversity, but they don't really have diversity.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kilmer

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

Page 44, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 46, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 62, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order. We are just
looking at the amendment, so, in order to protect the time, Mr.
Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase funding for
the Economic High-Tech and Cyber Crime Prevention grant program by $2
million.
In my home State of Washington, we develop some of the Nation's most
advanced software and aircraft and tools for our men and women in
uniform. We need to be ready to help our private sector partners
protect their intellectual property, competitive edge, and the
capabilities of our warfighters.
The Economic High-Tech and Cyber Crime Prevention program is one of
the best opportunities for the Federal Government to assist State and
local law enforcement entities to address cyber crimes through the
funding of training and technical assistance projects.
Specifically, the program was designed to leverage State and local
support to help national agencies involved in protecting our homeland
security through the prevention of law enforcement against cyber
crimes.
Cyber crime is not new, but it is becoming an even greater threat to
our

[[Page H4949]]

families, our businesses, and to our national security. As far back as
2012, the Federal Bureau of Investigation made headlines for arresting
dozens of cyber criminals worldwide who were involved in a complicated
scheme.
Recently, the Director of the FBI testified before the other Chamber
that state-sponsored cyber crime is ``an enormous challenge,'' noting
the Department of Justice recently issued a 31-count indictment against
hackers backed by the Chinese Government.
As a member of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Emerging Threats, and Capabilities, I know that we need to double down
on protecting our intellectual property from electronic theft and
intrusion.
We cannot have innovation stifled out of fear of protection, loss of
intellectual property, and future profits. After all, innovation is the
engine behind our economy and our national defense. It is what keeps
small businesses and large conglomerates devising the next tools to
protect our servicepeople and keep shipping lanes open.
This amendment would help State, local, and tribal law enforcement
agencies with technical assistance, training, and outreach activities.
It would provide training in the investigation and prosecution of cyber
crimes, increasing the odds that those that seek to do harm are brought
to justice.
Moreover, it gives the Federal Government a greater opportunity to
leverage their counterparts' abilities to attain our national goals.
One month ago, I was privileged to join representatives of local
utilities, the Washington State Military Department, academia, and law
enforcement to discuss ways to protect our Nation's critical
infrastructure from cyber attacks.
This summit provided an opportunity for us to bring all of the
stakeholders into a room and discuss known vulnerabilities and how we
can help each other.
One of the most important outcomes of that summit was the need to
work together at the local, State, and Federal level, hand in hand with
our private sector partners to fully address this threat. That is what
this amendment does. It would provide Federal assistance to complement
such efforts and would increase our security.
With my brief time remaining, I would just like to thank the ranking
member and echo the good words of the previous speakers thanking the
gentleman, the chairman, for his excellent work and partnership.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order, and I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. I think we have--we never saw the amendment, and it is
really pretty tough to really--but just looking at it quickly, I think
we are at a record level for cyber, ever, in the history of this great
body.
The gentleman has a good point. He takes away from aeronautics, and
aeronautics is our number one export, if we were not exporting even
aircraft from the gentleman's home State, our balance of payment, so to
take away from aeronautics, when we have plussed up aeronautics, so
America can continue to be number one, and put it in an area that is
ill-defined.
Secondly, we have given more for cyber than any other time--cyber
money in NIST, cyber money in the FBI, national security business,
cyber money in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Criminal Division; so,
because of that, I would urge a ``no'' vote.
Cyber is important. Every major company in this country has been hit
by the Chinese Government. Law firms in this town are being hit by the
Chinese Government. Seventeen Members of Congress had their computers
stripped by the Chinese Government. A committee had their computers
stripped by the Chinese Government.
So I think we should focus the cyber where we have it and not go
after aeronautics. Because of that, I think the gentleman is well-
intentioned. Obviously, Boeing has been hit, but Boeing is better
served by what we are doing with regard to aiding the FBI to deal with
this and the U.S. attorney.
I commend and did a letter to the Attorney General last week,
thanking him and thanking the FBI for their cyber cases that they are
bringing against the People's Liberation Army.
In light of where we are, I would oppose the amendment. I think it is
bad to take it from aeronautics, and I think we should focus on the
cyber the way that we have done in the bill with the FBI, the National
Security Division, the U.S. attorneys.
Again, I want to thank the Justice Department and the FBI for the
great work they have done with regard to the People's Liberation Army
and that we expect them to do in the future.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, when you listen to our highest law
enforcement officials in the country and our national security
officials, they join the Chairman's very early point.
When he was saying it, no one was paying attention, I think, that
cyber attacks are the greatest threat in terms of our economic
infrastructure and some of our national military infrastructure is
challenged by cyber attacks also.
There is an account in DOJ that is the target of affection for this
amendment; that is cyber and high economic crimes. This is a very
important area.
We remember the fiasco with the retailers being attacked by cyber
attacks, mainly centered from Ukraine, and the disaster that occurred
over the holiday shopping season.
This is a very important area. I would be glad to work with the
gentleman to see whether we can do something to make sure that this
account has the resources it needs.
Aeronautics, on the other hand, we are well above $100 million or so
than the requested level, but it is a very important area, and I join
with the chairman in prioritizing it.
I went out to Washington State. I visited Everett, a plant of almost
100 acres under one roof, the largest and widest building anywhere in
the country, and saw them constructing these Dreamliners, tens of
thousands of Americans working every day.
We don't want those secrets stolen either, however, through cyber
attacks; so we need to find a happy medium that meets the country's
interests.
I don't know that we want to cut that account. The chairman is right.
Our balance of trade in aeronautics is well over $200 billion. It is
our most significant export on the manufacturing side, so we have to be
careful as we proceed.
I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, and whatever the
result of the amendment, I think that the chairman and I want to work
to make sure that we are doing everything we can do to protect against
cyber attacks.
In the economic atmosphere that the country is in and the competition
that we face, we don't need to be innovative and then have our
innovation stolen by others.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).
The amendment was rejected.

{time} 1600

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Grayson

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

Page 44, line 24, strike ``$3,000,000'' and insert
``$6,000,000''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would increase from $3
million to $6 million the amount of funds appropriated for competitive
grants to distribute firearm safety materials and gun locks under the
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program. The Edward
Byrne program is funded at $376 million total, as recently amended up
to $380 in this appropriations bill. The $3 million increase that I am
seeking is less than 1

[[Page H4950]]

percent of the total allocation of the program and has received a
budget-neutral score from the Congressional Budget Office.
I think that increasing the level of gun safety in America is a
priority, and I hope that my colleagues would agree. Nothing in this
amendment would restrict any American citizen's Second Amendment
rights. The only thing that this amendment seeks to do is to achieve
greater gun literacy, safety, and avoid accidents.
This amendment makes good sense, it will save lives, and I urge my
colleagues to vote in favor of it.
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 and yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

juvenile justice programs

For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other
assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 1974 (``the 1974 Act''); the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act''); the
Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162) (``the 2005
Act''); the Missing Children's Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5771
et seq.); the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end
the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (Public Law
108-21); the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 (Public Law
101-647) (``the 1990 Act''); the Adam Walsh Child Protection
and Safety Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-248) (``the Adam Walsh
Act''); the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-
401); the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013
(Public Law 113-4) (``the 2013 Act''); and other juvenile
justice programs, $223,500,000, to remain available until
expended as follows--
(1) $45,000,000 for programs authorized by section 221 of
the 1974 Act;
(2) $90,000,000 for youth mentoring grants;
(3) $19,000,000 for programs authorized by the Victims of
Child Abuse Act of 1990;
(4) $68,000,000 for missing and exploited children
programs, including as authorized by sections 404(b) and
405(a) of the 1974 Act (except that section 102(b)(4)(B) of
the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-401)
shall not apply for purposes of this Act); and
(5) $1,500,000 for child abuse training programs for
judicial personnel and practitioners, as authorized by
section 222 of the 1990 Act:

Provided, That not more than 10 percent of each amount may
be used for research, evaluation, and statistics activities
designed to benefit the programs or activities authorized:
Provided further, That not more than 2 percent of the amounts
designated under paragraphs (1) through (3) and (5) may be
used for training and technical assistance: Provided further,
That the two preceding provisos shall not apply to grants and
projects authorized by sections 261 and 262 of the 1974 Act
and to missing and exploited children programs.

public safety officer benefits

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

Community Oriented Policing Services

community oriented policing services programs

For activities authorized by the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322); the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968
Act''); and the Violence Against Women and Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162)
(``the 2005 Act''), $96,500,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That any balances made available through
prior year deobligations shall only be available in
accordance with section 505 of this Act: Provided further,
That of the amount provided under this heading--
(1) $10,000,000 is for anti-methamphetamine-related
activities, which shall be transferred to the Drug
Enforcement Administration upon enactment of this Act;
(2) $16,500,000 is for improving tribal law enforcement,
including hiring, equipment, training, and anti-
methamphetamine activities; and
(3) $70,000,000 is for grants under section 1701 of title I
of the 1968 Act (42 U.S.C. 3796dd) for the hiring and
rehiring of additional career law enforcement officers under
part Q of such title notwithstanding subsection (i) of such
section: Provided, That, notwithstanding section 1704(c) of
such title (42 U.S.C. 3796dd-3(c)), funding for hiring or
rehiring a career law enforcement officer may not exceed
$125,000 unless the Director of the Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services grants a waiver from this
limitation: Provided further, That within the amounts
appropriated under this paragraph, $16,500,000 shall be
transferred to the Tribal Resources Grant Program: Provided
further, That within the amounts appropriated under this
paragraph, $10,000,000 is for regional anti-gang task forces.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Jeffries

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

Page 53, line 22, after the period insert: ``Provided
further, That no less than $5,000,000 is allocated to
establish and implement innovative programs to increase and
enhance proactive crime control and prevention programs
involving law enforcement officers and young persons in the
community (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(b)(11)).''

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chairman, let me first just thank the chairman and
the ranking member for their tremendous effort in connection with this
bill. As well, I thank the chairman for his distinguished service and
work as it relates to the issue of gun violence prevention, to which
this amendment relates.
In order to address the growing problem of youth gang violence, this
amendment sets a minimum allocation amount with respect to funds issued
under the Department of Justice's authority to make public safety and
community policing grants. It would do so by requiring that no less
than $5 million of funding for COPS grants be used ``to establish and
implement innovative programs to increase and enhance proactive crime
control and prevention programs involving law enforcement officers and
young persons in the community.''
This category is presently one of 17 uses of grant amounts authorized
under law. However, there is no funding minimum set in law to ensure
that these program grants are being allocated to address youth
violence. With the growing amount of gang activity that involves young
people throughout our country, funding in this particular area is
essential.
There are currently at least 1.4 million criminal street gang members
and 33,000 street gangs in the United States. This represents a 40
percent increase since 2009. Much of this rapid expansion of criminal
street gang activity is caused by the active recruitment of juveniles.
According to the FBI, almost 40 percent of gang members presently are
young people under the age of 18.
In a report issued by the National Gang Threat Assessment report,
criminal street gangs cause 48 percent of violent crime in most
jurisdictions. Consequently, there are neighborhoods throughout our
country, including many in New York City, that continue to be plagued
by violence attributed to rising street gang activity. This, of course,
has led to increased drug trafficking, gun violence, human trafficking,
and the prostitution of minors, as well as school-based assaults,
robberies, and thefts.
The COPS grant program has been a tremendous success, but more must
now be done in the area of gang-related youth violence. This issue
presents a discreet problem that requires targeted law enforcement
solutions. Accordingly, this amendment is designed to ensure that
additional funding under the COPS program is allocated to proactive law
enforcement programs targeted at the reduction of criminal street gang
activity and youth violence.

[[Page H4951]]

By setting a funding floor of $5 million in total grants connected to
a category already authorized under law, we can take an additional step
toward providing State and local law enforcement with the resources
needed to protect communities throughout America. I urge my colleagues
to support this bipartisan objective by voting in favor of this
amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the amendment
because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and,
therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part:
``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an
expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
Madam Chair, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a
program that has not been reauthorized. It was last authorized in 2009.
The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Black). Does any other Member wish to be heard
on the point of order?
Mr. FATTAH. I would like to be heard, Madam Chair, if the gentleman
would reserve his point of order.
Mr. WOLF. Out of courtesy to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I will
reserve my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, this program has not been reauthorized by
the Congress. So let's go back to that.
This is a program that was created to provide support to local
communities to be able to hire 1 million additional police officers
nationwide, and it was put into place. It has operated well, and ever
since this became the law of the land in the Clinton administration,
the crime rate nationwide has gone down.
We have not reauthorized it, but we have funded it each and every
year because it is the right thing to do. On one level, the American
public is paying taxes, and safety, to them, is having police officers
in their communities and that when they dial 911, there is someone
there to respond.
At the same time that we have had this back and forth about the COPS
program, we have provided well over $6 billion of the American
taxpayers' money for police officers and training in Iraq and in places
like Afghanistan to provide police officers in communities in countries
far away from the streets of the gentleman's city, New York City, or my
hometown of Philadelphia.
Now, it is true that the Congress has not done its work. We haven't
reauthorized the transportation bill or the education bill or the COPS
program. There is a whole line of bills that we have not found the
ability to come together around, and there are a host of programs in
these appropriations bills that are being funded, even though the
authorization has lapsed.
So I think that in this particular instance, even though the point of
order is correct and proper, it moves aside what should be the primary
concern, which is to have cops on the street and connecting young
people up with cops, which is the point of this amendment, to say that
law enforcement officers are paid for under this grant program.
I want to let every Member know that when this bill is finished, when
it comes out of conference, there will be money for the COPS program.
The only thing that this amendment seeks to say is that some of those
cops should have, as their primary responsibility, interacting and
intervening in the development of youth gangs because we know that if
we can grab ahold of these young people while the concrete has not yet
hardened, we can prevent them from taking on a life of criminal or
antisocial activity.
So I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment. I think it is
correctly on point, and I appreciate the chairman reserving his point
of order so that I can make the point that, even though unauthorized,
we have the authority to appropriate this money--and we will, as we did
last year and the year before and the year before that. Because at the
end of the day, cops on the street, when someone dials 911, they are
not dialing in the hopes of help. They are dialing because they really
need help, and we need to have police officers who can respond.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, before I make a point of order, I do want to
say that I do share what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah)
said.
I would like to tell the gentleman from New York, it isn't only the
law enforcement. We had a similar problem. We had MS-13 and violent
gangs. It is law enforcement. It is also the mentoring that Mr. Fattah
mentioned. It is after-school programs.
So, if we were to just go after the gang issue as a law enforcement
issue, you will never solve the problem. It has to be law enforcement.
The schools have to be involved. There have to be after-school
programs. It is almost like a three-legged stool.
But as we move ahead, we can look to see because I think everyone who
lives in these areas that have been impacted by gangs, that is as much
of terrorism for them as it is for somebody that is faced with
terrorism from al Qaeda.
Having said that, I do agree with what Mr. Fattah said.

Point of Order

Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I now make a point of order against the
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized
program and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
Clause 2 of rule XXI states, in pertinent part:
``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an
expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
Madam Chair, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a
program that has not been reauthorized. And I agree with the gentleman;
it probably should have been reauthorized. It was last authorized in
2009. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member seek to be heard on the point
of order?
If not, the Chair will rule.
The proponent of an item of appropriation carries the burden of
persuasion on the question whether it is supported by an authorization
in law.
Having reviewed the amendment and entertained argument on the point
of order, the Chair is unable to conclude that the item of
appropriation in question is authorized in law.
The Chair is, therefore, constrained to sustain the point of order
under clause 2(a) of rule XXI.

{time} 1615

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

General Provisions--Department of Justice

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

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Grayson

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

Page 54, line 8, after the word ``rape'' add ``or incest''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I wish to reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H4952]]

Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Chair, I would like to state at the outset of
offering this particular perfecting amendment that I really wish that
this section 202 of this bill located on page 54 didn't appear in it.
It reads as follows:

None of the funds appropriated by this title shall be
available to pay for an abortion, except where the life of
the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to
term, or in the case of rape.

Again, I disagree with this section of the bill and its limiting
principle, but I feel that we should, at the very least, perfect it in
the manner that also includes the words ``or incest.''
In short, there is an allowance here for abortions in the case of
endangering the mother, and there is an allowance in the case of rape,
but somehow or other this bill forbids abortions in the case of incest.
Throughout the U.S. Code, whether it be in 10 U.S.C. 1093 pertaining
to abortions for armed services personnel, 42 U.S.C. 1397ee or jj,
dealing with exceptions to abortion limitations within the State
Children's Health Insurance Program, known as SCHIP, or 42 U.S.C.
18023, a section containing provisions of the Affordable Care Act,
Federal law is clear: abortion exceptions consistently include
protections to the life of the mother in cases of rape and cases of
incest.
Were one to examine comprehensively the statutes and regulations of
this Nation, there are numerous similar occasions referred to
colloquially as the Hyde Amendment. I think that this amendment itself
is explanatory. I believe it is perfecting in nature. I think it is
quite possible that the drafters inadvertently omitted ``incest'' from
this bill, and I think that it carries the protection necessary for all
American women, whether incarcerated or not.
I don't think that the purpose of this bill was inadvertently or
through silence to narrow the protections that are afforded to women
under our Constitution. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I recognize that there may be a point of order to be raised here. I
would specifically urge my colleague to think twice before raising that
point of order. We are talking here about incest, a vile crime. Even if
there is a point of order to be raised here, it is optional. I would
hope that my colleagues would recognize that it is optional and that a
higher important principle is involved here.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I make a point of order against the
Grayson amendment on the ground that it constitutes legislation in an
appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The amendment does seek to change existing statutory law in a bill
designed to appropriate money by amending an existing provision, adding
the word ``or incest'' to the list of exceptions contained in the
statute.
Making a determination whether incest has occurred is not currently
required by this statutory provision and would result in a requirement
that the new determination be made. So, therefore, the amendment falls
outside of the standard of ``merely perfecting'' precisely because it
requires a new determination that is not required under the current
provision.
The amendment expands the universe of exceptions, Madam Chairman,
provided for in this section, and the existing determinations of
whether the life of the mother is in danger or there has been a rape do
not provide the information that would allow the determination that
incest has occurred.
As a result, the amendment violates clause 2 of rule XXI which
states:
``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order
if changing existing law.''
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. FATTAH. Yes.
The Acting CHAIR. For what purpose does the gentleman from
Pennsylvania seek recognition?
Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman would reserve his point of order.
Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, I would be glad to reserve the point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. In every single instance and when we deal with this
question in law, we provide an exception for incest, and for some
reason in the language, that is missing in this instance. So I thank
the gentleman for pointing that out.
I do realize that we are probably not on the right side of the point
of order, but I do think that it is an important point and that none of
us would want to create a circumstance where someone's choices were
limited if they were the victim of incest. So, hopefully, we will find
a way to deal with this notwithstanding the point of order. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I do insist on the point of order and
ask the Chair for a ruling.
Mr. GRAYSON. I would like to be heard on the point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas insists on the point of
order that he argued earlier. The gentleman from Florida is recognized
on the point of order.
Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Chair, laws have consequences. The scenario that
we are describing here is one where a female prisoner is the victim of
incest. If this law passes as currently written that female prisoner
will be forced to carry to term the child of an incestuous
relationship. I regard this as absolutely indefensible.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. CULBERSON. Parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. CULBERSON. If I could ask the gentleman to confine his remarks to
whether or not his amendment changes existing law.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair reminds Members to reserve their remarks
to the point of order.
Mr. GRAYSON. I would ask the gentleman to consider the consequences
of his action and withdraw the point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. Are there any other Members who wish to be heard on
the point of order? If not, the Chair will rule.
The gentleman from Texas makes a point of order that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Florida proposes to change existing law
in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
Under settled precedent, where legislative language is permitted to
remain in a general appropriation bill, a germane amendment merely
perfecting that language and not adding further language is in order,
but an amendment effecting further legislation is not in order.
The Chair finds that section 202 of the bill contains a legislative
limitation on the use of funds in the bill for abortion. Section 202
exempts from the limitation on funds those abortions involving rape and
those involving endangerment of the life of the mother were the fetus
carried to term. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
seeks to expand the exemptions to include cases of incest.
The Chair finds the ruling of July 16, 1998, instructive. On that
date, the Committee considered a general appropriation bill prescribing
legislative exceptions to a limitation on certain funding for abortion.
Those legislative exceptions included rape, incest, and the life of the
mother. In response to a point of order under clause 2 of rule XXI, the
exceptions were ruled out as requiring new determinations not required
by existing law.
While the exceptions in section 202 require certain determinations by
the agencies funded in the bill, the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida requires an additional determination, to wit: whether the
pregnancy to be terminated by abortion was the result of incest.
As such, the amendment does not merely perfect the legislative
limitation in section 202.
The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. The amendment is
not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated under this title
shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate
in any way the performance of, any abortion.
Sec. 204. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove
the obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to
provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to
receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided,
That nothing in this section in

[[Page H4953]]

any way diminishes the effect of section 203 intended to
address the philosophical beliefs of individual employees of
the Bureau of Prisons.
Sec. 205. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation
made available for the current fiscal year for the Department
of Justice in this Act may be transferred between such
appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as
otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more
than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any
transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a
reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this Act and
shall not be available for obligation except in compliance
with the procedures set forth in that section.
Sec. 206. The Attorney General is authorized to extend
through September 30, 2015, the Personnel Management
Demonstration Project transferred to the Attorney General
pursuant to section 1115 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-296; 28 U.S.C. 599B) without limitation on
the number of employees or the positions covered.
Sec. 207. None of the funds made available under this
title may be used by the Federal Bureau of Prisons or the
United States Marshals Service for the purpose of
transporting an individual who is a prisoner pursuant to
conviction for crime under State or Federal law and is
classified as a maximum or high security prisoner, other than
to a prison or other facility certified by the Federal Bureau
of Prisons as appropriately secure for housing such a
prisoner.
Sec. 208. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be used by Federal prisons to purchase cable television
services, or to rent or purchase audiovisual or electronic
media or equipment used primarily for recreational purposes.
(b) Subsection (a) does not preclude the rental,
maintenance, or purchase of audiovisual or electronic media
or equipment for inmate training, religious, or educational
programs.
Sec. 209. None of the funds made available under this
title shall be obligated or expended for any new or enhanced
information technology program having total estimated
development costs in excess of $100,000,000, unless the
Deputy Attorney General and the investment review board
certify to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate that the information
technology program has appropriate program management
controls and contractor oversight mechanisms in place, and
that the program is compatible with the enterprise
architecture of the Department of Justice.
Sec. 210. The notification thresholds and procedures set
forth in section 505 of this Act shall apply to deviations
from the amounts designated for specific activities in this
Act and in the report accompanying this Act, and to any use
of deobligated balances of funds provided under this title in
previous years.
Sec. 211. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used to plan for, begin, continue, finish, process, or
approve a public-private competition under the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any successor
administrative regulation, directive, or policy for work
performed by employees of the Bureau of Prisons or of Federal
Prison Industries, Incorporated.
Sec. 212. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
funds shall be available for the salary, benefits, or
expenses of any United States Attorney assigned dual or
additional responsibilities by the Attorney General or his
designee that exempt that United States Attorney from the
residency requirements of section 545 of title 28, United
States Code.
Sec. 213. At the discretion of the Attorney General, and
in addition to any amounts that otherwise may be available
(or authorized to be made available) by law, with respect to
funds appropriated by this title under the headings
``Research, Evaluation and Statistics'', ``State and Local
Law Enforcement Assistance'', and ``Juvenile Justice
Programs''--
(1) up to 3 percent of funds made available to the Office
of Justice Programs for grant or reimbursement programs may
be used by such Office to provide training and technical
assistance; and
(2) up to 2 percent of funds made available for grant or
reimbursement programs under such headings, except for
amounts appropriated specifically for research, evaluation,
or statistical programs administered by the National
Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
shall be transferred to and merged with funds provided to the
National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, to be used by them for research, evaluation, or
statistical purposes, without regard to the authorizations
for such grant or reimbursement programs.
Sec. 214. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
section 20109(a) of subtitle A of title II of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.
13709(a)) shall not apply to amounts made available by this
or any other Act.
Sec. 215. None of the funds made available under this Act,
other than for the national instant criminal background check
system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note), may be used by
a Federal law enforcement officer to facilitate the transfer
of an operable firearm to an individual if the Federal law
enforcement officer knows or suspects that the individual is
an agent of a drug cartel, unless law enforcement personnel
of the United States continuously monitor or control the
firearm at all times.
Sec. 216. (a) None of the income retained in the Department
of Justice Working Capital Fund pursuant to title I of Public
Law 102-140 (105 Stat. 784; 28 U.S.C. 527 note) shall be
available for obligation during fiscal year 2015.
(b) Not to exceed $30,000,000 of the unobligated balances
transferred to the capital account of the Department of
Justice Working Capital Fund pursuant to title I of Public
Law 102-140 (105 Stat. 784; 28 U.S.C. 527 note) shall be
available for obligation in fiscal year 2015, and any use,
obligation, transfer or allocation of such funds shall be
treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this
Act.
(c) Not to exceed $10,000,000 of the excess unobligated
balances available under section 524(c)(8)(E) of title 28,
United States Code, shall be available for obligation during
fiscal year 2015, and any use, obligation, transfer or
allocation of such funds shall be treated as a reprogramming
of funds under section 505 of this Act.
(d) Of amounts available in the Assets Forfeiture Fund in
fiscal year 2015, $154,700,000 shall be for payments
associated with joint law enforcement operations as
authorized by section 524(c)(1)(I) of title 28, United States
Code.
(e) The Attorney General shall submit a spending plan to
the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate not later than 30 days after
the date of enactment of this Act detailing the planned
distribution of Assets Forfeiture Fund joint law enforcement
operations funding during fiscal year 2015.
This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice
Appropriations Act, 2015''.

TITLE III

SCIENCE

Office of Science and Technology Policy

For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the
National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and
Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.), hire of
passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by
section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, not to exceed
$2,250 for official reception and representation expenses,
and rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia,
$5,555,000.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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

Page 60, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
Page 100, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, this amendment would reduce the
Office of Science and Technology Policy by $1 million and apply that
amount to the spending reduction account.
As chairman of the House Science Oversight Subcommittee, it has come
to my attention that there is, or at least was, an Affordable Care Act
Information Technology Exchanges Steering Committee, chaired by White
House officials and established in May 2012, almost a year and a half
before the rollout of healthcare.gov.
That White House Steering Committee's charter explicitly directed the
formulation of working groups, including one on security. It also turns
out that a cochairman of this ObamaCare Web site Steering Committee is
the U.S. Chief Technology Officer in the White House Office of Science
and Technology Policy, Mr. Todd Park.
Upon learning this, I, as chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee,
along with full committee Chairman Smith, and Research and Technology
Subcommittee Chairman Dr. Bucshon, sent a December 20, 2013, letter to
the White House requesting that Mr. Park make himself available to the
committee to answer questions regarding the security issues with
healthcare.gov by January 10.
As we stand here today, OSTP has ignored the committee's request for
Mr. Park to testify and has done so three times. Don't the American
people deserve answers from those who are in charge of overseeing the
implementation of the ObamaCare Web site's security protocol? After
all, Mr. Park is a deputy to OSTP Director Holdren.
But when asked at a March 26, 2014, hearing before the Science
Committee about Mr. Park's refusal to testify, Director Holdren stated
that Todd Park ``doesn't report to me. I can't compel him to come and
testify.''
Well, if he does not report to the OSTP director, why are he and his
Office of the Chief Technology Officer an

[[Page H4954]]

official part of the Office of Science and Technology Policy that the
OSTP director supposedly directs, manages, and supports?
If Mr. Todd Park does not, in fact, report to OSTP, then his office
should not be funded by OSTP, and I seek now, through this amendment to
make that correction immediately.
I offered a similar amendment, which passed by a voice vote, during
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology markup of H.R. 4186,
the FIRST Act.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, as well, and I yield
back the balance of my time.

{time} 1630

Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment, but I would hope
that we can work it out. If you wanted to offer a different amendment
with regard to the health care issue, I will support it, if we can find
a way, but the concern I have is OSTP is a small office.
This is roughly cutting 20 percent of their entire budget. In the
last 2 years alone--and I agree with what the gentleman said on the
health care aspect--our subcommittee has tasked OSTP with coordinating
a major interagency effort on neuroscience, overseeing the
implementation of policy across the government on public access to
Federally funded research results, cochairing an effort to streamline
and prioritize Federal STEM education and spending, and assessing the
American supply chain vulnerability stemming from the lack of domestic
access to rare earth elements, which is another problem that we are
beginning to have with China.
If we reduce the OSTP by 20 percent and if the gentleman would offer
another amendment to reduce it by, you know, $50,000, I would accept
the amendment or take the amendment, I can't speak for the other side,
but to cut it by 20 percent, that is just too much.
So until there is a different amendment that would meet the
gentleman's need, as I agree with him on health care, we would accept
it, but to take 20 percent out, particularly since--and I know Mr.
Fattah has been working with the whole issue of neuroscience and the
brain, I would oppose the amendment.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work
this out. Of course, we don't have time to come back with another
amendment. I suspect, as soon as we finish with this one, we will move
forward, but I would like to work with you, Mr. Chairman, as well as
the ranking member, to try to find something.
Mr. Holdren says Mr. Park doesn't answer to him, and supposedly, this
guy is a member of the OSTP staff, and he has refused to come before
our Oversight Committee. We just have to find some way. If he is not
part of OSTP, why should we fund anything dealing with what he is doing
there? That is the point of this.
Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I completely agree. What I will do is
we will call the OSTP and ask Mr. Holdren to come up with the gentleman
and get him, and you can come to the meeting, too.
Quite frankly, if he doesn't come, I will offer, when we go to
conference, to take a chunk out of this to make sure that you get
answers. We would like to bring Mr. Holdren up so that Chairman Broun
will have an opportunity to talk to the individual. I will help him get
the individual up.
It will be in your office, not in mine. We will ask Holdren to come
up the week we come back in.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Would you agree to a $150,000 cut?
Mr. WOLF. Yes. If he doesn't come up, I would. If he does not come
up, I would. I will.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, OSTP is doing enormously important work on
behalf of our country, and Congress also has an oversight role, and if
the chairman of the Oversight Committee is having difficulty getting an
answer to a question, I would be glad to try to help facilitate that
and work with the chairman.
We do have some arcane rules here in Washington about advisers to the
President not being in a position to be able to talk directly to
Congress, but the head of the agency, as the chairman said, could be
brought up with his subordinate, Mr. Park, to answer whatever questions
there may be.
I kind of think that we are closing the door on that particular issue
relative to the Affordable Care Act, but you deserve answers, no matter
what, on this question, but when we talk about the budget of this
agency, when there are 50 million Americans suffering from brain-
related diseases, when China has almost an absolute monopoly on rare
earth elements that we need to find our way around for national
security and other reasons, OSTP is doing some vitally important work,
and we can't take 20 percent of their budget, but we can get to the
point where you can get the answers that you desire and rightfully.
You are the anchor of the Thursday prayer group, and you are someone
who is a responsible Member of Congress, and we want to make sure that
you get your answers. I will work with the chairman.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I appreciate that. The question we have--we
have asked Mr. Park to come three times, and then we had Mr. Holdren
come to the full committee, and Mr. Park is in OSTP, and Mr. Holdren is
chairman of OSTP, and he said Mr. Park doesn't work for him.
So if he doesn't work for him, then why should we be paying salary
and expenses and things like that? That is the point.
Mr. FATTAH. What the chairman offered--he said $150,000 if we can't
get you Holdren or someone to give you a satisfactory answer to your
question. There are some rules about executive branch agents,
individuals, and advisers to the President not being compelled to
testify, but when you have line staff people running an agency, Holdren
is available, and we can have him come with his staff and answer these
questions.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I appreciate the offer of both
gentlemen to work with me. It is our responsibility in Congress to have
oversight. I am the chairman of the Oversight Committee on Science,
Space and Technology. We have had tremendous problems with not only
this department, but many others, in getting people to come and just
tell us what is going on, to testify before our committee.
We have been rebuffed and rebuffed time and time again, ignored time
and time again by this administration. This is the only way I see to
get at these people.
Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, let me say: Let's work through it. We
can work together.
The chairman has given you his assurances that he will work with you,
but there is no possibility that we can afford to cut this agency by 20
percent. I need to oppose this amendment.
We would love to work with you to get you the answers because you are
not trying to punish OSTP, you are trying to get legitimate answers to
legitimate questions, and we want to help you and facilitate that.
Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I appreciate that.
Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I think we have resolved this, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. WOLF. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Culberson) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Black, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state

[[Page H4955]]

of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under
consideration the bill (H.R. 4660) making appropriations for the
Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, had
come to no resolution thereon.

____________________