[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 12928-12972]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




SCIENCE, STATE, JUSTICE, COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2007

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

               procurement, acquisition and construction

       For procurement, acquisition and construction of capital 
     assets, including alteration and modification costs, of the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
     $996,703,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009: 
     Provided, That of the amounts provided for the National 
     Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System, 
     funds shall only be made available on a dollar for dollar 
     matching basis with funds provided for the same purpose by 
     the Department of Defense: Provided further, That except to 
     the extent expressly prohibited by any other law, the 
     Department of Defense may delegate procurement functions 
     related to the National Polar-orbiting Operational 
     Environmental Satellite System to officials of the Department 
     of Commerce pursuant to section 2311 of title 10, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That any deviation from the 
     amounts designated for specific activities in the report 
     accompanying this Act, or any use of deobligated balances of 
     funds provided under this heading in previous years, shall be 
     subject to the procedures set forth in section 605 of this 
     Act.

                    pacific coastal salmon recovery

       For necessary expenses associated with the restoration of 
     Pacific salmon populations, $20,000,000: Provided, That this 
     amount shall be available to fund grants to the States of 
     Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, and Alaska, and to the 
     Columbia River and Pacific Coastal Tribes for projects 
     necessary for restoration of salmon and steelhead populations 
     that are listed as threatened or endangered, or identified by 
     a State as at-risk to be so-listed, for maintaining 
     populations necessary for exercise of tribal treaty fishing 
     rights or native subsistence fishing, or for conservation of 
     Pacific coastal salmon and steelhead habitat: Provided 
     further, That funds disbursed to States shall be subject to a 
     matching requirement of funds or documented in-kind 
     contributions of at least thirty-three percent of the Federal 
     funds: Provided further, That non-Federal funds provided 
     pursuant to the second proviso be used in direct support of 
     this program.

                      coastal zone management fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Of amounts collected pursuant to section 308 of the Coastal 
     Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1456a), not to exceed 
     $3,000,000 shall be transferred to the ``Operations, 
     Research, and Facilities'' account to offset the costs of 
     implementing such Act.

                   fisheries finance program account

       For the costs of direct loans, $287,000, as authorized by 
     the Merchant Marine Act of 1936: Provided, That such costs, 
     including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be as 
     defined in the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990: Provided 
     further, That these funds are only available to subsidize 
     gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans 
     not to exceed $5,000,000 for Individual Fishing Quota loans, 
     and not to exceed $59,000,000 for traditional direct loans, 
     of which $19,000,000 may be used for direct loans to the 
     United States menhaden fishery: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds made available under this heading may be used 
     for direct loans for any new fishing vessel that will 
     increase the harvesting capacity in any United States 
     fishery.

                                 Other


             salaries and expenses, departmental management

       For expenses necessary for the departmental management of 
     the Department of Commerce provided for by law, including not 
     to exceed $5,000 for official entertainment, $52,760,000, of 
     which $5,900,000 shall be for blast mitigation at the Herbert 
     C. Hoover Building and $990,000 shall be for necessary 
     expenses of the National Intellectual Property Law 
     Enforcement Coordination Council.


                Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Pallone

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

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Pallone:
       Page 50, line 21, insert ``(decreased by $1,000,000) 
     (increased by $1,000,000)'' after ``$52,760,000''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide $1 million for the Secretary 
of Commerce to contract with the National Academy of Sciences for the 
purpose of preparing a study on which U.S. coastal population centers 
are most at risk from the impacts of sea level rise due to global 
warming. These impacts could include inundation, coastal flooding, more 
intense storms, such as hurricanes, saline intrusion and a host of 
other damaging effects.
  Last November, scientists at Princeton University released a report 
that found that under a worst case global warming scenario, more than 3 
percent of my home State of New Jersey could be underwater by the end 
of the century. A full 9 percent of the State would be subject to 
constant coastal flooding, and so-called 100-year storms would occur 
every 5 years.
  But, of course, New Jersey is by no means the only area facing this 
threat. More than half of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of 
an ocean, many in cities that are at or just above sea level. What 
seems like a small rise in sea level, just a foot or two, could have 
dramatic effects on the magnitude of storm surges or other flooding 
events, causing catastrophic and costly damage in some of our largest 
cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Seattle and Boston.
  I think a mere $1 million offset from the administrative expenses of 
the Department of Commerce is but a small price to pay for us to get a 
better idea of what coastal areas would be most affected by sea level 
rise due to global warming.
  And I would point out, Mr. Chairman, just look at what happened last 
week in Washington, D.C. I heard on the radio this morning that we 
actually faced here what is called a 300-year storm. So, in fact, what 
needs to be done is that cities around the country need to be able to 
prepare for this.
  We had a forum on global warming in my district a few weeks ago. A 
number of the mayors came there. They reacted to some of the 
information that is out there and are already preparing plans. So this 
is just really a preventative measure that I think would be really 
crucial for a lot of our coastal districts around the country, 
including the city of Washington, D.C.
  I would ask my colleagues whose districts would be affected by sea 
level rise and others from around the country, who will also see 
impacts from global warming, to join me in voting to fund this small 
but critical study.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment 
increases and decreases the amount for the Department of Commerce's 
Departmental Management Account. There is no net effect on the funding 
level of the account.
  I have no objection to the gentleman's amendment. The committee 
accepts the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments that were made 
by my colleague, but I have two speakers who would like to speak.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman).

[[Page 12929]]


  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Congressman 
Pallone's amendment to provide funding to the National Academy of 
Sciences to study the impacts of global warming on our coastal areas.
  Coastal communities are at serious risk from global warming. We must 
better understand the specific threats faced by each coastal community 
to give ourselves a chance to prepare.
  As the Earth warms, the sea level is rising. Scientists tell us that 
global warming likely caused 4 to 8 inches of sea level rise in the 
last century. Over the next 100 years, we may see up to 3 additional 
feet of sea level rise.
  Warmer water fuels more intense hurricanes and tropical storms. Coral 
reefs are being damaged by both warmer water and increased ocean 
acidity from carbon dioxide.
  Coastal communities need to know what they are up against. The 
effects of sea level rise include coastal erosion, land loss, 
disappearing beaches, saltwater intrusion into underground drinking 
water supplies, higher storm surges, damages to houses and roads, and 
harm to fisheries. And we have already seen the devastation that 
hurricanes and tropical storms could wreak on our coastal communities.
  Coastal communities, such as Los Angeles, will be affected by changes 
inland. One-third of our precious water supplies come from the Sierra 
snowpack.
  Of course, we must do much more than just try to adapt to massive 
temperature rises. The costs of that are far too high. We must 
dramatically cut our greenhouse gas emissions over the next few decades 
to avoid highly dangerous and irreversible warming. That is why last 
week, together with Congressman Pallone and other colleagues, I 
introduced the Safe Climate Act. The Safe Climate Act reflects what 
science says we need to do to protect our children and grandchildren 
from disastrous climate changes.
  While prompt action is necessary to avert the worst effects of 
climate change, this administration and the Congress are refusing to 
act. In the meantime, our coastal communities are at risk.
  The Pallone amendment is a simple, commonsense measure to assess some 
of these vulnerabilities. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island, the Ocean State.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for drawing attention to the important issue of climate 
change.
  Last week, the National Academy of Sciences concluded that ``the last 
few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period 
in the last 400 years.''
  We can no longer ignore the fact that human activities, particularly 
the burning of fossil fuels, have increased carbon dioxide and other 
greenhouse gases and contributed to changes in the Earth's climate.
  The Pallone amendment recognizes that climate change threatens our 
coastal communities. In States like Rhode Island, which has about 400 
miles of coastline and a significant portion of the population lives 
along the coast, the impact of rising sea levels would be downright 
disastrous. Beach erosion would lead to greater flooding and endanger 
our tourism-based economy, while the destruction of wetlands would 
eradicate wildlife habitat and reduce the natural buffer against storm 
surges.
  Mr. Chairman, global warming threatens to have a devastating impact 
on our Nation's environment and economy, and Congress must take swift 
action. We can start by funding important research into climate change 
impacts on our communities. And I urge my colleagues to support the 
Pallone amendment.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pallone 
Amendment. This amendment directs the Department of Commerce to provide 
$1 million for the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of 
U.S. coastal areas facing the greatest impacts from global warming. My 
district of Guam, as an island in the Western Pacific, is in its 
entirety a coastal community. Guam is one of the several American 
communities directly facing the challenges associated with global 
climate change.
  The islands in Oceania, including Guam, are particularly vulnerable 
to climate change, climate variability and sea level rise. Increased 
scientific and public policy cooperation on this issue would stand to 
benefit our island and coastal communities. The off-shore territories 
should not be neglected in the national effort to identify and address 
the challenges associated with this phenomenon.
  We can identify and mitigate the effects of climate change by 
studying its impacts on our islands and coastlines. This amendment 
proposes a quality initial investment towards achieving this end. Our 
country can save money in the future and work towards protecting our 
lands and natural resources with this $1 million investment.
  I support the Pallone Amendment. Its provisions are critical to 
helping us understand what areas of our country are most at risk. The 
study that would be funded by this amendment would yield the 
information we need to make more informed public policy decisions for 
the preservation of our country's coastlines.
  I thank the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, and our colleague 
from Washington, Mr. Inslee, for their leadership on this issue. I urge 
support for their amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $22,531,000.

               General Provisions--Department of Commerce

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 201. During the current fiscal year, applicable 
     appropriations and funds made available to the Department of 
     Commerce by this Act shall be available for the activities 
     specified in the Act of October 26, 1949 (15 U.S.C. 1514), to 
     the extent and in the manner prescribed by the Act, and, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3324, may be used for advanced 
     payments not otherwise authorized only upon the certification 
     of officials designated by the Secretary of Commerce that 
     such payments are in the public interest.
       Sec. 202. During the current fiscal year, appropriations 
     made available to the Department of Commerce by this Act for 
     salaries and expenses shall be available for hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 
     1344; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and uniforms 
     or allowances therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-
     5902).
       Sec. 203. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Commerce in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That 
     any transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of Commerce shall notify 
     the Committees on Appropriations at least 15 days in advance 
     of the acquisition or disposal of any capital asset 
     (including land, structures, and equipment) not specifically 
     provided for in this or any other Appropriations Act.
       Sec. 204. Any costs incurred by a department or agency 
     funded under this title resulting from personnel actions 
     taken in response to funding reductions included in this 
     title or from actions taken for the care and protection of 
     loan collateral or grant property shall be absorbed within 
     the total budgetary resources available to such department or 
     agency: Provided, That the authority to transfer funds 
     between appropriations accounts as may be necessary to carry 
     out this section is provided in addition to authorities 
     included elsewhere in this Act: Provided further, That use of 
     funds to carry out this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 205. Section 214 of division B of Public Law 108-447 
     (118 Stat. 2884-86) is amended by (1) inserting ``and subject 
     to subsection (f),'' following ``program,'' in section (a); 
     and (2) striking subsection (f) and inserting:
       ``(f) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     carry out the provisions of this section, up to $4,000,000 
     annually.''.
       Sec. 206. (a) Section 318 of the National Marine 
     Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. 1445c), is amended by (1) 
     inserting ``and subject to subsection (e),'' following 
     ``program,'' in subsection (a); and (2) striking subsection 
     (e) and inserting:
        ``(e) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Commerce

[[Page 12930]]

     up to $500,000 annually, to carry out the provisions of this 
     section.''.
       (b) Section 210 of the Department of Commerce and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-553) is 
     repealed.
       Sec. 207. Any funds provided in this Act under ``Department 
     of Commerce'' used to implement E-Government Initiatives 
     shall be subject to the procedures set forth in section 605 
     of this Act.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Commerce and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2007''.

                           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. 6601-6671), hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in 
     the District of Columbia, $5,369,000: Provided, That the 
     Office of Science and Technology Policy shall establish an 
     Ethics Advisory Group for the National Nanotechnology 
     Initiative focused on questions of human dignity: Provided 
     further, That the Office of Science and Technology Policy 
     shall report to the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives by March 31, 2007, on specific actions 
     planned and taken in response to the work of the National 
     Science and Technology Council and the Academic 
     Competitiveness Council with regard to improving science and 
     math education in the United States.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration

                  science, aeronautics and exploration

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of science, aeronautics and exploration 
     research and development activities, including research, 
     development, operations, support and services; maintenance; 
     construction of facilities including repair, rehabilitation, 
     revitalization, and modification of facilities, construction 
     of new facilities and additions to existing facilities, 
     facility planning and design, and restoration, and 
     acquisition or condemnation of real property, as authorized 
     by law; environmental compliance and restoration; space 
     flight, spacecraft control and communications activities 
     including operations, production, and services; program 
     management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms 
     or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles; not to exceed $35,000 for official reception and 
     representation expenses; and purchase, lease, charter, 
     maintenance and operation of mission and administrative 
     aircraft, $10,482,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2008, of which $5,404,800,000 shall be for 
     science, $3,827,600,000 shall be for exploration systems, 
     $824,400,000 shall be for aeronautics research, and 
     $425,200,000 shall be for cross-agency support programs: 
     Provided, That any funds provided under this heading used to 
     implement E-Government Initiatives shall be subject to the 
     procedures set forth in section 605 of this Act.

                        exploration capabilities

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of exploration capabilities research and 
     development activities, including research, development, 
     operations, support and services; maintenance; construction 
     of facilities including repair, rehabilitation, 
     revitalization and modification of facilities, construction 
     of new facilities and additions to existing facilities, 
     facility planning and design, and acquisition or condemnation 
     of real property, as authorized by law; environmental 
     compliance and restoration; space flight, spacecraft control 
     and communications activities including operations, 
     production, and services; program management; personnel and 
     related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; travel expenses; purchase 
     and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $35,000 
     for official reception and representation expenses; and 
     purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and operation of 
     mission and administrative aircraft, $6,193,500,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2008, of which 
     $1,777,900,000 shall be for the International Space Station, 
     $4,056,700,000 shall be for the Space Shuttle, and 
     $358,900,000 shall be for space and flight suport: Provided, 
     That any funds provided under this heading used to implement 
     E-Government Initiatives shall be subject to the procedures 
     set forth in section 605 of this Act.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $33,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2008.


                       Administrative Provisions

       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Science, Aeronautics and Exploration'', or 
     ``Exploration Capabilities'' by this appropriations Act, when 
     any activity has been initiated by the incurrence of 
     obligations for construction of facilities or environmental 
     compliance and restoration activities as authorized by law, 
     such amount available for such activity shall remain 
     available until expended. This provision does not apply to 
     the amounts appropriated for institutional minor 
     revitalization and construction of facilities, and 
     institutional facility planning and design.
       Notwithstanding the limitation on the availability of funds 
     appropriated for ``Science, Aeronautics and Exploration'', or 
     ``Exploration Capabilities'' by this appropriations Act, the 
     amounts appropriated for construction of facilities shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2009.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California for a colloquy 
with the chairman.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a colloquy with the chairman of the committee, 
Mr. Wolf.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to see language in the SSJC appropriations 
report giving directives to NOAA and the Secretary of Commerce 
regarding the salmon in the Klamath River.
  Though the river does not flow directly through my district, my 
salmon fishermen and related industries are greatly impacted. The 
National Marine Fisheries Service severely restricted the 2006 salmon 
season, after significantly cutting the 2005 season. This has caused 
undue financial hardships for local fishing communities, causing the 
Governors of both California and Oregon to declare it a fishery 
disaster.
  There is definitely an immediate need to provide emergency funding to 
those impacted. However, we need to start addressing long-term needs to 
restore the habitat and rebuild the salmon population so that we do not 
find ourselves with a crisis every year. It would take a relatively 
small amount to curb much greater economic losses in the future.
  Would the chairman be willing to work toward increasing the amount of 
funding from the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund to be used for 
the Klamath River restoration projects and salmon recovery? This 
important granting fund has already been reduced by almost $47 million 
below what the President requested in the fiscal year `06 enacted 
levels, so I further ask the chairman to work to restore funding during 
the conference committee.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I understand 
your concerns, Mr. Farr. I agree there is a need to seek a long-term 
solution to the problems in the Klamath Basin and appreciate your 
leadership on this issue. I commit, as we have spoken, to improve the 
levels of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund in conference for 
restoration and also for recovery.
  Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your cooperation 
and for all the hard work on this important bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Funds for announced prizes otherwise authorized shall 
     remain available, without fiscal year limitation, until the 
     prize is claimed or the offer is withdrawn.
       Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available 
     for the current fiscal year for the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration in this Act may be transferred between 
     such appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by any such transfers. Any transfer pursuant 
     to this provision shall be treated as a reprogramming of 
     funds under section 605 of this Act and shall not be 
     available for obligation except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.

                      National Science Foundation

                    research and related activities

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), and 
     the Act to establish a National Medal of Science (42 U.S.C. 
     1880-1881); services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; 
     maintenance and operation of aircraft and purchase of flight 
     services for research support; acquisition of aircraft; and 
     authorized travel; $4,665,950,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2008, of which not to exceed $485,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for Polar research and 
     operations support, and for reimbursement to other Federal 
     agencies for operational and

[[Page 12931]]

     science support and logistical and other related activities 
     for the United States Antarctic program: Provided, That 
     receipts for scientific support services and materials 
     furnished by the National Research Centers and other National 
     Science Foundation supported research facilities may be 
     credited to this appropriation: Provided further, That funds 
     under this heading may be available for innovation inducement 
     prizes: Provided further, That section 11(f) of the National 
     Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1870(f)) is amended 
     by inserting before the semicolon at the end ``, except that 
     funds may be donated for specific prize competitions.''.

          major research equipment and facilities construction

       For necessary expenses for the acquisition, construction, 
     commissioning, and upgrading of major research equipment, 
     facilities, and other such capital assets pursuant to the 
     National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, 
     including authorized travel, $237,250,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

                     education and human resources

       For necessary expenses in carrying out science and 
     engineering education and human resources programs and 
     activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 
     1950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, authorized travel, and rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia, $832,432,000, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2008.

                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses necessary in carrying out the 
     National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended (42 
     U.S.C. 1861-1875); services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $9,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; uniforms or 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia; and 
     reimbursement of the General Services Administration for 
     security guard services; $268,610,000: Provided, That 
     contracts may be entered into under ``Salaries and Expenses'' 
     in fiscal year 2007 for maintenance and operation of 
     facilities, and for other services, to be provided during the 
     next fiscal year.

                  office of the national science board

       For necessary expenses (including payment of salaries, 
     authorized travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, the 
     rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia, and 
     the employment of experts and consultants under section 3109 
     of title 5, United States Code) involved in carrying out 
     section 4 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 
     U.S.C. 1863) and Public Law 86-209 (42 U.S.C. 1880 et seq.), 
     $3,910,000: Provided, That not more than $9,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 
     amended, $11,860,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2008.
       This title may be cited as the ``Science Appropriations 
     Act, 2007''.

            TITLE IV--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCY

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   Administration of Foreign Affairs

                    diplomatic and consular programs

       For necessary expenses of the Department of State and the 
     Foreign Service not otherwise provided for, including 
     employment, without regard to civil service and 
     classification laws, of persons on a temporary basis (not to 
     exceed $700,000 of this appropriation), as authorized by 
     section 801 of the United States Information and Educational 
     Exchange Act of 1948; representation to certain international 
     organizations in which the United States participates 
     pursuant to treaties ratified pursuant to the advice and 
     consent of the Senate or specific Acts of Congress; arms 
     control, nonproliferation and disarmament activities as 
     authorized; acquisition by exchange or purchase of passenger 
     motor vehicles as authorized by law; and for expenses of 
     general administration, $3,709,914,000: Provided, That of the 
     amount made available under this heading, not to exceed 
     $4,000,000 may be transferred to, and merged with, funds in 
     the ``Emergencies in the Diplomatic and Consular Service'' 
     appropriations account, to be available only for emergency 
     evacuations and terrorism rewards: Provided further, That of 
     the amount made available under this heading, not less than 
     $351,000,000 shall be available only for public diplomacy 
     international information programs: Provided further, That of 
     the amount made available under this heading, $3,000,000 
     shall be available only for the operations of the Office on 
     Right-Sizing the United States Government Overseas Presence: 
     Provided further, That funds available under this heading may 
     be available for a United States Government interagency task 
     force to examine, coordinate and oversee United States 
     participation in the United Nations headquarters renovation 
     project: Provided further, That no funds may be obligated or 
     expended for processing licenses for the export of satellites 
     of United States origin (including commercial satellites and 
     satellite components) to the People's Republic of China 
     unless, at least 15 days in advance, the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate 
     are notified of such proposed action: Provided further, That 
     funds appropriated under this heading are available, pursuant 
     to 31 U.S.C. 1108(g), for the field examination of programs 
     and activities in the United States funded from any account 
     contained in this title.
       In addition, not to exceed $1,513,000 shall be derived from 
     fees collected from other executive agencies for lease or use 
     of facilities located at the International Center in 
     accordance with section 4 of the International Center Act; in 
     addition, as authorized by section 5 of such Act, $490,000, 
     to be derived from the reserve authorized by that section, to 
     be used for the purposes set out in that section; in 
     addition, as authorized by section 810 of the United States 
     Information and Educational Exchange Act, not to exceed 
     $6,000,000, to remain available until expended, may be 
     credited to this appropriation from fees or other payments 
     received from English teaching, library, motion pictures, and 
     publication programs and from fees from educational advising 
     and counseling and exchange visitor programs; and, in 
     addition, not to exceed $15,000, which shall be derived from 
     reimbursements, surcharges, and fees for use of Blair House 
     facilities.
       In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades, 
     $795,170,000, to remain available until expended.

                        capital investment fund

       For necessary expenses of the Capital Investment Fund, 
     $58,143,000, to remain available until expended, as 
     authorized: Provided, That section 135(e) of Public Law 103-
     236 shall not apply to funds available under this heading.

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General, 
     $32,508,000, notwithstanding section 209(a)(1) of the Foreign 
     Service Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-465), as it relates to 
     post inspections.

               educational and cultural exchange programs

       For expenses of educational and cultural exchange programs, 
     as authorized, $436,275,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, may be credited to this 
     appropriation from fees or other payments received from or in 
     connection with English teaching, educational advising and 
     counseling programs, and exchange visitor programs as 
     authorized.

                       representation allowances

       For representation allowances as authorized, $8,175,000.

              protection of foreign missions and officials

       For expenses, not otherwise provided, to enable the 
     Secretary of State to provide for extraordinary protective 
     services, as authorized, $9,270,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2008.

            embassy security, construction, and maintenance

       For necessary expenses for carrying out the Foreign Service 
     Buildings Act of 1926 (22 U.S.C. 292-303), preserving, 
     maintaining, repairing, and planning for buildings that are 
     owned or directly leased by the Department of State, 
     renovating, in addition to funds otherwise available, the 
     Harry S Truman Building, and carrying out the Diplomatic 
     Security Construction Program as authorized, $605,652,000, to 
     remain available until expended as authorized, of which not 
     to exceed $25,000 may be used for domestic and overseas 
     representation as authorized: Provided, That none of the 
     funds appropriated in this paragraph shall be available for 
     acquisition of furniture, furnishings, or generators for 
     other departments and agencies.
       In addition, for the costs of worldwide security upgrades, 
     acquisition, and construction as authorized, $899,368,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

           emergencies in the diplomatic and consular service

       For expenses necessary to enable the Secretary of State to 
     meet unforeseen emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and 
     Consular Service, $4,940,000, to remain available until 
     expended as authorized, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 may 
     be transferred to and merged with the ``Repatriation Loans 
     Program Account'', subject to the same terms and conditions.

                   repatriation loans program account

       For the cost of direct loans, $695,000, as authorized: 
     Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying 
     such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry 
     out the direct loan program, $590,000, which may be 
     transferred to and merged with funds in the ``Diplomatic and 
     Consular Programs'' account.

              payment to the american institute in taiwan

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Taiwan Relations 
     Act (Public Law 96-8), $15,826,000.

[[Page 12932]]



     payment to the foreign service retirement and disability fund

       For payment to the Foreign Service Retirement and 
     Disability Fund, as authorized by law, $125,000,000.

                      International Organizations

              contributions to international organizations

       For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary to meet 
     annual obligations of membership in international 
     multilateral organizations, pursuant to treaties ratified 
     pursuant to the advice and consent of the Senate, conventions 
     or specific Acts of Congress, $1,151,318,000: Provided, That 
     the Secretary of State shall, at the time of the submission 
     of the President's budget to Congress under section 1105(a) 
     of title 31, United States Code, transmit to the Committees 
     on Appropriations the most recent biennial budget prepared by 
     the United Nations for the operations of the United Nations: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary of State shall notify 
     the Committees on Appropriations at least 15 days in advance 
     (or in an emergency, as far in advance as is practicable) of 
     any United Nations action to increase funding for any United 
     Nations program without identifying an offsetting decrease 
     elsewhere in the United Nations budget and cause the United 
     Nations budget for the biennium 2006-2007 to exceed 
     $3,798,912,500: Provided further, That any payment of 
     arrearages under this title shall be directed toward special 
     activities that are mutually agreed upon by the United States 
     and the respective international organization: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph shall be available for a United States contribution 
     to an international organization for the United States share 
     of interest costs made known to the United States Government 
     by such organization for loans incurred on or after October 
     1, 1984, through external borrowings.

        contributions for international peacekeeping activities

       For necessary expenses to pay assessed and other expenses 
     of international peacekeeping activities directed to the 
     maintenance or restoration of international peace and 
     security, $1,135,327,000, of which 15 percent shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That none of 
     the funds made available under this Act shall be obligated or 
     expended for any new or expanded United Nations peacekeeping 
     mission unless, at least 15 days in advance of voting for the 
     new or expanded mission in the United Nations Security 
     Council (or in an emergency as far in advance as is 
     practicable): (1) the Committees on Appropriations and other 
     appropriate committees of the Congress are notified of the 
     estimated cost and length of the mission, the national 
     interest that will be served, and the planned exit strategy; 
     (2) the Committees on Appropriations and other appropriate 
     committees of the Congress are notified that the United 
     Nations has taken appropriate measures to prevent United 
     Nations employees, contractor personnel, and peacekeeping 
     forces serving in any United Nations peacekeeping mission 
     from trafficking in persons, exploiting victims of 
     trafficking, or committing acts of illegal sexual 
     exploitation, and to hold accountable individuals who engage 
     in such acts while participating in the peacekeeping mission; 
     and (3) a reprogramming of funds pursuant to section 605 of 
     this Act is submitted, and the procedures therein followed, 
     setting forth the source of funds that will be used to pay 
     for the cost of the new or expanded mission: Provided 
     further, That funds shall be available for peacekeeping 
     expenses only upon a certification by the Secretary of State 
     to the appropriate committees of the Congress that American 
     manufacturers and suppliers are being given opportunities to 
     provide equipment, services, and material for United Nations 
     peacekeeping activities equal to those being given to foreign 
     manufacturers and suppliers.

                       International Commissions

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, to meet 
     obligations of the United States arising under treaties, or 
     specific Acts of Congress, as follows:

 international boundary and water commission, united states and mexico

       For necessary expenses for the United States Section of the 
     International Boundary and Water Commission, United States 
     and Mexico, and to comply with laws applicable to the United 
     States Section, including not to exceed $6,000 for 
     representation; as follows:

                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses, not otherwise provided for, 
     $28,453,000.

                              construction

       For detailed plan preparation and construction of 
     authorized projects, $9,237,000, to remain available until 
     expended, as authorized.

              american sections, international commissions

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided, for the 
     International Joint Commission and the International Boundary 
     Commission, United States and Canada, as authorized by 
     treaties between the United States and Canada or Great 
     Britain, and for the Border Environment Cooperation 
     Commission as authorized by Public Law 103-182, $9,587,000, 
     of which not to exceed $9,000 shall be available for 
     representation expenses incurred by the International Joint 
     Commission.

                  international fisheries commissions

       For necessary expenses for international fisheries 
     commissions, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by 
     law, $20,651,000: Provided, That the United States' share of 
     such expenses may be advanced to the respective commissions 
     pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3324.

                                 Other

                     payment to the asia foundation

       For a grant to the Asia Foundation, as authorized by the 
     Asia Foundation Act (22 U.S.C. 4402), $13,821,000, to remain 
     available until expended, as authorized.


         Center for Middle Eastern-Western Dialogue Trust Fund

       For necessary expenses of the Center for Middle Eastern-
     Western Dialogue Trust Fund, the total amount of the interest 
     and earnings accruing to such Fund on or before September 30, 
     2007, to remain available until expended.

                 eisenhower exchange fellowship program

       For necessary expenses of Eisenhower Exchange Fellowships, 
     Incorporated, as authorized by sections 4 and 5 of the 
     Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act of 1990 (20 U.S.C. 5204-
     5205), all interest and earnings accruing to the Eisenhower 
     Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund on or before September 
     30, 2007, to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to pay 
     any salary or other compensation, or to enter into any 
     contract providing for the payment thereof, in excess of the 
     rate authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5376; or for purposes which are 
     not in accordance with OMB Circulars A-110 (Uniform 
     Administrative Requirements) and A-122 (Cost Principles for 
     Non-profit Organizations), including the restrictions on 
     compensation for personal services.

                    israeli arab scholarship program

       For necessary expenses of the Israeli Arab Scholarship 
     Program as authorized by section 214 of the Foreign Relations 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (22 U.S.C. 
     2452), all interest and earnings accruing to the Israeli Arab 
     Scholarship Fund on or before September 30, 2007, to remain 
     available until expended.

                            east-west center

       To enable the Secretary of State to provide for carrying 
     out the provisions of the Center for Cultural and Technical 
     Interchange Between East and West Act of 1960, by grant to 
     the Center for Cultural and Technical Interchange Between 
     East and West in the State of Hawaii, $3,000,000: Provided, 
     That none of the funds appropriated herein shall be used to 
     pay any salary, or enter into any contract providing for the 
     payment thereof, in excess of the rate authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     5376.

                    national endowment for democracy

       For grants made by the Department of State to the National 
     Endowment for Democracy as authorized by the National 
     Endowment for Democracy Act, $50,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                    Broadcasting Board of Governors

                 international broadcasting operations

       For expenses necessary to enable the Broadcasting Board of 
     Governors, as authorized, to carry out international 
     communication activities, including the purchase, rent, 
     construction, and improvement of facilities for radio and 
     television transmission and reception and purchase, lease, 
     and installation of necessary equipment, including aircraft, 
     for radio and television transmission and reception to Cuba, 
     and to make and supervise grants for radio and television 
     broadcasting to the Middle East, $651,279,000, of which 
     $5,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2008: 
     Provided, That of the total amount in this heading, not to 
     exceed $16,000 may be used for official receptions within the 
     United States as authorized, not to exceed $35,000 may be 
     used for representation abroad as authorized, and not to 
     exceed $39,000 may be used for official reception and 
     representation expenses of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; 
     and in addition, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     not to exceed $2,000,000 in receipts from advertising and 
     revenue from business ventures, not to exceed $500,000 in 
     receipts from cooperating international organizations, and 
     not to exceed $1,000,000 in receipts from privatization 
     efforts of the Voice of America and the International 
     Broadcasting Bureau, to remain available until expended for 
     carrying out authorized purposes.

                   broadcasting capital improvements

       For the purchase, rent, construction, and improvement of 
     facilities for radio and television transmission and 
     reception, and purchase and installation of necessary 
     equipment for radio and television transmission and reception 
     as authorized, $7,624,000, to remain available until 
     expended, as authorized.

       General Provisions--Department of State and Related Agency

       Sec. 401. Funds appropriated under this title shall be 
     available, except as otherwise

[[Page 12933]]

     provided, for allowances and differentials as authorized by 
     subchapter 59 of title 5, United States Code; for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and for hire of passenger 
     transportation pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1343(b).
       Sec. 402. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     State in this title 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 not to 
     exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available for the 
     current fiscal year for the Broadcasting Board of Governors 
     in this title 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 further, That any transfer pursuant 
     to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming of funds 
     under section 605 of this Act and shall not be available for 
     obligation or expenditure except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 403. None of the funds made available in this title 
     may be used by the Department of State or the Broadcasting 
     Board of Governors to provide equipment, technical support, 
     consulting services, or any other form of assistance to the 
     Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation.
       Sec. 404. (a) The Senior Policy Operating Group on 
     Trafficking in Persons, established under section 105(f) of 
     the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 
     2000 (22 U.S.C. 7103(f)) to coordinate agency activities 
     regarding policies (including grants and grant policies) 
     involving the international trafficking in persons, shall 
     coordinate all such policies related to the activities of 
     traffickers and victims of severe forms of trafficking.
       (b) None of the funds provided in this or any other Act 
     shall be expended to perform functions that duplicate 
     coordinating responsibilities of the Operating Group.
       (c) The Operating Group shall continue to report only to 
     the authorities that appointed them pursuant to section 
     105(f).
       Sec. 405. None of the funds made available by this title 
     may be used for any United Nations undertaking when it is 
     made known to the Federal official having authority to 
     obligate or expend such funds that: (1) the United Nations 
     undertaking is a peacekeeping mission; (2) such undertaking 
     will involve United States Armed Forces under the command or 
     operational control of a foreign national; and (3) the 
     President's military advisors have not submitted to the 
     President a recommendation that such involvement is in the 
     national security interests of the United States and the 
     President has not submitted to the Congress such a 
     recommendation.
       Sec. 406. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available under this title shall be expended for any 
     purpose for which appropriations are prohibited by section 
     609 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999.
       (b) The requirements in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     section 609 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal 
     year 2007.
       Sec. 407. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available under this title shall be expended for any 
     purpose for which appropriations are prohibited by section 
     616 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
     Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999.
       (b) The requirements in subsections (b) and (c) of section 
     616 of that Act shall continue to apply during fiscal year 
     2007.
       Sec. 408. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a 
     project to construct a diplomatic facility of the United 
     States may not include office space or other accommodations 
     for an employee of a Federal agency or department if the 
     Secretary of State determines that such department or agency 
     has not provided to the Department of State the full amount 
     of funding required by subsection (e) of section 604 of the 
     Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 
     (as enacted into law by section 1000(a)(7) of Public Law 106-
     113 and contained in appendix G of that Act; 113 Stat. 1501A-
     453), as amended by section 629 of the Departments of 
     Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005.
       (b) Notwithstanding the prohibition in subsection (a), a 
     project to construct a diplomatic facility of the United 
     States may include office space or other accommodations for 
     members of the Marine Corps.
       Sec. 409. Ceilings and earmarks contained in this title 
     shall not be applicable to funds or authorities appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by any subsequent Act unless such 
     Act specifically so directs. Earmarks or minimum funding 
     requirements contained in any other Act shall not be 
     applicable to funds appropriated by this title.
       Sec. 410. Any funds provided in this Act under ``Department 
     of State'' used to implement E-Government Initiatives shall 
     be subject to the procedures set forth in section 605 of this 
     Act.
       Sec. 411. (a) Subsection (f) of section 36 of the State 
     Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 2708(f)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(f) Ineligibility.--An officer'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(f) Ineligibility.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an 
     officer''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Exception in certain circumstances.--The Secretary 
     may pay a reward to an officer or employee of a foreign 
     government (or any entity thereof) who, while in the 
     performance of his or her official duties, furnishes 
     information described in such subsection, if the Secretary 
     determines that such payment satisfies the following 
     conditions:
       ``(A) Such payment is appropriate in light of the 
     exceptional or high-profile nature of the information 
     furnished pursuant to such subsection.
       ``(B) Such payment may aid in furnishing further 
     information described in such subsection.
       ``(C) Such payment is formally requested by such agency.''.
       (b) Subsection (b) of such section (22 U.S.C. 2708(b)) is 
     amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by inserting 
     ``or to an officer or employee of a foreign government in 
     accordance with subsection (f)(2)'' after ``individual''.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of State and 
     Related Agency Appropriations Act, 2007''.

                       TITLE V--RELATED AGENCIES

                   Antitrust Modernization Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Antitrust Modernization 
     Commission, as authorized by Public Law 107-273, $462,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

      Commission for the Preservation of America's Heritage Abroad

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses for the Commission for the Preservation of 
     America's Heritage Abroad, $493,000, as authorized by section 
     1303 of Public Law 99-83.

                       Commission on Civil Rights

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights, 
     including hire of passenger motor vehicles, $8,933,000: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph shall be used to employ in excess of four full-time 
     individuals under Schedule C of the Excepted Service 
     exclusive of one special assistant for each Commissioner: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph shall be used to reimburse Commissioners for more 
     than 75 billable days, with the exception of the chairperson, 
     who is permitted 125 billable days.

             Commission on International Religious Freedom

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the United States Commission on 
     International Religious Freedom, as authorized by title II of 
     the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (Public Law 
     105-292), $3,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2008.

            Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe, as authorized by Public Law 94-304, 
     $2,110,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.

  Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Congressional-Executive 
     Commission on the People's Republic of China, as authorized, 
     $2,000,000, including not more than $3,000 for the purpose of 
     official representation, to remain available until September 
     30, 2008.

                Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission as authorized by title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964 (29 U.S.C. 206(d) and 621-634), the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b); 
     non-monetary awards to private citizens; and not to exceed 
     $28,000,000 for payments to State and local enforcement 
     agencies for services to the Commission pursuant to title VII 
     of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sections 6 and 14 of the Age 
     Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with 
     Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 
     $322,807,000: Provided, That the Commission is authorized to 
     make available for official reception and representation 
     expenses not to exceed $2,500 from available funds: Provided 
     further, That the Commission may take no action to implement 
     any workforce repositioning, restructuring, or reorganization 
     until such time as the Committees on Appropriations have been 
     notified of such proposals, in accordance with the 
     reprogramming provisions of section 605 of this Act.

  Mr. WOLF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent

[[Page 12934]]

that the remainder of the bill through page 83, line 7, be considered 
as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   Federal Communications Commission

                         salaries and expenses


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Communications 
     Commission, as authorized by law, including uniforms and 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; not 
     to exceed $4,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; purchase and hire of motor vehicles; special 
     counsel fees; and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $294,261,000: Provided, That offsetting collections shall be 
     assessed and collected pursuant to section 9 of title I of 
     the Communications Act of 1934, of which $293,261,000 shall 
     be retained and used for necessary expenses in this 
     appropriation, and shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated shall be 
     reduced as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 2007 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2007 
     appropriation estimated at $1,000,000: Provided further, That 
     any offsetting collections received in excess of $293,261,000 
     in fiscal year 2007 shall remain available until expended, 
     but shall not be available for obligation until October 1, 
     2007: Provided further, That remaining offsetting collections 
     from prior years collected in excess of the amount specified 
     for collection in each such year and otherwise becoming 
     available on October 1, 2006, shall not be available for 
     obligation: Provided further, That notwithstanding 47 U.S.C. 
     309(j)(8)(B), proceeds from the use of a competitive bidding 
     system that may be retained and made available for obligation 
     shall not exceed $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2007: Provided 
     further, That, in addition, not to exceed $3,000,000 may be 
     transferred from the Universal Service Fund in fiscal year 
     2007, to remain available until expended, to monitor the 
     Universal Service Fund program to prevent and remedy waste, 
     fraud and abuse, and to conduct audits and investigations by 
     the Office of Inspector General.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Murphy

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Murphy:
       Page 83, line 17, insert ``(increased by $50,000) 
     (decreased by $50,000)'' after the aggregate dollar amount.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, first, I thank the distinguished chairman, 
Chairman Wolf, for his work on this bill.
  This amendment is intended to highlight the dangerous practice of 
caller ID fraud or ``call spoofing'' and hope the FCC moves quickly and 
takes immediate action to protect the public from this. It is a 
deceptive practice being used to defraud people of their money and 
deceive citizens into releasing private information.
  There are now several Web sites where anyone can change their 
outgoing phone number to any number that they choose on a temporary 
basis. This practice is not just for harmless pranks but has tremendous 
identity theft and other security implications.
  For example, the AARP bulletin recently reported that people received 
false calls claiming they missed jury duty and were asked for their 
Social Security numbers. The phone number of the local courthouse had 
shown up on their caller ID.
  Criminals have engaged in caller ID fraud to gather private consumer 
information from businesses that rely on caller ID for authentication, 
such as financial companies that perform wire transfers. Cell phone 
voice mailboxes often only require verification that an incoming call 
is from the user's cell phone number.
  Lastly, in 2005, SWAT teams surrounded an empty building in New 
Brunswick, New Jersey, after police received a call from a woman who 
said she was being held hostage in an apartment. She was not in the 
apartment, and the woman had intentionally used a false caller ID.
  False caller ID information can be used to bypass safety systems made 
to prevent domestic violence and harassment. Imagine what can happen 
when predators use false caller ID numbers to prey upon children and 
senior citizens. I might add that these phone spoofing Web sites also 
offer to disguise the voice of the caller and to record the call.
  The House has already expressed its will on this matter, unanimously 
passing H.R. 5126 earlier this month; and I am pleased to be a 
cosponsor of that bill. I have another bill, H.R. 5304, that would go a 
step further by amending criminal law to protect Americans from this 
practice.
  We cannot keep waiting to deal with this insidious problem and must 
ask the FCC to move forward quickly.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think 
it is a good amendment. Hopefully, the FCC will take note of what Mr. 
Murphy is doing. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my colleague, Mr. 
Murphy, and his amendment. It is appropriate for our colleague from 
Pennsylvania to be offering this amendment because he is himself a 
victim of this insidiousness.
  I also want to thank Chairman Barton, who with me, introduced the 
Truth in Caller ID Act that passed the House not long ago. I also want 
to thank and recognize Mr. Upton, Mr. Dingell and Mr. Markey for their 
significant contributions to that bill.
  I commend our colleague from Pennsylvania for offering this 
amendment. It will highlight to the FCC that the House of 
Representatives takes this problem very seriously. We have swiftly 
passed legislation that is now pending in the Senate. And so we expect 
the FCC to do whatever it can now--and to move expeditiously once the 
Truth in Caller ID Act is signed into law.
  Not long ago, I was like most Americans--completely unaware that is 
was so easy for someone to alter their caller ID. Caller ID spoofing is 
not your grandfather's prank call.
  This technology has limited uses that I find legitimate, such as for 
law enforcement and protecting battered women.
  This technology has unlimited uses that I find completely 
unacceptable. This technology enables people to pretend to be a bank, a 
doctor's office, a court house, or even a member of Congress. Nefarious 
people are . . . I say are using this technology to get a hold of 
private information and engage in identity theft.
  The Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of Energy and 
Commerce held a hearing on this matter. We heard stories of people 
receiving phone calls from their local court houses saying they had 
missed jury duty and that to confirm a make up the caller needed the 
person's social security number. Well who wouldn't be flustered when 
seeing a local court house phone number on the caller ID and being told 
you had missed jury duty. So these innocent people gave out their 
social security numbers.
  We heard of people make fake calls to police departments claiming to 
be victims of home intrusion and being held at gun point. The Newark 
Star Ledger reported on July 12, 2005 that Mr. Wadu Jackson plead 
guilty to placing ``a fake 911 call that drew dozens of police 
sharpshooters to a New Brunswick home in March in a mistake belief that 
a teenage girl was being held hostage.
  I know of three of our colleagues in the House who have been victims 
of caller ID spoofing. Not in the personal lives, but in their 
professional lives as Members of Congress. They have had people call 
and leave obnoxious messages that indicate the call is coming from the 
member's district office.
  I can only believe that this was an early effort at testing this 
technology to interfere with the electoral process of our nation.
  I think we do a service to our constituents today by highlighting and 
alerting them to this problem. I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Murphy/
Schmidt amendment to H.R. 5672, and I commend Mr. Murphy for his good 
work on this important issue.
  I introduced legislation on the issue of manipulation of caller 
identification information, and I know first-hand there is a need to 
end the practice of ``call spoofing.''
  With the increasing frequency of identity theft, we must do all that 
we can to end opportunities for falsification of this data.

[[Page 12935]]

  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of 
the bill through page 89, line 9, be considered as read, printed in the 
Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through page 89, line 9, is as 
follows:

                        Federal Trade Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Trade Commission, 
     including uniforms or allowances therefore, as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles; and not to exceed $300,000 
     shall be available for use to contract with a person or 
     persons for collection services in accordance with the terms 
     of 31 U.S.C. 3718: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, not to exceed $129,000,000 of 
     offsetting collections derived from 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, shall be retained and 
     used for necessary expenses in this appropriation: Provided 
     further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     $23,000,000 in offsetting collections derived from fees 
     sufficient to implement and enforce the Telemarketing Sales 
     Rule, promulgated under the Telephone Consumer Fraud and 
     Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6101 et seq.), shall be 
     credited to this account, and be retained and used for 
     necessary expenses in this appropriation: Provided further, 
     That the sum herein appropriated from the general fund shall 
     be reduced as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 2007, so as to result in a final fiscal year 2007 
     appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more 
     than $61,079,000: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     made available to the Federal Trade Commission may be used to 
     enforce subsection (e) of section 43 of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1831t) or section 151(b)(2) of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 
     (12 U.S.C. 1831t note).

                            HELP Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the HELP Commission, $1,250,000, 
     to remain available until expended: Provided, That section 
     637(f)(1) of the HELP Commission Act (Public Law 108-199, 
     division B) is amended by inserting ``and 3 months'' after 
     ``2 years''.

                       Legal Services Corporation

               payment to the legal services corporation

       For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out 
     the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, 
     $313,860,000, of which $296,990,000 is for basic field 
     programs and required independent audits; $2,970,000 is for 
     the Office of Inspector General, of which such amounts as may 
     be necessary may be used to conduct additional audits of 
     recipients; $12,661,000 is for management and administration; 
     and $1,239,000 is for client self-help and information 
     technology.

          administrative provision--legal services corporation

       None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal 
     Services Corporation shall be expended for any purpose 
     prohibited or limited by, or contrary to any of the 
     provisions of, sections 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, and 506 of 
     Public Law 105-119, and all funds appropriated in this Act to 
     the Legal Services Corporation shall be subject to the same 
     terms and conditions set forth in such sections, except that 
     all references in sections 502 and 503 to 1997 and 1998 shall 
     be deemed to refer instead to 2006 and 2007, respectively.

                        Marine Mammal Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as 
     authorized by title II of Public Law 92-522, $2,000,000.

                   Securities and Exchange Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, the rental of space (to include multiple year leases) 
     in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, and not to exceed 
     $3,000 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $900,517,000, to remain available until expended; of which 
     not to exceed $10,000 may be used toward funding a permanent 
     secretariat for the International Organization of Securities 
     Commissions; and of which not to exceed $100,000 shall be 
     available for expenses for consultations and meetings hosted 
     by the Commission with foreign governmental and other 
     regulatory officials, members of their delegations, 
     appropriate representatives and staff to exchange views 
     concerning developments relating to securities matters, 
     development and implementation of cooperation agreements 
     concerning securities matters and provision of technical 
     assistance for the development of foreign securities markets, 
     such expenses to include necessary logistic and 
     administrative expenses and the expenses of Commission staff 
     and foreign invitees in attendance at such consultations and 
     meetings including: (1) such incidental expenses as meals 
     taken in the course of such attendance; (2) any travel and 
     transportation to or from such meetings; and (3) any other 
     related lodging or subsistence: Provided, That fees and 
     charges authorized by sections 6(b) of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77f(b)), and 13(e), 14(g) and 
     31 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(e), 
     78n(g), and 78ee), shall be credited to this account as 
     offsetting collections: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $880,517,000 of such offsetting collections shall be 
     available until expended for necessary expenses of this 
     account: Provided further, That $20,000,000 shall be derived 
     from available balances of funds previously appropriated to 
     the Securities and Exchange Commission: Provided further, 
     That the total amount appropriated under this heading from 
     the general fund for fiscal year 2007 shall be reduced as 
     such offsetting fees are received so as to result in a final 
     total fiscal year 2007 appropriation from the general fund 
     estimated at not more than $0.

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

                     Small Business Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the 
     Small Business Administration as authorized by Public Law 
     108-447, including hire of passenger motor vehicles as 
     authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343 and 1344, and not to exceed 
     $3,500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $303,550,000, of which $10,000,000 shall be available for 
     microloan technical assistance, and of which $1,000,000 shall 
     be transferred to and merged with appropriations for 
     ``Business Loans Program Account'' and shall remain available 
     until expended for the cost of direct loans: Provided, That 
     the Administrator is authorized to charge fees to cover the 
     cost of publications developed by the Small Business 
     Administration, and certain loan program activities, 
     including fees authorized by section 5(b) of the Small 
     Business Act: Provided further, That, notwithstanding 31 
     U.S.C. 3302, revenues received from all such activities shall 
     be credited to this account, to remain available until 
     expended, for carrying out these purposes without further 
     appropriations: Provided further, That any funds provided 
     under this heading used to implement E-Government Initiatives 
     shall be subject to the procedures set forth in section 605 
     of this Act: Provided further, That, of the funds made 
     available under this heading, $500,000 shall be for the 
     National Veterans Business Development Corporation.


             Amendment Offered by Mrs. Davis of California

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

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Davis of California:
       Page 90, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 27, 2006, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today 
along with my colleagues, Mr. Evans of Illinois and Ms. Herseth of 
South Dakota, on behalf of our veterans seeking to start and operate 
their own businesses.
  I have been interested in this issue for a number of years after 
visiting with our servicemembers in Afghanistan. I recall one brave 
servicemember who told me his dream was to learn about entrepreneurship 
and start his own business after his tour of duty. So it is up to us to 
make sure our veterans have access to the training, assistance and 
capital to start a business.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress passed legislation in 1999 establishing the 
National Veterans Business Development Corporation to provide all of 
these crucial aspects of entrepreneurship to veterans. As a result, the 
Veterans Corporation has provided training to over

[[Page 12936]]

8,000 veterans and has helped over 550 veterans start businesses during 
2006 alone.
  Charmaine Burnett is one of those thousands of success stories. She 
is a service-disabled veteran of the Gulf War living in California, and 
her construction services company has been awarded several contracts in 
recent months. She attributes her success in part to the assistance she 
received from the Veterans Corporation.
  Unfortunately, at $500,000, H.R. 5672 does not provide sufficient 
funding for the Veterans Corporation to train and continue its services 
to veterans when they need it the most.
  Mr. Chairman, why would we cut this funding to veterans when they 
need it most? The corporation will have to cut back and reduce services 
for veterans entrepreneurship when many of our servicemembers are 
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Our amendment increases funding for the Veterans Corporation by a 
mere $1 million to match its level for fiscal year 2006. Our veterans 
need this funding.
  This amendment is completely budget neutral. It does not increase 
spending and does not take away from other important programs within 
the SBA.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to support 
business ownership for America's veterans.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentlewoman's amendment. I know 
the Veterans Corporation is working to get itself revitalized, and I 
hope we can have this thing authorized. I think the more effort that 
can be done would help us, particularly as we move into the outyears.
  Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that acceptance, 
and I know that the veterans will as well.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  In light of the chairman's support, I will submit my comments for the 
Record in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for this important 
amendment offered by the gentlelady Ms. Davis of California to the 
Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations bill to increase 
by $1 million the amount of funding in this bill to the National 
Veterans Business Development Corporation--also known as The Veterans 
Corporation.
  Our amendment increases funding for The Veterans Corporation from 
$500,000 to $1.5 million to match Fiscal Year 2006 levels. Without 
level funding, The Veterans Corporation will be forced to cut back and 
reduce entrepreneurship assistance to our veterans.
  As the Ranking Member of the Veterans' Affairs Economic Opportunity 
Subcommittee, which maintains jurisdiction over veterans' employment 
and re-employment matters, I have been working to explore the 
perceptions, activities, employment practices, and entrepreneurship 
opportunities for former servicemembers.
  In my view, which I know is shared by many of my colleagues, the men 
and women serving in the military today are very professional, highly 
trained, and extremely motivated. I am confident that many of these men 
and women would add value to our economy if given the opportunity to 
start their own businesses. In my district--the State of South Dakota--
more than 17,000 veteran owned small businesses are operating--
generating a combined income of more than $816 million.
  Mr. Chairman, as the Administration has repeatedly stated, this is a 
key transitional year for members of our Armed Forces serving overseas. 
Increasing numbers of servicemen and women are expected to return home 
from Iraq and Afghanistan--including thousands of National Guard and 
Reservists. The men and women in uniform who defend this country and 
make our economic and political systems possible, indeed, have earned 
our best efforts and a fair opportunity to successfully transition from 
military service to civilian life and employment.
  The Veterans Corporation is working to help these veterans, who would 
like to enter the world of entrepreneurship, have the opportunity to 
successfully do so. I ask my colleagues to support these veterans by 
supporting this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, $13,722,000.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman. I likewise thank you for your leadership and the chairman's 
leadership, and I would like to enter into a colloquy. It is, I think, 
appropriate to do so as there is a pending launch going forward in the 
Nation's space program, space shuttle program, to talk about the next 
generation of scientists and astronauts.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1992, Dr. Mae C. Jemison became the first woman of 
color to travel into space. After retiring from NASA, she worked as an 
active advocate of science education, especially for minorities and 
economically disadvantaged students.
  Dr. Jemison is a doctor by training, and she is a pioneer in 
aeronautics. And through the creation of the Dr. Mae C. Jemison Grant 
Program, we hope to provide other minorities and women in America with 
the opportunity to succeed in science and engineering.
  Frankly, what we want to do is to create the next generation of our 
scientists and our astronauts. I would say to you that, unfortunately, 
we are woefully noncompetitive. The Dr. Mae C. Jemison Grant Program is 
intended to ensure equal access for minority and economically 
disadvantaged students to NASA's education programs.
  The program facilitates NASA's ability to work with institutions 
serving minorities to bring more women of color into the field of space 
and aeronautics. We must pursue this program to safeguard equal 
opportunities in fields of study and professions that have far too low 
of a minority ratio.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that as this particular program is authorized in 
the NASA authorization bill, we will find it in our good graces to be 
able to fund it. My question, as I yield to the gentleman, is, would 
the gentleman agree with me to work with me to find a way to recognize 
and to fund this particular program?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. She certainly has 
raised a very important issue. I pledge to explore this issue further.
  It is my understanding that NASA anticipates, because they have a 
strong education program, building this program using the funding 
appropriated to the agency for education programs. I do recognize that 
the Dr. Mae C. Jemison Grant Program is a program charged to NASA, and 
we look forward to the launch of the program and the benefits that will 
result.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time. Let me 
say that it is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that we do recognize this as a 
grant program and that as you have indicated, that this program be 
funded under the education programs in NASA, and to be specifically 
funded, and as indicated in the Record, I had an amendment to offer.
  At this time, I will not be offering the amendment. And therefore, I 
hope to accept the assurances and be able to move forward on this 
program so that it can be funded
  Mr. WOLF. Thank you.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

[[Page 12937]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with Chairman 
Wolf, of the Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I had offered to introduce an amendment today to make a 
modest increase of $2.2 million for the Space Environment Center, 
returning its funding to the President's requested level of $7.2 
million.
  However, Mr. Chairman, after discussing this with your staff, I have 
decided not to offer the amendment but would like to engage you in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. WOLF. Sure.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the Space Environment Center is 
a part of NOAA's National Weather Service, and it is the only civil 
provider of space weather warnings. These warnings enable government 
and private sector operators to take actions to minimize disruptions in 
service and damage to critical infrastructure.
  Last year, the Space Environment Center received a $4 million cut, a 
cut of about 44 percent from its $7 million budget. NOAA, in order to 
prevent degradation of services reprogrammed funds from other programs 
to continue the operations of the Space Environment Center.
  But in this cycle, if the Center receives $5 million as proposed in 
the bill, it will be forced to make substantial cuts in its staffing.
  As a national critical system, should the capabilities of the center 
go down, the Air Force currently provides data as a back-up. However, 
with this proposed budget, the center will not be able to maintain a 
liaison position with the Air Force, potentially harming its operations 
and the continuity of its services.
  So, in that spirit, with that background, Mr. Chairman, I have two 
questions. Would you agree that the space weather warnings are a vital 
service to many of our space-based assets and that more funding is 
needed for the Space Environment Center? And if so, would you be 
willing to work in conference to increase funding for the center?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. I agree with the gentleman that the warnings provided by 
the Space Environment Center are important to protect their satellites 
and other space-based industries. And I will be happy to work with the 
gentleman as the bill moves forward through conference to try to find 
increased funding for the Space Environment Center.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's 
response and willingness to work on this issue. I thank my colleague, 
Mr. Mollohan, from the great State of West Virginia for yielding time 
to me.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 surety bond guarantees revolving fund

       For additional capital for the Surety Bond Guarantees 
     Revolving Fund, authorized by the Small Business Investment 
     Act, as amended, $2,824,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                     business loans program account

       Subject to section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974, during fiscal year 2007 commitments to guarantee loans 
     under section 503 of the Small Business Investment Act of 
     1958, shall not exceed $7,500,000,000: Provided, That during 
     fiscal year 2007 commitments for general business loans 
     authorized under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act, 
     shall not exceed $17,500,000,000: Provided further, That 
     during fiscal year 2007 commitments to guarantee loans for 
     debentures under section 303(b) of the Small Business 
     Investment Act of 1958, shall not exceed $3,000,000,000: 
     Provided further, That during fiscal year 2007 guarantees of 
     trust certificates authorized by section 5(g) of the Small 
     Business Act shall not exceed a principal amount of 
     $12,000,000,000.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct and guaranteed loan programs, $123,706,000, which may 
     be transferred to and merged with the appropriations for 
     Salaries and Expenses.

                     disaster loans program account

       For the cost of direct loans authorized by section 7(b) of 
     the Small Business Act, $85,140,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That such costs, including the cost 
     of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the 
     direct loan program authorized by section 7(b) of the Small 
     Business Act, $113,850,000, of which $495,000 is for the 
     Office of Inspector General of the Small Business 
     Administration for audits and reviews of disaster loans and 
     the disaster loan program and shall be transferred to and 
     merged with appropriations for the Office of Inspector 
     General; of which $104,445,000 is for direct administrative 
     expenses of loan making and servicing to carry out the direct 
     loan program, to remain available until expended, and which 
     may be transferred to and merged with appropriations for 
     Salaries and Expenses; and of which $8,910,000 is for 
     indirect administrative expenses, which may be transferred to 
     and merged with appropriations for Salaries and Expenses: 
     Provided, That any amount in excess of $8,910,000 to be 
     transferred to and merged with appropriations for Salaries 
     and Expenses for indirect administrative expenses shall be 
     treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this 
     Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure 
     except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that 
     section.

        administrative provision--small business administration

       Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made available 
     for the current fiscal year for the Small Business 
     Administration in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation shall be increased 
     by more than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That 
     any transfer pursuant to this paragraph shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation or expenditure except 
     in compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.

                        State Justice Institute

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as 
     authorized by the State Justice Institute Authorization Act 
     of 1992 (Public Law 102-572), $2,000,000: Provided, That not 
     to exceed $2,500 shall be available for official reception 
     and representation expenses.

      United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States-China Economic 
     and Security Review Commission, $4,000,000, including not 
     more than $5,000 for the purpose of official representation, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That 
     for purposes of costs relating to printing and binding, the 
     Commission shall be deemed, effective on the date of its 
     establishment, to be a committee of Congress: Provided 
     further, That compensation for the executive director of the 
     Commission may not exceed the rate payable for level II of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That section 1238(c)(1) of the 
     Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 
     Year 2001, is amended by striking ``June'' and inserting 
     ``November'': Provided further, That travel by members of the 
     Commission and its staff shall be arranged and conducted 
     under the rules and procedures applying to travel by members 
     of the House of Representatives and its staff: Provided 
     further, That section 635(b) of Public Law 109-108 is 
     repealed.

                    United States Institute of Peace

                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Institute of 
     Peace as authorized in the United States Institute of Peace 
     Act, $26,979,000, to remain available until September 30, 
     2008.

                      TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 601. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 602. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 603. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 604. If any provision of this Act or the application 
     of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be 
     held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of 
     each provision to persons or circumstances other than those 
     as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.
       Sec. 605. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or 
     provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies 
     funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or 
     expenditure in fiscal year 2007, or

[[Page 12938]]

     provided from any accounts in the Treasury of the United 
     States derived by the collection of fees available to the 
     agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for 
     obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds 
     that: (1) creates new programs; (2) eliminates a program, 
     project, or activity; (3) increases funds or personnel by any 
     means for any project or activity for which funds have been 
     denied or restricted; (4) relocates an office or employees; 
     (5) reorganizes or renames offices; (6) reorganizes programs 
     or activities; or (7) contracts out or privatizes any 
     functions or activities presently performed by Federal 
     employees; unless the Appropriations Committees of both 
     Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance of such 
     reprogramming of funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided 
     under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by 
     this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure 
     in fiscal year 2007, or provided from any accounts in the 
     Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of 
     fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure for activities, 
     programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in 
     excess of $750,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less, that: 
     (1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) 
     reduces by 10 percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by 10 percent 
     as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general 
     savings, including savings from a reduction in personnel, 
     which would result in a change in existing programs, 
     activities, or projects as approved by Congress; unless the 
     Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are 
     notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds.
       Sec. 606. Hereafter, none of the funds made available in 
     this Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce any 
     guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
     covering harassment based on religion, when it is made known 
     to the Federal entity or official to which such funds are 
     made available that such guidelines do not differ in any 
     respect from the proposed guidelines published by the 
     Commission on October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266).
       Sec.  607. If it has been finally determined by a court or 
     Federal agency that any person intentionally affixed a label 
     bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription 
     with the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to 
     the United States that is not made in the United States, the 
     person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or 
     subcontract made with funds made available in this Act, 
     pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility 
     procedures described in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order 
against section 607. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule 
XXI. It proposes to change existing law and therefore constitutes 
legislation on an appropriation bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, Mr. Davis has convinced 
me of the merit of his argument. I would never object to him. Since it 
makes a lot of sense, I concede.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the 
section is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        Sec. 608. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, 
     the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the National Science 
     Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, the 
     Securities and Exchange Commission and the Small Business 
     Administration shall provide to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and of the House of 
     Representatives a quarterly accounting of the cumulative 
     balances of any unobligated funds that were received by such 
     agency during any previous fiscal year.
       Sec.  609. Any costs incurred by a department or agency 
     funded under this Act resulting from personnel actions taken 
     in response to funding reductions included in this Act shall 
     be absorbed within the total budgetary resources available to 
     such department or agency: Provided, That the authority to 
     transfer funds between appropriations accounts as may be 
     necessary to carry out this section is provided in addition 
     to authorities included elsewhere in this Act: Provided 
     further, That use of funds to carry out this section shall be 
     treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 605 of this 
     Act and shall not be available for obligation or expenditure 
     except in compliance with the procedures set forth in that 
     section.
       Sec. 610. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be 
     available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
     products, or to seek the reduction or removal by any foreign 
     country of restrictions on the marketing of tobacco or 
     tobacco products, except for restrictions which are not 
     applied equally to all tobacco or tobacco products of the 
     same type.
       Sec.  611. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this 
     Act or any other provision of law may be used for--
       (1) the implementation of any tax or fee in connection with 
     the implementation of subsection 922(t) of title 18, United 
     States Code; and
       (2) any system to implement subsection 922(t) of title 18, 
     United States Code, that does not require and result in the 
     destruction of any identifying information submitted by or on 
     behalf of any person who has been determined not to be 
     prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm no more 
     than 24 hours after the system advises a Federal firearms 
     licensee that possession or receipt of a firearm by the 
     prospective transferee would not violate subsection (g) or 
     (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or State 
     law.
       Sec.  612. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel of the 
     Department of Justice to obligate more than $625,000,000 
     during fiscal year 2007 from the fund established by section 
     1402 of chapter XIV of title II of Public Law 98-473 (42 
     U.S.C. 10601).
       Sec.  613. None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Justice in this Act may be used to discriminate 
     against or denigrate the religious or moral beliefs of 
     students who participate in programs for which financial 
     assistance is provided from those funds, or of the parents or 
     legal guardians of such students.
       Sec. 614. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government, except pursuant to a 
     transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act 
     or any other appropriations Act.
        Sec. 615. The Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the 
     National Science Foundation, the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission and the Small Business Administration shall, not 
     later than two months after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, certify that telecommuting opportunities have increased 
     over levels certified to the Committees on Appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2006: Provided, That, of the total amounts 
     appropriated to the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 
     State, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the 
     National Science Foundation, the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission and the Small Business Administration, $5,000,000 
     shall be available to each only upon such certification: 
     Provided further, That each Department or agency shall 
     provide quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations 
     on the status of telecommuting programs, including the number 
     and percentage of Federal employees eligible for, and 
     participating in, such programs: Provided further, That each 
     Department or agency shall maintain a ``Telework 
     Coordinator'' to be responsible for overseeing the 
     implementation and operations of telecommuting programs, and 
     serve as a point of contact on such programs for the 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 616. Any funds provided in this Act under ``National 
     Science Foundation'' used to implement E-Government 
     Initiatives shall be subject to the procedures set forth in 
     section 605 of this Act.
       Sec. 617. (a) Tracing studies conducted by the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are released 
     without adequate disclaimers regarding the limitations of the 
     data.
       (b) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 
     shall include in all such data releases, language similar to 
     the following that would make clear that trace data cannot be 
     used to draw broad conclusions about firearms-related crime:
       (1) Firearm traces are designed to assist law enforcement 
     authorities in conducting investigations by tracking the sale 
     and possession of specific firearms. Law enforcement agencies 
     may request firearms traces for any reason, and those reasons 
     are not necessarily reported to the Federal Government. Not 
     all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms 
     traced are used in crime.
       (2) Firearms selected for tracing are not chosen for 
     purposes of determining which types, makes or models of 
     firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected 
     do not constitute a random sample and should not be 
     considered representative of the larger universe of all 
     firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe. 
     Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and 
     sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily 
     represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general 
     are acquired for use in crime.
       Sec.  618. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act may be used to issue patents on 
     claims directed to or encompassing a human organism.
       Sec. 619. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be used in any way whatsoever to support or justify the 
     use of torture by any official or contract employee of the 
     United States Government.
        Sec. 620. For an additional amount under the heading 
     ``Small Business Administration, Salaries and Expenses'', 
     $20,000,000, to

[[Page 12939]]

     remain available until September 30, 2008, shall be for 
     initiatives related to small business development and 
     entrepreneurship, including programmatic and construction 
     activities: Provided, That amounts made available under this 
     section shall be provided in accordance with the terms and 
     conditions specified in the statement of managers 
     accompanying this Act.
        Sec. 621. Of the amounts made available in this Act, 
     $674,155,851 from ``Department of State''; $45,635,505 from 
     ``Department of Justice''; $20,678,269 from ``Department of 
     Commerce''; $771,279 from ``United States Trade 
     Representative''; $1,238,808 from ``Broadcasting Board of 
     Governors''; $377,722 from ``National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration''; and $120,173 from ``National Science 
     Foundation'' shall be available for the purposes of 
     implementing the Capital Security Cost Sharing program.
       Sec. 622. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     treaty, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act or any other Act may be expended or 
     obligated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States to pay administrative expenses or to compensate 
     an officer or employee of the United States in connection 
     with requiring an export license for the export to Canada of 
     components, parts, accessories or attachments for firearms 
     listed in Category I, section 121.1 of title 22, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (International Trafficking in Arms 
     Regulations (ITAR), part 121, as it existed on April 1, 2005) 
     with a total value not exceeding $500 wholesale in any 
     transaction, provided that the conditions of subsection (b) 
     of this section are met by the exporting party for such 
     articles.
       (b) The foregoing exemption from obtaining an export 
     license--
       (1) does not exempt an exporter from filing any Shipper's 
     Export Declaration or notification letter required by law, or 
     from being otherwise eligible under the laws of the United 
     States to possess, ship, transport, or export the articles 
     enumerated in subsection (a); and
       (2) does not permit the export without a license of--
       (A) fully automatic firearms and components and parts for 
     such firearms, other than for end use by the Federal 
     Government, or a Provincial or Municipal Government of 
     Canada;
       (B) barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames) or complete 
     breech mechanisms for any firearm listed in Category I, other 
     than for end use by the Federal Government, or a Provincial 
     or Municipal Government of Canada; or
       (C) articles for export from Canada to another foreign 
     destination.
       (c) In accordance with this section, the District Directors 
     of Customs and postmasters shall permit the permanent or 
     temporary export without a license of any unclassified 
     articles specified in subsection (a) to Canada for end use in 
     Canada or return to the United States, or temporary import of 
     Canadian-origin items from Canada for end use in the United 
     States or return to Canada for a Canadian citizen.
       (d) The President may require export licenses under this 
     section on a temporary basis if the President determines, 
     upon publication first in the Federal Register, that the 
     Government of Canada has implemented or maintained inadequate 
     import controls for the articles specified in subsection (a), 
     such that a significant diversion of such articles has and 
     continues to take place for use in international terrorism or 
     in the escalation of a conflict in another nation. The 
     President shall terminate the requirements of a license when 
     reasons for the temporary requirements have ceased.
       Sec. 623. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States 
     receiving appropriated funds under this Act or any other Act 
     shall obligate or expend in any way such funds to pay 
     administrative expenses or the compensation of any officer or 
     employee of the United States to deny any application 
     submitted pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(1)(B) and qualified 
     pursuant to 27 CFR Sec. 478.112 or .113, for a permit to 
     import United States origin ``curios or relics'' firearms, 
     parts, or ammunition.
       Sec. 624. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to include in any new bilateral or multilateral trade 
     agreement the text of--
       (1) paragraph 2 of article 16.7 of the United States-
     Singapore Free Trade Agreement;
       (2) paragraph 4 of article 17.9 of the United States-
     Australia Free Trade Agreement; or
       (3) paragraph 4 of article 15.9 of the United States-
     Morocco Free Trade Agreement.
       Sec. 625. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay expenses for any United States delegation to 
     any specialized agency, body, or commission of the United 
     Nations if such commission is chaired or presided over by a 
     country, the government of which the Secretary of State has 
     determined, for purposes of section 6(j)(1) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)), has 
     provided support for acts of international terrorism.
       Sec. 626. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to carry out any diplomatic operations in Libya or 
     accept the credentials of any representative of the 
     Government of Libya until such time as the President 
     certifies to Congress that Libya has taken irrevocable steps 
     to pay, in its entirety, the total amount of the settlement 
     commitment of $10,000,000 to the surviving families of each 
     decedent of Pan Am Flight 103 and certifies to Congress that 
     Libya will continue to work in good faith to resolve the 
     outstanding cases of United States victims of terrorism 
     sponsored or supported by Libya, including the settlement of 
     the La Belle Discotheque bombing.
       Sec. 627. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be used in contravention of the Federal buildings 
     performance and reporting requirements of Executive Order 
     13123, part 3 of title V of the National Energy Conservation 
     Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8251 et seq.), or subtitle A of title I 
     of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (including the amendments 
     made thereby).
       Sec. 628. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Government of the United States to enter into 
     a basing rights agreement between the United States and Iraq.

                              {time}  1330


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       At the end of title VI, insert the following:
       Sec. __. (a) Minimum Wage.--Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and not less than $5.15 an hour'' and 
     inserting ``not less than $5.15 an hour''; and
       (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``, not less than $5.85 an hour beginning on 
     January 1, 2007, not less than $6.55 an hour beginning on 
     January 1, 2008, and not less than $7.25 an hour beginning on 
     January 1, 2009''.
       (b) Applicability of Minimum Wage to the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands.--(1) Section 6 of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206) shall apply to 
     the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
       (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the minimum wage 
     applicable to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands under section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act 
     of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1))--
       (A) shall be $3.55 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after 
     the date of enactment of this Act; and
       (B) shall be increased by $0.50 an hour (or such lesser 
     amount as may be necessary to equal the minimum wage under 
     section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938), 
     beginning 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act 
     and every 6 months thereafter until the minimum wage 
     applicable to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands under this subsection is equal to the minimum wage 
     set forth in such section.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 2006, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been 9 years since this country has adjusted the 
minimum wage. During that time, the food prices have gone up almost 25 
percent. Health care costs overall have gone up over 40 percent. 
Insurance has almost doubled. Gasoline prices have doubled. Energy 
prices have gone out of sight, and yet people are still struggling 
along on the same minimum wage that they were paid 9 years ago.
  To try to do something about that, we offered an amendment to the 
Labor-Health-Education-Social Services bill in the full committee. 
Every Democrat voted for that amendment, and so did seven Republicans. 
But after that happened and the amendment had passed, the Labor-Health-
Education appropriations bill was blocked from consideration by the 
leadership of this House and by the Rules Committee.
  Therefore, when this bill came before the full committee, we 
attempted once again to adjust the minimum wage in three increments of 
70 cents each, because we believe that no one who works 40 hours a week 
ought to go home in poverty. We, this time, did not receive the support 
of those same seven Republicans. Five of them voted against us. The 
other two missed the vote, and so that amendment was lost.

[[Page 12940]]

  We, therefore, asked the Rules Committee to make in order an 
amendment on this bill which would adjust that minimum wage, and that 
is what I am trying to do today.
  I recognize that if the point of order is lodged against this 
amendment, that we will once again be blocked from our effort to 
provide an increase in the minimum wage, but I just want to say to 
those who say this is not the proper vehicle and we should try to do it 
on some other bill, that for 9 years we have been waiting for the 
majority party to find the right vehicle to accomplish this. And for 9 
years, nothing has happened.
  The issue comes down to this: Whose side are you on? Are you willing 
to help adjust that minimum wage upward or are you not? This is one 
effort to find out.
  For those who think this is just a political or an academic exercise, 
I told the House on the debate on the rule that I recall, after my 
parents were divorced and my mother was trying to get along on the 
minimum wage, and I remember how it was to run out of money before you 
ran out of days on the calendar each month. So she would find some 
household item that she could take down to Etzkin's Pawn Shop and pawn 
to get the family through the week.
  The outrage is that today that minimum wage has far less purchasing 
power than it did when she was earning it years ago. I think that is an 
absolute disgrace.
  The wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country have 33 percent of 
the Nation's wealth. The poorest 40 percent of the people in this 
country are struggling to hang on to 3 percent of the Nation's wealth. 
That kind of gap is wrong.
  This is one of the few things the Congress can do to directly impact 
the size of that gap. I think we have an economic obligation. I think 
we have a moral obligation to make this happen, and I am not interested 
in playing jurisdictional dunghill niceties about which committee is 
supposed to handle this bill. This bill ought to be out on the floor. 
This amendment ought to pass.
  I would ask that the majority party not offer a point of order 
against the amendment so that we can finally bring some justice to 
people who are struggling in the shadows of life, who are struggling on 
life's underside. We can make their lives just a little bit more 
pleasant by passing this amendment, and I would think that, given the 
fact that the Congress has just in this House determined to accept a 
COLA for itself, I would think that we would have significantly less 
embarrassment if we would recognize that it takes 4 months for someone 
working at the minimum wage to make the same amount of money that 
Congress will gain by way of a COLA. It is outrageous to adjust 
congressional COLAs and not adjust the minimum wage. So I would urge 
that no one lodge a point of order against this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has expired.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I believe it is an appropriate issue to debate, but the appropriate 
forum for debate is with the authorizing committees and with an 
opportunity for both sides on the issue to present their cases.
  Today's pending legislation is not a place for the debate, and I 
would hope that the authorizing committee would schedule hearings and 
bring forward a bill and let the House work its will. That is the way 
we do it. Authorizers hold hearings, look at the impact, come back, 
report out a bill, and let the committee and the House work its will.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I do make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill. Therefore, it violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law. 
The amendment directly amends the existing law, and I ask for a ruling 
from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the rules of the House 
normally indicate that this legislation would be handled by the 
authorizing committee, but I would note that on the appropriation 
conference report just several months ago, the majority leader in the 
Senate added 40 pages of authorizing language to the Defense bill, 
language which protected the pharmaceutical industry in this country 
from suit.
  And it would seem to me that if it is legitimate for the majority 
leader of the Senate to do that, in order to protect a privileged 
industry in this country, that we could find a way in the House rules 
to protect the interests of the lowest-income wage earners in the 
country, but I must reluctantly concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The 
amendment is out of order.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for a 
colloquy with the chairman.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the 
subcommittee, Mr. Wolf. I understand and know quite frankly that the 
chairman has been a long-time advocate of public diplomacy and 
democracy through educational and cultural exchanges, and I would like 
to express my very strong support of his work. I truly appreciate his 
willingness to highlight these issues today of mutual concern.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to raise an issue that is 
important for our hemispheric foreign policy. For quite a few years, 
many in this body have stressed the importance of improving relations 
with Latin America and the Caribbean by strengthening educational 
exchange initiatives.
  Many American students who spend time studying abroad are among our 
Nation's greatest assets, and this is especially true with regards to 
our hemispheric neighbors.
  Many elected leaders in Latin America and the Caribbean spent some 
time studying here in the United States. They applied the skills and 
the values that they learned in the United States upon returning to 
their home countries.
  For instance, in the wake of recent natural disasters, many Caribbean 
leaders who studied here were able to draw on their experience and 
networks of contacts when facing challenges.
  The need for strengthening the human capital and democratic values is 
ever pressing as natural disasters, perhaps among the most severe 
destabilizing force, constantly wreak havoc on the region.
  Hurricanes, floods, landslides, earthquakes are becoming more 
frequent. It takes years and sometimes decades to recover, and I know 
that we can all personally attest to how a natural disaster shakes a 
nation's foundation to its very core.
  Educational exchange opportunities are an investment with the 
greatest return. By developing human capital, we are securing our 
hemisphere by planting the seeds of democracy and success.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentlewoman from 
California that I agree that educational exchange initiatives are an 
important component of our hemispheric foreign policy.
  The fact is, as you were speaking, I thought of my daughter Rebecca 
who was in an exchange program and actually taught down in Honduras, 
Tegucigalpa, for 2 years. The relationships, the friendships, and the 
opportunities she made were life changing. I think you make a very 
powerful point.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman's intention in raising this issue, and I 
want

[[Page 12941]]

to assure her that I will be mindful of this issue as this bill moves 
forward.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will further yield, I want to 
thank the gentleman for his attention to this issue and so many issues 
that are important to our country. I look forward to working together 
in standing up for democracy and improving relations with our 
hemispheric neighbors.
  I want to thank you again, and I want to thank you for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the other Members for 
a colloquy.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do rise for 
purposes of engaging in a colloquy with you.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank you and the ranking 
member, Mr. Mollohan, for restoring funding for several critical Voice 
of America language services that were slated for reductions, including 
the Greek and Turkish services.
  As cochair of the Hellenic Caucus and a strong supporter of resolving 
the Cyprus issue, I believe finding innovative ways to bring the two 
sides closer are necessary. The Greek and Turkish VOA services have 
proposed a new joint program initiative promoting the end of the 
division in Cyprus by engaging both Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot 
communities in a revised process using radio and television. This 
program would entail reporting on bicommunal developments, conducting 
interviews with prominent figures and airing them as part of radio and 
TV dialogues, or bridges, if you will, between the two communities. As 
H.R. 5672 moves through the appropriations process, I hope, Mr. 
Chairman, you will work with members of the Hellenic and Turkish 
Caucuses to find the funding needed to initiate this new joint program.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I, too, want to join my colleagues in 
expressing gratitude to Chairman Wolf for agreeing to enter into the 
colloquy.
  I also want to thank the chairman and the ranking member, Mr. 
Mollohan, for restoring full funding for Voice of America services, 
including funding for Turkey and Greece. I strongly believe this 
programming, which reaches millions, remains critical to peace, 
stability and democracy in the Middle East, Eastern Mediterranean and 
Balkans regions.
  Mr. Chairman, for the first time, the Turkey Caucus and the Hellenic 
Caucus have joined forces to foster reconciliation on the island of 
Cyprus. Creating a distinct and separate VOA program for Cyprus 
provides advocates for reunification a unique opportunity to bring both 
sides back to the negotiating table.
  We believe that the United States must play an active role in 
resolving differences between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and the Voice 
of America Cyprus would be a positive step forward.
  Thank you very much.

                              {time}  1345

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would like to 
add my support to what has already been said about the importance of 
developing a joint program initiative by the Greek and Turkish language 
services at the Voice of America to promote an end to the division of 
Cyprus and to help engage the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot 
communities in a revived process aimed at their reunification.
  Cyprus has been divided since 1974, way too long, and we all want 
this division to come to an end. I believe that this type of initiative 
would go a long way in making that happen by keeping the lines of 
communication between the two communities open.
  I am especially pleased to join my fellow cochair and cofounder of 
the Hellenic Caucus, Representative Bilirakis, as well as the cochairs 
of the Turkish Caucus, Representatives Wexler and Whitfield, in showing 
our collective support for this effort.
  I would also like to thank Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan 
for restoring the cuts to valuable programs at the Voice of America, 
including the Greek and Turkey services, and I look forward to working 
with them on this new and exciting project for Cyprus.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield once again?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
  This is really a pretty special thing when you come to think about 
it. This is the first time that we are working together with the 
Turkish Caucus on an issue which we all agree has enormous potential to 
benefit the relations and close the gap between the two communities; 
and I hope, sir, that you will work with us to find, along with Mr. 
Mollohan, to find funding for this critical Cyprus reconciliation joint 
initiative.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both you, Mr. Bilirakis, as 
well as Mr. Wexler and Mrs. Maloney of New York. It really does offer 
an opportunity. It is kind of an historic moment, in some respects, for 
this reconciliation opportunity.
  So I support the efforts aimed at bringing a solution to the Cyprus 
issue and agree that new avenues should be explored. I really commend 
you for doing this. I share your concerns and really will be pleased to 
work with my colleagues to explore what might be done to gain support 
for this new joint initiative to someday bring peace and reconciliation 
to the area.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wolf and Mr. Mollohan 
for their consideration and for yielding us the time, and I look 
forward to working with both of you in the future.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         TITLE VII--RESCISSIONS

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                   Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund


                              (Rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $8,000,000 are rescinded.

                         General Administration


               telecommunications carrier compliance fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $39,000,000 are rescinded.

                            Legal Activities


                         assets forfeiture fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $152,787,000 are rescinded.

                       Office of Justice Programs


               state and local law enforcement assistance

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading 
     from prior year appropriations, $127,500,000 are rescinded.


                  community oriented policing services

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading 
     from prior year appropriations, $127,500,000 are rescinded.

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                        Departmental Management


            Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program Account

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading 
     from prior year appropriations, $38,607,000 are rescinded.

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE


         center for middle eastern-western dialogue trust fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the funds available under this heading, $10,000,000 are 
     rescinded.

                            RELATED AGENCIES

                     Small Business Administration


                         salaries and expenses

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $6,100,000 are rescinded.


                     business loans program account

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $5,000,000 are rescinded.

[[Page 12942]]




                     disaster loans program account

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $3,700,000 are rescinded.


                Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

       Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce any of the provisions in the Memorandum to 
     all Department and Agency Executive Secretaries dated, 
     February 2, 2001, and entitled ``Guidelines on Relations With 
     Taiwan''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This bipartisan amendment would prevent the State Department from 
expending any funds to enforce several arbitrary and archaic 
``guidelines'' that inhibit or altogether prevent United States 
officials from communicating with their counterparts in Taiwan.
  These restrictions range from just silly to downright absurd.
  These so-called guidelines, among other things, do not permit 
meetings with Taiwanese diplomats or elected officials in Department of 
State buildings, the White House, or the Old Executive Office Building.
  They prevent executive branch personnel from the foreign affairs 
agencies and those above the rank of GS-14 from attending Taiwan's 
annual holiday reception in Washington.
  They prevent executive branch personnel from attending meetings at 
Twin Oaks, which is the former residence of Taiwan's ambassador here in 
Washington.
  They prevent travel to Taiwan by any officials above a certain rank 
from the Defense Department and the State Department.
  They explicitly prohibit executive branch personnel from 
corresponding directly with Taiwanese officials. Instead, the 
guidelines mandate that communications be sent through a third party.
  The guidelines even stipulate that ``indirect'' communications not be 
printed on official letterhead, and they prohibit U.S. personnel from 
using the official title of the Taiwanese official to whom the letter 
is being sent.
  Executive branch officials are even directed ``not to refer to 
Taiwan's democratically elected government as a `government.''' 
Instead, they are directed to use the strange term ``Taiwan 
authorities.''
  Mr. Chairman, these guidelines needlessly complicate our ability to 
effectively communicate with our friends in Taiwan. As a result, Taipei 
and Washington often find themselves talking past each other through 
the international media instead of communicating face-to-face. It makes 
absolutely no sense and helps no one.
  Mr. Chairman, these self-imposed guidelines raise serious questions 
about who is really in charge and calling the shots when it comes to 
the U.S. policy in Taiwan. Is it the Congress or is it the Communist 
governments in Beijing?
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I will accept the amendment, but I just wanted to highlight how 
ludicrous it is, and I think the gentleman has pointed it out, but to 
have those requirements on Taiwan when China is spying against us. In 
this bill is funding for the FBI to keep the Chinese from spying 
against us.
  There is no persecution in Taiwan. On Monday, we had a meeting with 
the Cardinal Kung Foundation, and they pointed out that there are now 
40, 40 Catholic bishops and priests in jail in China. There are zero in 
jail in Taiwan. This is serious, and I am glad the gentleman offered 
this.
  There are 4,000 to 6,000 evangelicals, house church leaders, men and 
women, in prison in China today. The latest figure as of Monday. There 
are zero in Taiwan. There are Buddhist monks and nuns in Tibet being 
persecuted, and President Hu was the one who put the policy together. 
It is against the law to have a picture of the Dalai Lama. But there 
are no Tibetan monks or nuns being persecuted in Taiwan.
  Maybe we should have the Taiwan regulations apply to the embassy in 
Beijing and reverse it.
  Lastly, just so people know this, there is great persecution against 
the Uighers, the Muslims in China. And to show you how close this comes 
to home, Mr. Lantos and my office worked to have Reba Kadeer released, 
she was in prison for 5 years, by agreeing to meet with a congressional 
delegation. She went through a difficult time. Five years in solitary 
confinement. She got out. Now there was a staff codel to meet with her 
kids 3 weeks ago, and they have now arrested her three children and 
they are in jail. One was beaten and pummeled.
  The Chinese security police sent out agents to northern Virginia to 
spy on her, and they took the license plates down of their cars and 
their public security police.
  So I think the only difference I have with the gentleman's amendment 
is that these restrictions that are on Taiwan should have been on the 
American embassy in Beijing. It is just the opposite. It is like that 
Simon and Garfunkel song, The Boxer: Man hears what he wants to hear 
and disregards the rest.
  There is tremendous growing persecution in China of the Catholic 
church. Some of these bishops are in their 80s. One, Bishop Su, has not 
been seen since 8 years ago. He gave Holy Communion to Congressman 
Chris Smith. I repeat: 4,000 to 6,000 evangelicals, Buddhist monks and 
nuns, and now the Uighers.
  So I am glad the gentleman offered this amendment, and I urge it to 
be strongly passed.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I do not see Mr. Andrews, who was 
coauthor. Therefore, I will simply say that I would hope that we 
invalidate these nonsensical guidelines, allow our government to 
communicate directly with Taiwan's democratically elected government 
the same way we communicate with other friendly governments.
  I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tancredo-Andrews-
Chabot-Brown amendment.
  As my colleagues know, Taiwan is one of our strongest and most loyal 
allies. It is also a democracy that has a multi-party political system 
that recognizes individual liberty and respects human rights.
  Just across the Taiwan Strait is the People's Republic of China. It 
is not a democracy. It has an abysmal human rights record. It does not 
recognize the rule of law. It practices religious persecution. It 
warehouses political prisoners. It carries out a coercive abortion 
policy. And it has more than 800 missiles pointed at Taiwan.
  Our government treats the PRC and Taiwan differently. Now, in a 
logical world, we would work closely with our democratic ally. We would 
treat our friend with the respect it deserves. We would welcome the 
leaders of Taiwan with open arms and conduct frequent high-level 
exchanges. But we don't do that.
  What we do, under the umbrella of our so-called One China policy, is 
just the opposite. We invite high level military officials from the 
People's Liberation Army to visit the Pentagon. We welcome the 
communist dictator to the White House with a twenty-one gun salute.
  We treat our democratic friends from Taiwan quite a bit differently. 
In fact, the democratically elected President of Taiwan is not 
permitted to come to Washington, D.C. Nor is the Vice-President, the 
Defense Minister, or the Foreign Minister.

[[Page 12943]]

  Just a few weeks ago, only two weeks after Communist China's 
dictator, Hu Jintao, was welcomed to the White House, Taiwan's 
democratically-elected leader, President Chen Shui-bian was told he 
could not make transit stops in the United States on his way to 
Paraguay and Costa Rica. Instead, he was told that he could refuel his 
aircraft in Alaska and be on his way. Some way to treat a friend.
  What kind of message are we sending here?
  The Tancredo-Andrews-Chabot-Brown amendment would not change our 
``One China'' policy . . . although I would not be averse to that. It 
simply lifts a number of tired, old guidelines that deter or prevent 
high level U.S. officials from communicating with their counterparts 
from Taiwan. We should treat Taiwan like we treat our other allies. It 
is dangerous to do otherwise.
  Mr. Chairman, let's do the right thing. Let's scrap these 
counterproductive guidelines. Adopt the Tancredo-Andrews-Chabot-Brown 
amendment.
  Mr. TANCREDO. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean) for a colloquy with 
the chairman.
  Ms. BEAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for agreeing to engage in a 
colloquy on Internet safety.
  Mr. Chairman, many of our constituents enjoy access to the valuable 
resources available on the Internet, and yet many are growingly feeling 
under siege from the increasing dangers lurking on the Internet. Cyber 
criminals use spyware, phishing schemes, sales schemes, and on-line 
identity theft, wreaking havoc on American lives each year. These 
threats include a growing number of predators exploiting popular 
networking Web sites in search of young victims. Unfortunately, despite 
intense media attention, many parents and children are unaware of these 
risks or how best to protect themselves.
  The FTC estimates that its Bureau of Consumer Protection devotes at 
least 10 percent and likely more of its resources to these Internet 
safety and security initiatives. As the role of the Internet continues 
to grow even more in the daily lives of Americans, more crimes are 
moving to the net. The FTC expects that, as these trends continue, it 
will need to devote a growing share of its resources to preventing and 
pursuing cyber crimes under its jurisdiction.
  I respectfully request of the chairman that the committee continue to 
work with the FTC to ensure that these efforts receive the resources 
they need to vigorously promote Internet safety public awareness and 
make prevention of cyber crimes a national priority.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for her 
hard work to promote Internet safety.
  Just recently, Congressman Kirk, who has been a leader on this, has 
raised this in our hearings a number of times.
  Congressman Kirk and I urged the FTC to issue a national consumer 
alert to parents and children about the risk of sites like MySpace. I 
would say if any mother or father is listening, to have your children 
involved in MySpace is a mistake. So what I think you are trying to do 
and what Mr. Kirk is doing is very good.
  I share the gentlewoman's concerns and commit to continue looking 
into the matter to ensure the FTC is devoting sufficient resources to 
fight Internet predators and protect children.
  Ms. BEAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from West Virginia will 
continue to yield, I want to offer my sincere thanks to the chairman 
for his leadership on the issue of Internet safety and look forward to 
working with him in the future in our efforts to protect American 
families.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
read.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to fund the Tooling and Machining Association in 
     Rochester, New York.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, yesterday we had quite a discussion on this 
bill. There were efforts to move money from paying for the census, for 
example, to other areas of the bill or other priorities. There was a 
lot of talk about limited resources and the limited amount of money in 
this bill and the need to take money from one area to put into another.
  I would submit that one area that we can take some money from that is 
overfunded, grossly overfunded, in this bill is in some of these 
earmarks. Now, I will maybe highlight 10 of them today, but there are 
literally hundreds in the bill that we could take the money from to 
fund our constitutional obligation, for example, to conduct the census 
every 10 years.
  But I will start today with 250,000 for the Rochester, New York, 
Tooling and Machining Association for a workforce development program; 
that is an earmark. This amendment would strip that funding. The 
Rochester Tool and Machining Association is one chapter of a larger 
international tooling and machining association, which is the national 
representative of the custom precision manufacturing industry in the 
United States.
  They maintain a legislative alert center on their Web site so their 
members can lobby Congress on issues that matter to them. They also 
retain a lobbying firm to advance their interests with the Federal 
Government. It would seem that they are doing yeoman's work for their 
members, as is their Rochester chapter. Their Rochester chapter offers 
technical training and education to its members.
  They assert on their Web site that manufacturing job opportunities 
are not declining and that manufacturing accounts for 24 percent of the 
private sector jobs in New York State. They go on to claim that the 
size of the workforce is declining and that there are insufficient 
skilled workers to fill these available jobs, which I can only assume 
is what this earmark is for.
  What we have here is simple supply and demand, not enough skilled 
workers for too many jobs, an equation that is normally balanced by the 
free market, until this earmark. For those who buy into the idea that 
it is the Federal Government's responsibility to plan and shape the 
supply and demands of our workforce, my objection to this earmark will 
not resonate with you.
  But for those who have witnessed the profound failures of central 
planning in countries around the world during the 1970s and the 1980s, 
I hope that you will understand that this earmark is a mini-economic 
boost by a Federal, centralized government, to increase the supply of 
one industry's workers over another industry.
  I would submit that if there is such a demand for skilled 
manufacturers, as the association claims, then wages will increase, and 
the workforce will adapt, and they will learn ways and skills necessary 
to earn those wages. Let the market decide which industries succeed or 
fail, not politicians in Washington.
  I would like to hear the justification for the Federal function in 
this case, but then I ask, why are we picking winners and losers 
through the earmarking process? Why is this industry, this sector, 
these workers, more deserving than others? I don't think Congress 
should be picking favorites like this.

[[Page 12944]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).
  Mr. REYNOLDS. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Arizona. It is the responsibility of all 
Members of this distinguished body to faithfully represent the 
interests and well being of their constituents.
  I come to this Chamber again today to once again support the needs of 
my home district, where job creation continues to be the number one 
priority of western New York. The Federal investment included by the 
Appropriations Committee for the Rochester Tooling and Machining 
Association is welcome news for western New York.
  I appreciate that the chairman of the committee recognizes, as I do, 
that this project is worthy of Federal involvement through the Small 
Business Administration and will be used to meet the ultimate objective 
of creating and retaining good high-paying jobs for the hardworking 
Americans I represent.
  The Rochester Tooling and Machining Association is a nonprofit 
organization whose mission is to promote the development and 
improvement of tooling, machining and contract manufacturing industries 
in Monroe County and western New York. They have been the region's 
leading association for the tooling and machining cluster for over 60 
years.
  With more than 500 tooling and machine companies in Buffalo, 
Rochester, Syracuse communities, employing approximately 16,000 people, 
these companies clearly have a significant economic impact in my 
region. The goal in this project is to assist these firms with 
necessary training in advanced manufacturing methods which will enhance 
their competitive position by reducing costs and maximizing 
efficiencies.
  The association plans to implement programs in lean manufacturing and 
Six Sigma training, which will streamline business manufacturing and 
business practices and cut down on unnecessary expenses. By 
implementing proven business training techniques, we can ensure our 
manufacturers increase their competitiveness in today's global 
marketplace.
  This project will be a big boost to the marketability of our 
manufacturing sector and help with new business activity for the 
region, which will lead to job retention and, hopefully, job creation. 
The stated goal of the Small Business Administration is to ``maintain 
and strengthen the Nation's economy by aiding, counseling and assisting 
and protecting the interests of small businesses.'' This funding is 
completely in line with those principles.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, again, we all say it is 
our job to represent our constituents, and it certainly is. But we are 
in a deficit situation. We have a massive deficit and a massive Federal 
debt.
  What if every Member of Congress said, I am going to represent my 
constituents by getting every Federal dollar that I can back into my 
district, regardless of the deficit, regardless of the debt.
  That is pretty much where we are at right now. When you had, I think 
last year was $27 billion in earmarks, where does it end? When do we 
say enough is enough? When do we say, I am not going to pick this 
industry over that one?
  That workforce may be worthy of this kind of help, but what makes it 
more worthy than another one? Why do we just continue with the spoils 
system where if you happen to get with this group and they happen to be 
lucky enough to get your earmark, they get funded, but nobody else 
does? We simply can't continue this.
  I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona.
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to fund the Arthur Avenue Retail Market.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I am a big fan of Italian food. My district 
is home to a great Italian restaurant, Anzio's Landing. You can order 
many of your favorite dishes, good Italian bread, and there are many 
former New Yorkers in my district, and they know it well. But if the 
owner of this restaurant, whom I know well, if he approached me to get 
a Federal earmark to modernize his restaurant, I would have to tell him 
``fuhgetaboudit.''
  Today I am bringing this amendment to learn whether the rest of the 
House will agree with me on that premise. The bill before us today asks 
us to spend $150,000 in Federal taxpayer dollars to the Arthur Avenue 
Retail Market, an Italian grocery market in a neighborhood labeled 
Bronx's Little Italy. Over a dozen merchants currently reside in the 
market, including Joe Liberatore's Garden of Plenty, Peter's Meat 
Market and Mike's Deli, a two-generation family-owned business that 
sells antipasti, breads, meats, pasta, and imported cheeses. The market 
is also home to the La Casa Grande Tobacco Company, which offers hand-
rolled cigars.
  In 2004, the market received $300,000 in earmarked Federal dollars 
for renovations. The market received another $400,000 in Federal 
transportation appropriation dollars for a new parking facility in 
2005. We are back.
  In 1940, Mayor LaGuardia built an indoor Arthur Avenue Market to take 
street vendors out of the cold. This is where this originated.
  In the 1980s, the merchants of the market formed a co-op and paid for 
renovations to that market. Now, there are long lines at the market on 
weekends to get great Italian bread, cheese and salami.
  I would ask the sponsor of this amendment why close to $700,000 has 
been spent on this Italian grocery market and why another $150,000 in 
taxpayer funds is needed.
  There is a lot of Federal prosciutto to bring back to the District, 
or that is, a lot of Federal prosciutto to bring back to the District 
for a private Italian grocery market. I think we need to slice off some 
of this appropriations bill. If there is a place to slice, this is 
certainly it.
  What possible Federal purpose does this earmark serve? Does the 
taxpayer even get a free Italian cookie assortment? If we allow our tax 
money to go to this grocery market, what benefit is there for the 
Federal taxpayer? There are certainly plenty of private benefits, but 
what Federal benefit? How do we justify this?
  I would argue that this is one cannoli the taxpayer doesn't want to 
take a bite out of.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona's use of 
certain ethnic words like ``cannoli'' and ``prosciutto'' indicate that 
he takes this more lightly than he should. This

[[Page 12945]]

is a serious thing that he is trying to do here. I know he is on this 
mission to destroy every bit of dollar that is sent by Members of 
Congress.
  Let me start off by saying that I am a firm believer that Members 
know the needs of their districts best, and I am proud to be on the 
floor today to talk about this project so important to the Bronx.
  The Arthur Avenue Retail Market is one of the most prominent, well 
frequented and historic business locations in my district. It 
represents a little bit of Italy in the midst of the Bronx. This space 
serves as an incubator for food-related businesses.
  It is, however, not a grocery store, but, instead, a building owned 
by the City of New York. I think that is important to note. These 
dollars don't go into these businessmen's pockets or businesses for 
that matter; it goes into a building owned by the City of New York.
  In 1940, during the time of Mayor LaGuardia, Arthur Avenue Market, 
the first enclosed retail market in the Bronx, was built to house 
street vendors who were crowding the sidewalks of the borough's Belmont 
community. Today, it is a local landmark.
  So let me be perfectly clear. This is not a privately owned real 
estate venture but a public market which gives many new merchants a 
starting point as they work towards full economic participation in the 
country. This is a place where merchants running their own small 
businesses sell specialty products to people from the surrounding areas 
to visitors from throughout the tristate area and to local restaurants. 
As you know, I represent the poorest congressional district in our 
country, which is located in the middle of the richest city on Earth.
  However, this market is a bright spot, and it is vital to the 
economic success of the Bronx. It is a place where vendors and other 
small business owners can fully participate in our economy. This small 
amount of funding that is being highlighted today is for continued 
facility improvements and maintenance to keep this historic market 
running.
  Specifically, this funding, which will be used for refurbishments of 
the market, will include electrical and plumbing upgrades. The Arthur 
Avenue Retail Market owned by the City of New York is responsible for 
the maintenance.
  The purpose of the Small Business Administration is to assist our 
small businesses. This is exactly what this market does, help small 
businesses in the Bronx to flourish and grow.
  So I would ask my colleague, Mr. Flake, where his outrage was when 
lending institutions and insurance companies were taking billions of 
dollars from the borough of the Bronx in the 1970s and early 1980s 
through redlining and other forms of disinvestment. Where was he when 
one of the few commercial locations remained viable in spite of that?
  I would also like to take the occasion to personally invite the 
gentleman from Arizona to come to the 16th District. You said you had 
one Italian restaurant in your district. I feel sorry for you. You 
should have more than one. I can take you all over the Bronx where you 
could see people hard at work.
  Lastly, on a more serious note, I wish you would be as outraged about 
other things as you are about this one. You voted to rebuild areas of 
Iraq with markets, schools and everything else you can think of, and 
yet you would pick on something like this, which helps a small group of 
businessmen stay vital in the Bronx.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for the invitation. I likely will 
take him up on it. Maybe I will learn to say ``prosciutto'' properly.
  But we simply get back to the point, where does it end? Where do we 
stop favoring one group, one industry over another? It is mentioned 
that this is a city-owned facility. Those who are residing there, who 
have their markets there, already received that kind of subsidy 
apparently from the city.

                              {time}  1415

  Now we are going in addition and giving them further subsidy. 
$400,000 last year for a parking garage, $300,000 in 2004 for similar 
upgrades, $150,000 more today. My guess is that there are Italian 
eateries or restaurants or markets elsewhere in the city that are 
getting no subsidy at all. How is it fair to them? How is it fair to 
them to favor one?
  And I would say the same if it were in my district. It is not fair to 
subsidize one and not the other, and that is where we are with this 
earmarking process.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to fund the Oil Region Alliance of Business, 
     Industry, and Tourism.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this earmark limitation amendment would 
prohibit $200,000 in Federal funds from being provided to the Oil 
Region Alliance of Business, Industry and Tourism.
  Now, the mission of the Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry and 
Tourism is to ``increase the prosperity and population of the Oil 
Region'' of Pennsylvania. The point of the alliance is to ``entice 
people to live, work, learn and play in the valley that changed the 
world.''
  I am certain this is an important organization to the oil region. 
These folks are working to ensure that the region's future is important 
as was its past. I have no problem with that. I don't think anyone 
does. Being the site of the world's first successful oil well in 1859, 
this area has played a crucial role in the country's history.
  My only question is, why should the Federal Government pay to develop 
this area's business and tourism? Why this area and not other areas?
  In April of this year, Governor Rendell congratulated the 
Pennsylvania tourism industry for having a record-breaking year last 
year.
  The $25 billion tourism industry sold more hotel rooms than ever 
before and attracted more than 130 million visitors in 2005, making 
Pennsylvania the fifth most visited State in the Nation. Statewide, 
tourism accounts for more than 400,000 jobs and is the Commonwealth's 
second largest industry.
  I have said it before, and I will continue to say it: when the 
Federal Government hands out earmarks like this, we are picking winners 
and losers. We are encouraging people to visit and to provide tourism 
to this area. They have to come from somewhere else. Why aren't we 
subsidizing those whom they choose not to go to? Where does it end? 
Where do we stop? Why do we simply have a spoils system where one 
Member of Congress can say, I am going to benefit them but not others?
  In this case, the oil region of Pennsylvania receives funding to 
attract businesses to locate in the region, to try to get families to 
move there and to stay, and to try to attract tourist dollars.
  As I mentioned, there are businesses and families and tourist dollars 
that won't be heading to other areas of Pennsylvania or surrounding 
States or

[[Page 12946]]

anywhere else in the country. Many other localities throughout the 
country would like to receive as many tourism dollars as possible, but 
we are favoring one with this earmark.
  Simply put, we shouldn't be doing this. The Federal Government 
shouldn't be picking winners and losers like this.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would begin by stating 
that if the gentleman from Arizona represented the Fifth District in 
Pennsylvania and the oil region alliance area, he wouldn't be offering 
this amendment. He represents an area where the average income is 40-
some-thousand a year, where the region I represent that we are talking 
about today is 20-some-thousand, half, an area that used to be the home 
of Quaker State, just a decade ago, the home of Pennzoil, the home of 
Wolf's Head, Universal Cyclops. One of the finest steel mills in this 
country was in that region. I could list you the ex-corporations that 
used to employ my citizens.
  He represents a district that has grown 40 percent in population in 
the last decade, where I have lost close to 20 percent in this region 
of population because of the loss of these industries.
  Now, you can ignore them. You can let those areas, like he said, let 
the market work. When you lose the number of jobs that this region has 
lost, that is not a normal marketplace. And when you reach out and 
invest a few Federal or State dollars to help communities pull their 
way back up and build an economic base that will pay taxes into the 
State treasury, taxes in the Federal Treasury, now, if you let the 
marketplace work, you will fund unemployment benefits, you will fund 
welfare benefits and all the social programs, LIHEAP and all of those 
things to help people who don't have a decent job.
  Folks, when we don't invest in areas that have lost major employers 
to restabilize their base, we are making a mistake as a country. We are 
making a mistake.
  This marketplace is not exactly as he describes it. Let's see what 
his district is asking for. The Mesa area, on their Web page, they want 
$42 million for bus fleets this year, $54 million for light rail, $10 
million for an airport, $18.6 for another airport, and $1 million for a 
community college, which we don't have, $30 million for a river 
restoration project, and $3.5 million for planning new projects.
  A measly $200,000 investment in the area that had the greatest 
economic decline in Pennsylvania in the last decade and is struggling 
from the loss of not only oil but steel and glass and all other types 
of manufacturing. This little grant helps an organization not only in 
one county but four counties, helps local government leaders deal with 
these losses, help them better manage, train people to write for 
Federal and State grants, because little governments don't have grant 
writers.
  I want to tell you, folks. This hard, calloused approach of not 
helping those who have been destroyed by corporate mergers and 
companies moving away is a mistake when we don't invest. This is not 
pork. This is food for survival so people can regrow their economies 
and pay taxes back into this Treasury. It is about reinvesting in 
America and a part of America that was the stalwart of this country.
  That area furnished us with the transportation system that we have 
today. When they discovered every oil company in the world has roots in 
the Oil City, Titusville, Franklin region, that is where they all 
started.
  Folks, to abandon that area is not what America should be about. This 
is not pork. This is food to help an area survive and fend for 
themselves and grow and pay taxes into the Treasury.
  It is easy for those who represent affluence, growing areas with 
great prosperity, who really don't need us. But those who are 
struggling need us, and we should be there to help them.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply submit that every Member of 
Congress in 435 districts around the country can point to at least 
pockets in his or her district that need help, where there is high 
jobless rates or where there is high crime.
  But where does it end? Where do we say, all right, we simply can't 
pass out earmarks like this and circumvent the normal authorization, 
appropriation, and oversight process? When does it become our job to 
say, all right, we are not going to go through that process and 
authorize these programs, appropriate and then have oversight. Instead, 
we are just going to slip an earmark in that we don't even know who 
sponsored until we offer it on the floor today. And if nobody was 
standing up here, we still wouldn't know.
  There are hundreds and hundreds of earmarks in this bill that we 
wouldn't even know who is offering them or what they are for because 
the descriptions are often so vague as to what the earmark is supposed 
to fund.
  So where does it end? Why can't every Member stand up and say, I have 
pockets in my district, if not my entire district, that need workforce 
development, that need facilities?
  He mentioned my district has grown 40 percent in the past couple of 
years. It has. It has tremendous infrastructure needs. But if I were to 
come and say we need all the lists that he rattled off there, then the 
Treasury simply couldn't handle it.
  We are put in this position to make decisions and to have priorities; 
and I would submit that when you have an earmarking process like that, 
we aren't going through it properly.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to fund the Fairplex Trade and Conference Center.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent any funding 
from going to the Fairplex Trade and Conference Center.
  Fairplex is home to the Los Angeles County Fair, the largest county 
fair in the world. The fair is a great asset to California, 
contributing a major portion of the $11.6 million in State sales tax 
revenue generated by Fairplex and $176 million in spending.
  The L.A. County Fair Association describes itself as self-supporting 
and boasts that it does not fall under the auspices of any county or 
State governmental body.
  Surplus revenues that are generated by the fair and other activities 
are reinvested into the maintenance and development of the facility.
  The association also states that Fairplex receives no government 
funding for the operation or maintenance of its facilities. However, 
Fairplex received $1 million in Federal funding for fiscal year 2006. 
If the money is not used for the operation or maintenance of this 
thriving independent facility, what is it used for?
  Maybe the funding is intended for some other activities at the 
Fairplex, such as the Wally Parks NHRA Motor Sports Museum or the Frank 
Hawley Drag Racing School. Maybe these funds are for Fairplex Park, a 
major horse racing facility with a grandstand and air-conditioned 
clubhouse for satellite gambling.

[[Page 12947]]

  There is no question that Fairplex delivers major economic benefits 
for L.A. County and the rest of California. But I do question, however, 
why the Federal Government is throwing money at an independent facility 
that generates over $334 million in economic activity nationwide. 
Fairplex does so well, in fact, that it donates more than $400,000 in 
cash and in kind to local organizations each year.
  So why are we giving this earmark? That is the question.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to my 
friend from Arizona for raising one of the issues that he and I have 
worked closely on over the years.
  As the Reading Clerk stated and as my friend from Arizona stated, 
this is the Fairplex Trade and Conference Center.
  Mr. Chairman, 43 percent of the goods coming to and from the 
consumers and workers of the United States of America come through the 
ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. One of the most important centers 
for trade, planning and strategic meetings has been held at the 
Fairplex.
  It doesn't fall in my district. It is not in my district. It is in 
the district of my very distinguished colleague, Mrs. Napolitano. But I 
will tell you, as we look at our quest of trying to open up new markets 
for U.S. goods and services all around the world and as we look at 
ensuring that American consumers can have access to the best quality 
product at the lowest possible price, the utilization of this trade and 
convention center is critically important.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I have got to tell you that, as important as the 
issue of global trade is, I was really struck when last December I had 
the opportunity to listen to a friend of mine who happened to be at the 
Fairplex Trade and Convention Center, where it had taken place 2 weeks 
before that, unfortunately, of the eight planned voting sites for the 
Iraqi people who are here in the United States of America, looking 
forward, on December 15, to having the access to a voting station, one 
of those had, unfortunately, closed down.

                              {time}  1430

  And what happened? The people at the Fairplex Trade and Convention 
Center came forward, and literally at the drop of a hat, they were able 
to provide the chance for Iraqis who were in this country on December 
15 of last year to exercise that right to vote. Their ability to be on 
the frontline to participate in the global war on terror is something 
that I think is vitally important.
  I was listening on the phone as applause went up every single time 
that a ballot was placed into that voting box, and it was a great 
moment for us. And as, in the last 2 weeks, we have gotten word of the 
establishment of the completion of that cabinet with the defense and 
interior ministers there, it reminded me again of those votes that were 
cast at the Fairplex Trade and Convention Center that falls not in my 
district but in the district of Mrs. Napolitano. This particular 
earmark is there helping us in the global war on terror and helping us 
remain competitive globally.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The gentleman from Arizona and I have had some conversation over this 
particular issue earlier today, and I did try to impress upon him that 
this is not just an earmark. This isn't pork. This is, in fact, funding 
that would come from the Small Business Administration account for 
construction of the $25 million trade center that is going to be 
located at the Pomona State Fairgrounds, which, by the way, is also a 
proposed staging area for the Los Angeles County emergency staging for 
terrorism. And this is vital to the city of Pomona and the whole 
surrounding community not only east of the Los Angeles area but the 
Inland Empire, as was mentioned by my colleague, Congressman Dreier.
  This would create jobs and assist businesses in an economically 
depressed as well as disadvantaged community and, of course, as many of 
us already know, the number one crime city in the State of California. 
The unemployment rates are exceedingly high.
  Now, this new addition to the fairgrounds, the Trade and Conference 
Center, will generate 1,700 full-time jobs, provide a large economic 
stimulus in the community where now a lot of people are out of work; 
businesses are moving partly because of NAFTA and others, let me tell 
you. But 90 small businesses are already signed and registered to work 
at this new facility or to be able to be exposed there. The Fairplex is 
a very well respected, nonprofit event center hosting yearly over 300 
activities, including the Los Angeles County Fair, and attracts 
hundreds of thousands of people. It is used for Federal events and, as 
you just recently heard, for the Iraqi elections. And last but not 
least, it is also used for naturalization ceremonies.
  I wish to thank my colleague, Chairman Dreier, for his support of the 
project that affects the many surrounding communities of southern Los 
Angeles. And as the Representative for Pomona, I am proud to support 
this bid of $750,000, which will benefit jobs and the economy in this 
area. And in helping this project move forward, I certainly thank you 
and look forward to the support for defeating the amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentlewoman and 
for the gentleman who spoke, and I appreciate their efforts on behalf 
of this initiative. But, again, I have to say, where does it end? Where 
does it end when we say, this group, this organization, this facility 
is worthy of Federal dollars, and another is not? It simply isn't fair 
to continue to give earmarks like this in this manner.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to fund the Bronx Council on the Arts.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would ask Members of this body, how would you define irony?
  I define it as providing a Federal earmark money to the Bronx Council 
on the Arts, which is an entity that is advertising an event on its Web 
site called, Pay to Play.
  Pay to Play, according to the Bronx Council's Web site is ``a 
multimedia exhibition ala Abramoff, Scanlon, Cunningham, Halliburton 
and on and on and on.'' The Web site states that ``artists are asked to 
offer a bribe to participate in the show that will be on display 
alongside selected work. Please note that special consideration will be 
given to work that addresses corruption, greed, scandal, cover-ups, 
failures of democracy, the transparent veneer of public interest that 
masks rampant self-interest, and such other things.''
  I am not saying the earmark for Bronx Council of the Arts fits any of 
these categories, but I am saying that it is sadly ironic that we are 
funding artistic parodies of congressional earmarking with earmarks.

[[Page 12948]]

  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike funding for the Bronx Council 
for marketing local arts initiatives. My staff and I were befuddled as 
to what the Bronx Council originally was. It appears that a Bronx 
Council got money last year in the same section of the bill, but the 
earmark was called, ``$150,000 for the Bronx Council for the Arts for 
its Arts Cultural Corridor Project to promote local arts initiatives.''
  So we went from Bronx Council on the Arts to just the Bronx Council. 
We dropped the ``Arts Cultural Corridor Project,'' and we are no longer 
promoting local arts, but we are marketing them. I call this the 
Earmark Protection Program, changing the names of earmarks to make them 
so vague that no one can recognize them and no amendment can be drafted 
to strike them.
  We often have trouble when we are offering these earmarks. We are 
told by the Parliamentarian that it has to refer to a specific facility 
or a specific initiative, and these earmarks this year, many of the 
names have been changed to be more vague, and it is difficult to know 
what they actually fund. As mentioned a few weeks ago, we had earmarks 
to simply fund a facility without reference to what that facility was. 
It is difficult to have amendments that are actually ruled in order to 
challenge them because, as the Parliamentarians will tell you, to 
successfully challenge an earmark, it requires an assumption that the 
agency that funds the earmark is familiar with the project. Otherwise, 
we might be legislating on an appropriation bill, which is a violation 
of our rules. The incentive, therefore, for Members looking to protect 
earmarks is to become more vague or silent about the project's goals 
and the project's oversight.
  I would submit that we should get used to more earmarks entering this 
protection program in the near future to prevent them from being 
stripped from appropriation bills. I would welcome an explanation as to 
what this earmark actually does.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise reluctantly in opposition 
to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York to speak on this issue.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry Dr. Weldon is reluctantly 
rising.
  But, first of all, I notice that three of the gentleman's 10 
amendments are directed at New York. I do not know what you are angry 
about; the Diamondbacks beat the Yankees in the World Series, so you 
shouldn't be that upset. But the fact of life is that the more you get 
up on these, sir, the more I realize that you do not know what you are 
talking about because you seem to spend so much time on either the 
wording or how it appears when, in fact, you do very little to 
understand what it is.
  The Bronx Council on the Arts is a private, nonprofit membership 
organization that has been in existence for over 40 years and is the 
official cultural agency of Bronx County. It is recognized nationally 
as a leading art services organization, serving a multicultural 
constituency of more than 1.2 million residents.
  Now, I know that the big problem the gentleman from Arizona has is 
the word ``arts'' because there seems to be some belief by a lot of 
Members of Congress, or some, that we should not in any way be involved 
in promoting the arts, and if the arts express themselves in a way that 
we do not like, then we shouldn't even go close to them. So I wish that 
I could just always not call it something like the arts, but I do 
because that is what it is.
  In this case the word ``arts'' is used in conjunction with the words 
``small business.'' This funding belongs in the small business account 
because it will be used to grow our small businesses that have arts-
related portfolios. It will specifically promote an Artisans Initiative 
which will facilitate business development among local Bronx artisans, 
especially newly arrived immigrants, and help them establish their own 
small business. It will help with their skills development and assist 
their product marketing. It will also be used to train Bronx artists to 
market their skills and to develop business plans.
  Small businesses devoted to the arts have an important role to play. 
For example, the Bronx Council on the Arts has had success in training 
the unemployed and underemployed residents of New York City as 
professional art handlers. Some have gone on to start their own small 
business as independent contractors.
  Let me conclude by saying that I represent, as you know, the poorest 
congressional district in the Nation. I make no excuses about getting 
the Federal Government to earmark dollars into that district. Let me 
repeat that again: I make no excuses about the fact that I earmark 
dollars to go into the poorest congressional district in the Nation, 
which is situated in the richest city on Earth.
  If the gentleman from Arizona wants to have an impact on our deficit, 
an impact on how we spend dollars, then let him stand up there the next 
time we are paying for the war in Iraq, a waste of money that is going 
to build all kinds of facilities in Iraq, a war based on lies told to 
this Congress. Then you stand up there and you cut at least 1 billion 
from the over $400 billion that we are spending in Iraq already. But I 
never saw you get up and complain about the fact that we are building 
arts facilities in Iraq, that we are building supermarkets in Iraq, 
that we are promoting basketball in Iraq, that we are promoting 
baseball in Iraq. You haven't said a word. But a couple hundred 
thousand dollars to one group of American citizens, that is a problem 
for you.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
for a question, and I would like to yield to the gentleman to answer.
  Is this the same council that received the earmark last year, just 
for my clarification?
  Mr. SERRANO. Yes. And I told you it was and I used the name that is 
appropriate for it. Call it a typographical error.
  Mr. FLAKE. I will do that. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to fund the Johnstown Area Regional Industries 
     organization.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In last year's conference report on the SSJC appropriations bill, 
there was a $250,000 earmark for the JARI, which stands for Johnstown 
Area Regional Industries, Workforce Development Program. There was a 
separate $250,000 earmark for the JARI Small Business Technology 
Center. This year, there is a $500,000 earmark for the JARI Workforce 
Development Program and the

[[Page 12949]]

Small Business Technology Center. We also found a separate $800,000 
earmark for JARI for a Regional Business Incubator.
  Aside from all other arguments that can be made against this kind of 
earmarking, I want to point out what appears to be a trend toward 
obfuscation in the language of earmarks. In drafting a limitation 
amendment to prevent funding to the JARI Regional Business Incubator, 
we used the earmark language exactly as it appears in the bill.

                              {time}  1445

  We then asked the Parliamentarians to review it to make sure it would 
be in order. We were informed that the ``region business incubator'' 
verbiage was too vague to be considered in order. So in drafting this 
amendment, we had no choice but to limit funding to JARI, period. The 
effect of this amendment would be to prohibit any funding from the bill 
going to the organization, whereas our initial intention was to limit 
the funding to the business incubator.
  That is part of the problem we have here. All we have is the language 
in a report that is so vague or confusing that it is even difficult to 
draft an amendment to cover it.
  Now I have no problem limiting any funding to the organization, let 
me tell you, but I also want to be clear that I have nothing against 
JARI. I wish the organization well in its efforts. I do, however, have 
a problem with the increasingly opaque process by which Congress hands 
out earmarks.
  For the first half of this year, we debated ways to bring 
transparency to what we do here. When it comes to the earmarking 
process, Members have proposed a longer notice period before 
consideration of bills, making bills and reports more accessible, 
attaching Members' names to earmarks, compiling earmarks in tables, 
including earmarks in the text of legislation, and on and on and on. I 
think all these ideas are fine, and I have introduced my own proposal.
  After a good deal of compromise, this House approved the Lobbying 
Accountability and Transparency Act last month. Yet here we are, just a 
few weeks later, and there has been no apparent effort to comply with 
the proposals that we made in the House and the entire House approved.
  How can we explain this to our constituents? Was the lobbying and 
transparency legislation just for show? I certainly don't think it was, 
but it is starting to look that way to most Americans.
  We need to demonstrate how serious we are about establishing 
transparency in Congress. We have made a strong effort, and there is 
nothing preventing us from making good on what we said. Waiting until 
this bill becomes law before we act would appear as though we are under 
compulsion to comply with the public demand for transparency. I think 
we need transparency now.
  A small handful of our colleagues contend that we should not change 
the process until the other Chamber changes its process, that if we 
enact unilateral reforms in the House, we would shortchange ourselves.
  Who is this about? Are we here to serve our country, the best 
interests of our country, or simply to look out for the interests of 
the House?
  What are we waiting for? We are almost done with the appropriation 
process for the year, yet nothing has changed. Where are the names next 
to earmarks? Where is the transparency that we say that we want?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy to yield 
to the distinguished gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that this 
organization operates in a part of the country that has suffered 
probably the most from government policies, particularly our trade 
policies, but also our environmental laws; and whatever arguments you 
could make for our, our free trade policies, they are in large part 
insensitive to the disproportionate negative impact they have on 
certain segments of our economy and certain geographical areas of our 
country.
  The basic industry areas of the country where this organization 
operates have suffered. It is one of those areas that has suffered 
disproportionately. The steel industry was a thriving industry there 
20, 30 years ago. The Mon Valley, which is close to our area, is 
devastated and was practically the first steel industry to suffer. 
There is no steel industry in that area now.
  In addition, environmental laws had negative impacts on the burning 
of fossil fuels. This general region was very prosperous producing the 
Nation's energy and has suffered greatly because of the impacts of 
environmental laws. I am not arguing the environmental law issue at all 
but just simply talking about the economic impact.
  Well, these earmarks are contained in the Small Business 
Administration account, and that is the purpose of the Small Business 
Administration account, is to help small business. So the purpose of 
this funding is to look at workforce development, where there is 
tremendous unemployment as a result of trade laws, environmental laws, 
and government policy that have had a negative impact
  This is self-help. This organization looks at workforce development, 
assisting in training needs for displaced workers, pursuing funding for 
mechanisms for training, assisting displaced workers, and working with 
the training facilities and the colleges and the universities to 
address those very difficult, midlife retraining challenges that the 
Trade Adjustment Assistance Program speaks to and that an organization 
like this can be very helpful in implementing.
  The Incubator Project, is the other side of the coin. That is the 
development and diversification of small business. It is really pay me 
now or pay me later. As the previous gentleman from Pennsylvania said, 
you are either going to address the unemployment condition and try to 
retrain and try to get people back into the community, into the 
workforce through retraining, and at the same time promoting new 
industries, new small businesses for those people to work in, or you 
are going to be paying unemployment and you are going to be dealing 
with the issues of a deteriorating community.
  This funding, which goes to all of those purposes, certainly is in 
keeping of the mission of the Small Business Administration.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to point out that unless the 
gentleman who defended the earmark is the author of the earmark, and I 
don't believe that he is, this is an earmark in Pennsylvania. We still 
don't know who authored the earmark. There is nothing in the conference 
report that tells us, and we still don't know. Here we are about to 
vote on it, and we still don't know and we haven't had a defense of 
that earmark from the author of it, from the Member who authored it. 
There is something wrong with the process when this is what we are 
reduced to.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

[[Page 12950]]



               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to fund the Wisconsin Procurement Initiative.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the committee report for this bill contains an earmark 
for the Wisconsin Procurement Initiative, and my amendment would limit 
funding for this item.
  The committee report for last year's SSJC appropriations bill did not 
contain a similar earmark, but the conference report on this bill did 
include an earmark for the Wisconsin Procurement Institute for the same 
amount.
  Though it is impossible to know by reading the report, it appears 
that this earmark is destined for the same institution. Again, we 
simply don't know. We have insufficient information, yet we are going 
to provide the funding without even knowing, without anybody even 
asking the question, is it the same thing to give money to the 
initiative or the institute?
  It appears that this is one of several earmarks that have been funded 
in multiple years with similar but increasingly vague verbiage in the 
committee report.
  The Wisconsin Procurement Institute was founded in 1987 by Les Aspin, 
a former Congressman and Secretary of Defense. The institute says its 
purpose is to ``bridge the gap for Wisconsin companies interested in 
supplying their products and services to Federal, State and local 
agencies and prime contractors.'' The institute ``guides, trains and 
provides hands-on assistance to firms in developing government business 
and improving process and technical capabilities to access and compete 
in the government workplace.''
  When I saw this earmark, it reminded me of the late-night commercials 
that you see from a fellow by the name of Matthew Lesko. He will stand 
up and run to the camera, and he has a suit with question marks all 
over it, and he has a car decorated the same way, and he will wave a 
book and say, ``There is millions and millions of government dollars 
just for you, and if you pay me $19.95, I will tell you how can get 
these contracts, how you can get this money, how you can get these 
scholarships, how you can get these grants, how you can get these 
loans.''
  This seems to be a process similar to Matthew Lesko. You have an 
organization here whose job it is to secure projects from the Federal 
Government, and we are paying money to that organization to help them 
procure contracts from us. It just seems like a little double-dipping 
in that way. We are funding an organization whose purpose it is to help 
other organizations obtain Federal assistance, grants, contracts, et 
cetera.
  According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the 2003 budget for the 
Wisconsin Procurement Institute was $340,000. This year's and last 
year's earmarks were for $400,000 each. It seems that we have doubled 
their budget, or their entire budget comes from the Federal Government. 
I am not sure which.
  I am sure the Wisconsin Procurement Institute's budget is higher now 
than it was 3 years ago, but a significant portion must be funded by 
this earmark.
  I certainly support the outsourcing of Federal functions that can be 
better performed by private companies, but there is something 
inherently wrong with funding an organization whose purpose it is to 
help others secure government funding. Just thinking about it makes 
your head spin.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have done it again. We have come here to talk about 
an earmark that I am sure will be approved by voice vote and then 
probably by roll call, and we still don't even know who sponsored it. 
We don't know if the institute is the same as the initiative. We don't 
know why the organization claims on its own Web site to have a budget 
of $340,000, yet has received earmarks in each of the past 2 years for 
$400,000 each.
  It simply doesn't make sense. Are we exercising the proper oversight 
that we ought to? We said before, both sides have said, the gentleman 
and ranking minority member have said we simply don't have the staff to 
police the kind of earmarking we are doing here. I readily agree. Yet 
we are continuing to do this. I don't know where we stop. I simply 
don't.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear. The Wisconsin Procurement 
Institute was indeed organized originally by Les Aspin when he was 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee in this House. It is an 
organization that helps many new companies who are new to the 
procurement process figure out how the Federal procurement process 
works.
  Instead of providing money to individual companies, this money is 
used to create an institute to educate all kinds of companies so that 
they can compete for Federal business, especially in the procurement 
area and most especially in the defense area.
  I would make one simple point: Right now, large corporations have the 
resources and they have the experience to seek Federal business, but 
many quality companies do not because they are unfamiliar with how the 
Federal procurement process works.
  There are a number of organizations who rank States in terms of how 
much Federal money they get each year. Wisconsin, Minnesota and 
Michigan always rank near the bottom. Ninety percent of the difference 
between them and the number one State in the Union in terms of Federal 
money occurs because of a difference in the number of Federal employees 
and because of differences in defense contracts.
  The gentleman comes from the State which is the number six State in 
the Union in terms of getting money out of procurement. You have large 
companies, such as Raytheon, which produce huge numbers of missiles, so 
that gives you a lot of Federal procurement dollars.

                              {time}  1500

  You also have many talented electronic companies like General 
Dynamics, a huge company that also gets a large amount of Federal 
dollars. You have large military installations such as Fort Hauchuca, 
which contains the Army intelligence operation.
  In Federal procurement, unfortunately, the way it usually works is 
``Them what has gets more!'' This initiative, the Wisconsin Procurement 
Institute, which I fully confess that I and the other Members of the 
Wisconsin Delegation support, this initiative is to help other 
corporations who are not experienced in the ins and outs of Federal 
procurement policy, so that we can end the insider advantage that the 
gentleman's constituents have.
  What we are trying to do is to open up the process so that you can 
enable a large number of companies to come in and compete. I make no 
apology whatsoever for that. Wisconsin has a right to expect that its 
corporations should be able to compete, and so does every other State 
in the Union.
  I would simply ask the gentleman, do not begrudge the efforts of 
Wisconsin to close the gap between our State and yours. Your State gets 
$7 billion more in Federal procurement than mine does.
  This operation is a small operation to try to enhance the ability of 
companies in our State to close that gap somewhat. We have chosen not 
to provide money directly to companies but

[[Page 12951]]

instead to provide an ability for companies to learn how the 
procurement process works.
  We also, under this process, have created a Web site which will 
enable Federal agencies to review the talents and the qualities of many 
of the companies in Wisconsin so that if they are looking for 
particular projects or products they know where to go to find them.
  I think that what that will do in the end is help enhance 
competition, and it will help save taxpayers money by cutting some new 
companies in on the deal that so many large companies in the 
gentleman's State enjoy.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was rejected.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to fund Fairmont State University.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $900,000 in Federal funds 
from being used by Fairmont State University in West Virginia for a 
small business initiative.
  Fairmont State University is located in Fairmont, the county seat of 
Marion County, which has a population of 20,000 and is located in north 
central West Virginia. Similar to other earmarks I have challenged in 
this appropriations season, this earmark is vague in its description, 
offering no more than a general sketch of the purpose of the funding 
and making true oversight nearly impossible.
  In addition, this is not the first earmark to benefit the school. In 
recent years, Fairmont State University and its partners have regularly 
benefited from earmarks in this appropriation bill.
  For example, the 2005 Justice Department budget included a grant for 
nearly half a million dollars for the Fairmont State partner program 
looking at decoding criminal digital documents. Similarly, the 2006 
SSJC appropriation bill included over $2 million in earmarks assisting 
the school's aviation program and aerospace curriculum.
  And I guess the third time is the charm. We are likely to continue 
this trend in 2007 with an earmark for $900,000 for a small business 
development initiative.
  In fact, according to some estimates, northern West Virginia has 
received more than $480 million in earmarks in various appropriation 
bills over the last 10 years.
  This earmark illustrates the problem with earmarks. Year after year, 
we approve these vaguely described projects by the thousands. Not only 
do taxpayers not know how the money is being spent, the current earmark 
process makes those types of patterns, the same area benefiting time 
and time again at the taxpayers' expense, difficult if not impossible 
to detect.
  My question is, where does it end? Where does Congress start to say 
enough is enough and add accountability and transparency to this 
runaway train that earmarks have become? If not with earmarks like 
this, then I do not know when.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I 
yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in opposition to this 
amendment.
  You know, it should be understood that a lot of those earmarks go to 
help those who are in the greatest need of help.
  I am struck by the good fortune of the gentleman and his 
congressional district and his State, as recounted by the ranking 
member just a few moments ago. You are indeed very fortunate to have 
these large defense contractors, Raytheon and General Dynamics, and 
these large Federal installations like Fort Wachuka in your State. That 
is a real blessing.
  It is particularly a blessing in an economy that marginalizes and 
that is not nurturing to certain sectors. But certainly I think the 
gentleman can understand that in the last 20, 25, 30 years, our 
economy, because of the increased internationalization of it, has been 
extremely harsh on certain segments and certain geographical areas, as 
I mentioned earlier.
  Those areas that were steel manufacturing areas, those areas that 
were coal producing areas, those areas that were basically 
manufacturing, microcosms if you will, for rust belt America were 
particularly hard hit during this period; and the need in these areas 
is for economic diversification. And the gentleman may not have been 
engaged in that much, but this is a very difficult, hard thing to do.
  Federal Government assistance, this appropriation, these earmarks, if 
you will, in the Small Business Administration go directly to help 
rejuvenate economies, creating a broader, a more flexible, a more 
dynamic economy through diversification.
  It is not an easy process; and if you have not been involved with it, 
the gentleman probably is not sensitive to that as he might be. But 
current economic trends in these areas, in these kinds of areas 
indicate that the sectors that do have potential growth are the 
heritage, tourism, regional travel; and this program works with the 
West Virginia Department of Education Travel and Tourism to promote 
what is the fastest-growing segment of the economic base.
  So that is the purpose of the earmark, and I strenuously oppose the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, all of the descriptions of Arizona make it 
sound like Shangri-La, that everything is going so well in Arizona that 
we have no need for any help with the economy or any sector of the 
economy. That is simply not the case. We are experiencing rapid growth. 
There are a lot of infrastructure needs that come with that. We are 
experiencing transition.
  I grew up in northeastern Arizona. There are tremendous problems 
there with drought and other issues.
  But I would defy any Member of Congress to say that his district is 
not in need of something. But if we all said, all right, we are just 
going to get it all, get it all for our districts, circumvent the 
authorization appropriation oversight function that Congress has always 
had and simply say we are going to earmark it and use kind of a spoil 
system as to who gets the earmarks, then it is simply going to drain 
the Treasury, and it is not fair to anyone.
  I have universities in my district. Many of them compete for 
educational grants, for research grants, for other grants that are 
typically available in this appropriation bill and others that are 
being depleted. Those accounts for research funds are being depleted by 
earmarks.
  Later today I believe we will be voting on an amendment or some 
clarification of the TEA-LU bill to replenish a research account or 
some kind of research account on roads whose account was depleted 
because of earmarks. So people in Arizona or elsewhere are not going to 
receive the funding that would come by formula back to them, because of 
the gas taxes they paid in, because of all of the earmarking that is 
going on.
  So this is a problem. It is not a fair system. It is not a 
transparent system. If it were a transparent system, we would have 
names next to the earmarks when they come to the floor. We would have 
the ability to challenge it at any step. You would have language that 
is such that a limitation amendment could not be ruled out of order.

[[Page 12952]]

  This is not a fair process. We need to change it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                     amendment offered by mr. flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to fund the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism 
     Development Association.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from 
being used for the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development 
Association, which receives a $1 million earmark in this bill.
  The Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association was 
created in 1987 to promote, expand, develop and market the existing and 
potential tourism industry in southern and eastern Kentucky.
  According to our research, since 1987, the Southern and Eastern 
Kentucky Tourism Development Association has received more than $18 
million in Federal grants, loans, and earmarks. In fact, last year, in 
the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, Justice and Commerce appropriation 
bill, the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Development Association 
received a $3 million earmark.
  Now I love traveling, as everyone here does; and I am all for seeing 
Kentucky tourism continue to grow. But again, here, how do we justify 
favoring this tourism association and not others?
  We have one in Arizona. Virtually every State has one. Many regions 
in our State have their own tourism associations. How do we decide that 
one is worthy of earmarks and another one is not?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I 
yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me time.
  This association, as the gentleman said, was formed in 1987, this 
association of 42 of Kentucky's counties covering five out of the six 
congressional districts.
  What sets these counties apart, however, is their extreme poverty. 
These are rural counties in an impoverished coal mining region of the 
State who have seen the jobs in the mines disappear through 
mechanization and otherwise; and these counties are searching for a way 
to live, to survive. They are too poor to do it on their own, to form 
an association to try to create tourism, train people, create the small 
jobs that it takes to run tourism entrepreneurships. So they banded 
together, 42 of them, into an association where they pool their 
resources.
  The State of Kentucky helps fund this association, as well as the 
Federal Government and locals. But for this association, these counties 
would not be able to advertise and attract to the very, very beautiful 
part of the country, the mountains, the streams and the hills, the 
history. It is the home of country music. US 23 that runs north and 
south through eastern Kentucky is known as Country Music Highway, a 
National Scenic Byway now, thanks to this association.
  They are the ones that promoted that National Scenic Byway. There are 
two others, the Red River Gorge Scenic Byway, National Scenic Byway, 
and the Daniel Boone Trail. The Cumberland Gap is a part of this area.

                              {time}  1515

  So this association works to promote the region. It is providing jobs 
to those who otherwise would be drawing Federal handouts, Federal 
welfare. We are trying to work to get people a job rather than take a 
check from the Federal Government. I look upon this as not a handout 
but a hand up, and these communities are now beginning to realize 
income that provides real jobs for people that would otherwise be 
drawing welfare.
  Now, is it unique that we would look to the Federal Government to 
help a region help itself grow into something better and provide the 
jobs? No, it is not unique. I would support today the earmarks over the 
years for the central Arizona water project that enabled Arizona to 
grow and prosper and boom as it is now and providing jobs for people. 
That is what the Federal Government should be doing, and I do not 
begrudge a minute the gentleman from Arizona and the boom that is 
occurring in Arizona, but it was caused because the Federal Government 
over the years earmarked hundreds of millions of dollars to provide 
water out of the Colorado River so that Arizona in the desert would 
bloom.
  It is a good thing. I would support that and continue to do so, but I 
would hope the gentleman would realize there are other parts of the 
country with much much smaller needs but equally as important to the 
people that live there.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will turn down the amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Otter).
  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Arizona.
  I was sitting in my office watching all these wonderful and 
heartrending speeches from folks about their economies and iron mills 
shutting down, steel mills shutting down, industries being totally 
lost, and now it is up to this Congress to pass through earmark 
appropriations in some legislative vehicles that are not the 
appropriate vehicle for it, which is why it is so hard for my friend 
from Arizona to find out where this money is going and why it is going 
and who asked for it.
  But I am reminded from time to time that this was the same Congress 
that has passed regulation that has prohibited us in the west, in 
Idaho, from harvesting trees, from mining minerals, from, in fact, 
earning a living or even building, as my good friend from Kentucky just 
said, in talking about building a whole new industry.
  Well, we would like that opportunity, too. In fact, we would like 
this Congress just to keep their promises to us when they shut down our 
forests and shut down the mining and halted much of the grazing on that 
land in Idaho and said, we will do this, we will make you PILT 
payments, payment in lieu of taxes. Because you have so much Federal 
ground in Idaho, a lot of that property does not render any taxes, and 
so we will make that payment for you. Well, you are about $148 million 
short this year alone.
  So I would say to these Members of Congress that have such huge 
hearts for their own particular little locales and their own particular 
little projects, that if you are going to do this, for gosh sakes, let 
those of us that would like to do it without all your help help 
ourselves.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me simply make the point, I was not around when the central 
Arizona project or other water projects in Arizona were approved, but I 
do know this: Nobody slipped funding for the central

[[Page 12953]]

Arizona project in an appropriations bill at the last minute in a 
conference report. These programs were authorized. There were 
appropriations. There has been oversight. It is the antithesis of what 
we are doing here in this bill and in this process this year.
  We need to get back to the process of authorization and appropriation 
and oversight. We seem to have abandoned the outer two bookends, and 
all we are doing is appropriating, as I would submit, when you have 
descriptions this vague and you have situations where Members do not 
even come to the floor to defend it, and we still do not know on one of 
these that I offered today who the author is. On what I offered last 
week on two of the earmarks, we still do not know who offered them, but 
yet we pretend we are offering good oversight? We are really not. We 
can do a lot better than this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be 
postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Cardoza

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Cardoza:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. For ``Office of Justice Programs--justice 
     assistance'' for the Drug Endangered Children grant program, 
     as authorized by section 755 of the USA PATRIOT Improvement 
     and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177), and the 
     amounts otherwise provided by this Act for ``Other--salaries 
     and expenses, departmental mangagement'' (reduced by 
     $5,000,000) are hereby reduced by $5,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to start and begin by thanking Chairman Wolf and the 
ranking member, Mr. Mollohan, for working with me on this amendment. I 
also want to thank Mr. Larsen of Washington and Ms. Hooley for offering 
this amendment with me today and for all of their hard work addressing 
the methamphetamine problem and its effect on children.
  I rise today to introduce this amendment to provide $5 million in 
authorized funding for the Drug Endangered Children Program. This 
program would provide grants to States for initiatives that help 
children move from homes in which drug abuse or production takes place 
and, instead, into safe, permanent homes.
  Funding the Drug Endangered Children Program would represent an 
important step towards helping develop new protocols for law 
enforcement and child welfare workers to address the special needs of 
these children displaced by family methamphetamine use, which is a 
growing problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to quickly tell you a story about a 12-year-old 
boy that recently came to see me here in the Capitol. He is from 
Stockton, California, in my district. His father was arrested for 
running a meth lab in their home garage, and his mom, a meth addict, 
abandoned him and his two brothers. In fact, she left them at a phone 
booth in the community of Stockton, told them that she would be back, 
and 2 days later, this young, 12-year-old boy took his two brothers to 
a local police station and turned themselves in to the police so that 
they could get food and get out of the cold climate that they were in 
for 2 days.
  The system was unable to handle this situation. As a result, he was 
separated from his two brothers, his only remaining links to his family 
that he once loved.
  He came to see me last year, and he sat in the cafeteria below this 
Chamber, and he leaned over to me, and he whispered, Congressman, I 
have had so much pain in my life.
  We can do better and we must do better to help these young children. 
By working with the chairman and his staff, we have reduced the dollar 
amount in the bill so that this amendment no longer affects the Census 
Bureau.
  Mr. Chairman, this program will make a real difference in the lives 
of children affected by meth and other drugs. I urge a ``yes'' vote on 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
California for offering this important amendment.
  The most tragic victims of the meth epidemic are the drug-endangered 
children. A recent study in Oregon revealed that police find children 
living on the premises of one out of every four meth laboratories that 
they break up. These children are exposed to toxic chemicals on a daily 
basis and face the constant threat of physical, mental and emotional 
abuse from the nonstop flow of addicts through their home.
  The Drug Endangered Children Program provides vital services for 
these children, ensuring that law enforcement, child protective 
services, prosecutors and health professionals all work together to get 
them the help that they need.
  From removing and supporting these children as they transition out of 
these dangerous environments to ensuring that they get medical 
evaluations, mental health screenings, drug and chemical exposure 
screenings and addiction treatment, the Drug Endangered Children 
Program gives children a safe and drug-free environment to live in.
  That is why we introduced this legislation. I hope that my colleagues 
will see fit to appropriate the $5 million for this appropriate 
initiative.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for accepting 
the amendment. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Larsen).
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment to provide $5 million for the Drug Endangered Children 
Program.
  I want to thank Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan for their 
work to increase funding for many law enforcement programs and the 
fight against methamphetamine. I am particularly encouraged by the $99 
million allocated for the Meth Hot Spots Account in this appropriations 
bill.
  I respect the tough job our appropriators have in writing these 
spending bills. They have admirably allocated dollars to programs that 
help our law enforcement do their job. However, one authorized program 
that was not fortunate to receive dollars in this bill is the Drug 
Endangered Children Program.
  Children are too often the silent victims of drug abuse. As a cochair 
of the House Meth Caucus, I have talked to many social service workers 
and treatment providers about the risks that drug-endangered children 
face. I have heard repeated stories of meth users leaving their 
children unattended for days as they cook and use methamphetamine and 
sleep off its intense effects.
  We have often talked about the need for more money to help local law 
enforcement to bust the bad guys, but we rarely talk about the impact 
those busts have on the kids who may be living in drug-infested homes.
  So I want to thank the gentleman from California for his work on this 
amendment, and I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I want to thank the chairman 
for accepting this amendment as well.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to once again thank the 
chairman for working with me on this and appreciate his accepting the 
amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page 12954]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Chocola

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Chocola:
       Page 110, after line 8, insert the following new title:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     for travel policies and practices in contravention of Office 
     of Management and Budget Circular No. A-126.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think one of the greatest luxuries in life would be 
to own your own airplane. In fact, I think maybe one of the greater 
luxuries would be to have somebody else own the airplane and let you 
fly on it whenever you want and they pay the bill.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, that is pretty much the arrangement that the 
senior management at the National Aeronautics Space Administration, 
better known as NASA, has. A recent GAO reports that, over a 2-year 
period, NASA employees took 1,188 flights on private jets at a cost of 
$25 million or five times the cost of commercial tickets.
  I understand that at times NASA has appropriate uses for private 
jets, like when they do aeronautical research, but I do not think it is 
appropriate for routine visits, meetings, conferences and speeches. The 
GAO found that 86 percent of the trips taken on these private jets 
specifically are prohibited by Federal policy regarding aircraft 
ownership.
  Mr. Chairman, that is 1,022 trips on private jets by NASA employees 
that are specifically prohibited and paid for by the American 
taxpayers.
  Because NASA has been largely unresponsive to previous GAO 
recommendations to remedy this situation, the GAO has actually asked 
for congressional consideration of legislation to restrict NASA's 
ownership of passenger aircraft and funding for passenger aircraft 
services to those needed solely to meet valid mission requirements.
  Mr. Chairman, this position is clearly indefensible. It is time to 
put an end to unresponsive management violating established policies, 
flying on private jets at the taxpayers' expense simply for personal 
convenience.
  So I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to achieve 
that result, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment. I understand the 
gentleman's amendment is related to the findings of the Government 
Accountability Office audit in August of 2005 concerning NASA mission 
management aircraft.
  I also understand that NASA has concurred with the administrative 
recommendations, meaning they agree with the GAO and the gentleman 
trying to implement the recommendations made by GAO. NASA is now using 
a new methodology to justify any passenger travel on its aircraft to 
match OMB Circular A-126.
  Further, OMB has reviewed NASA's revised policy and has no objections 
with respect to it.
  It is a good amendment, and I think it is doubly good because for the 
first time we have brought a bill to the floor with absolutely no NASA 
earmarks. The administrator has said this is very good because when you 
have earmarks, it takes away.
  So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and urge that it be 
adopted.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wolf for his support and 
for his hard work on this appropriations bill, and in an effort to not 
talk myself out of a sale, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  1530


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
       Page 110, after line 8, insert the following new title:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for a manned space mission to Mars.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ 
minutes.
  This amendment simply says that none of the funds being appropriated 
to NASA shall be used for a manned space shot to Mars.
  We have heard throughout the appropriations debate legitimate 
complaints from the appropriators that they have too little money to 
meet various important needs. We are constantly faced with difficult 
choices on this floor between good programs. NASA itself has objected 
that it does not have enough money to do all that it is supposed to now 
do. I think that is right. I think it is terribly unfair and damaging 
to the country to give to this important agency more than it can handle 
with the money it gets.
  I would like to be able to appropriate more money, but the budget 
says we can't do that. So what we can do is, as a Congress, set some 
priorities. Sending human beings to Mars, in my judgment, is at best a 
luxury that this country cannot now afford.
  We are talking about deficits that we have to deal with. We are 
talking about Social Security funding that will be needed. We are 
talking about a shortage within NASA to do everything it wants to do. 
To go forward with a commitment to send people to Mars, which is not in 
the arguments of any scientist I have ever heard as the best use of our 
funding, is a great mistake.
  This amendment does not cut a penny out of NASA. Instead, it allows 
the money to be spent by NASA more wisely. It does not stop them from 
spending money on their priorities. We have things like aeronautics 
that have not got enough money, we have other space travel, we have 
space exploration by instrumentation. Committing and allowing funds to 
be spent now as a downpayment on sending human beings to Mars is, as I 
said, at best a luxury that the country ought not to be indulging in.
  The justification for sending people to Mars is political, it is 
psychological, it is cultural, but it is not scientific. And we should 
also note that if we continue on this path now, so that money is spent 
to go to Mars, we will be confronted with an additional request at some 
point in the near future for $100 billion or more to do this.
  We talk rhetorically often about the need to make tough decisions, 
the need to set priorities. As I listen to the inability to fund 
important program after important program, the notion that NASA, which 
as I said tells us they do not have enough money to do everything they 
would like to do, that some of that should be spent on sending human 
beings to Mars is the gravest example I can think of of money unwisely 
spent.
  We talk about trying to save money. I don't want to save money on old 
people who need medical care. I don't want to save money on children 
who need help with drug abuse. I don't want to save money on protecting 
the border. I don't want to save money by cutting

[[Page 12955]]

low-income housing for the elderly or the disabled.
  There aren't many areas where we can say, you know what, let us just 
not spend that money at all. Sending human beings to Mars ought to be 
of a very low priority compared to everything else we do.
  This amendment does not touch the funding of NASA. It does say that, 
of all of the needs that NASA now has, sending human beings to Mars is 
sufficiently low that we ought to put it aside, at least for now.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding, and I actually want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for offering this amendment, because I think it is a good amendment for 
us to discuss.
  There is actually very little in this bill that is devoted to the 
subject he is talking about. The vast majority of the funds go to the 
continued operation of the space station, the shuttle, and the 
development of a replacement vehicle, a safer, more reliable, less 
expensive vehicle for the shuttle.
  There is some early money for exploration devoted to returning to the 
Moon sometime in the next 10 to 15 years, and there is a very small 
amount of money devoted to the subject of can we put men and women on 
Mars someday and hopefully do that in a fashion with other countries to 
help reduce the cost.
  I think we should overwhelmingly vote ``no'' on this, and I will tell 
you why. This is the United States of America. We are a Nation of 
pioneers and explorers. When we left the Moon the last time for Apollo 
17, I thought we would be on Mars in 10 years. I never would have 
imagined that 30 or 40 years later we are still debating the subject.
  I believe we are destined to explore not just Mars but go on to other 
stars. It is in our nature as human beings. And for us to say, no, we 
don't want to do that; we can't afford it; we have too many other 
problems, I think would be a very unfortunate thing. It would be 
unfortunate for our kids, who we want to study math and science. And 
the teachers all tell me the same thing, there is nothing you can do to 
motivate them more to study math and science than to talk to them about 
manned space and exploring other planets.
  So I have a tremendous amount of respect for the gentleman, but I 
think he is wrong on this one. I recognize there are costs associated 
with it, and we are fighting a war, and we have a deficit, but this is 
a small amount of money, and I think we do need to proceed.
  So I would encourage a ``no'' vote on the Frank amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in 
support of the amendment.
  This is a Congress and this is a President which has decided we are 
going to blow $400 billion on the dumbest war since the War of 1812 in 
Iraq. This is the Congress that has decided that every other priority 
has to be scuttled so that we can provide $50 billion in tax cuts for 
millionaires this year. And yet there is no room in the Budget Inn for 
improving the health care of our people.
  We are actually going to be funding fewer grants next year at the 
National Institutes of Health for medical research than we were 2 years 
ago. We are squeezing health professions training. We are providing an 
education budget that is $1.5 billion below last year in terms of No 
Child Left Behind education programs. We are cutting law enforcement 
grants by over $2 billion below the year 2001. We are providing a 
squeeze on Legal Services, despite the amendment that was adopted last 
night. Mr. Gilchrest from Maryland just made a compelling argument 
about the need to spend a lot more money to protect our oceans.
  We don't have money for any of that, and yet, oh, we've got money to 
go to Mars. I am as excited as anybody else about the prospect of 
sending a man to Mars. I think that would be wonderful. But not if you 
have to do it on borrowed money and not if you are putting tax cuts for 
millionaires ahead of educating kids.
  I get excited about the space program, but I get a lot more excited 
about the prospect of providing clean water for every community in this 
country. I get a lot more excited about cleaning up school districts 
and fixing up schools and training teachers so that every kid in 
America is trained by a competent teacher, rather than having a huge 
percentage of our kids trained by teachers who were never educated in 
the field that they are teaching. So I guess it depends on what you are 
most excited about.
  It seems to me that the gentleman is pointing out that we ought to 
have a little common sense in deciding what ought to be put first in 
this country. I would prefer that we put Earth-based science ahead of 
sending somebody to Mars.
  If you want to clean up the deficit, if you want to clean up the 
deficits we have in investments in education and investments in health 
care, if you want to take care of the fact that 44 million people in 
this country are without health insurance, you get that done, then, 
baby, I am all for you if you want to go to Mars.
  Until then, I would like to send to Mars every politician that thinks 
that the existing priorities are the right ones. They are not. They are 
wacky. This amendment isn't even a close call. We ought to adopt it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, if this amendment were adopted, it would 
shut off all funding for all high-technology work that NASA is doing 
that has multiple applications.
  The amendment says, ``no money can be spent in support of the manned 
mission to Mars.'' There is no manned mission to Mars in this bill. But 
the technology application, the research work that NASA is doing to 
develop the next generation of rocket propulsion, the research work 
that NASA is doing to develop the next generation of microcomputers, 
the technology, for example, in this BlackBerry can be used on a manned 
mission to Mars and also manned missions in low-Earth orbit.
  The technology that NASA is developing to fight cancer, any astronaut 
that goes above the Earth's atmosphere is immediately exposed to a 
higher risk of cancer, yet the research NASA is doing to protect 
astronauts in space and low-earth orbit and to travel to the moon, for 
example, could obviously be used on a mission to Mars. But if the 
gentleman's amendment is adopted, it would cut off any of that work 
that is being done right now to help protect our astronauts' lives in 
low-Earth orbit, because that technology could arguably be used on a 
mission to Mars.
  There is no manned mission to Mars in this bill. The gentleman's 
amendment is so broadly written, it will have the effect of shutting 
off most of NASA's research and development work in the cutting-edge 
technologies that are so essential to the success of the manned space 
program and to the success of the American economy.
  I urge the Members to vote ``no'' against this shortsighted 
amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Perhaps I should include some instruction in reading. The gentleman 
has simply not described the amendment. It does not say no money can be 
used in support of. It says no money can be ``used for.''
  The gentleman from Florida said a small amount of money here is for 
Mars. It is a small amount of money now. It is a downpayment on a huge 
amount of money. So this would not prevent any of that spending. You 
could spend it on the astronaut issue. All it says is you cannot use 
it, and he said support for. There is a difference between ``support 
for'' and ``used for.'' So let us not leave reading out of the 
curriculum.

[[Page 12956]]


  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Cramer) 1 minute.
  Mr. CRAMER. I thank the chairman of the subcommittee.
  I have been a member of this subcommittee since the subcommittee was 
formed, and I was a member of the VA-HUD Subcommittee before then. And, 
as a matter of full disclosure, I come from an area that has one of the 
NASA centers, the Marshall Space Flight Center.
  But the gentleman's amendment is not well designed. This would kill, 
this would kill the core of NASA. This would redefine what NASA is all 
about, and I urge the Members to oppose this amendment.
  We have balanced carefully, the chairman and the ranking member of 
this subcommittee, within the confines of this budget, to order what we 
could do for NASA versus what we could do for COPS programs, Justice 
programs, and NOAA and other programs in here. This is a good debate to 
have, because we don't have enough money and we don't have enough room 
in this budget.
  But this is a bad amendment, and I urge the Members to oppose it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield myself the remaining time.
  That argument is further out in space than the Mars shot. The core of 
NASA is to send people to Mars?
  All it says is that you can't use the money for a manned space shot 
to Mars. You have got the Moon, you have got aeronautics, you have 
everything else. That simply misstates it.
  Here is where we are. Does this House have the right to say that we 
do or don't want to be committed to going to Mars? Here is what will 
happen if the amendment is defeated. They will say, well, some money 
was voted that way; and the defense is, well, we need it to do cancer 
research, we need it for the Moon, but it will be used as a downpayment 
for a very expensive mission to Mars.
  The gentleman from Florida said, well, we shouldn't say we can't 
afford this. That would be terrible for America. But we can't afford to 
pay old people for all of their medical drug bills. There is a doughnut 
hole. The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee said we 
can't afford more border guards. We can't afford more beds.
  Of course, there are things we can't afford. The notion is not 
whether or not we should acknowledge what we can't afford but whether 
we should be sensible about what we can afford and can't afford.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Calvert).

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. We 
have laid out a compelling vision and mission for the civil space 
program to conduct a robust program of human and robotic space 
exploration.
  Last year, this Congress overwhelmingly endorsed the President's 
Vision for Space Exploration with a vote of 383-15 on the NASA 
Authorization Act. This amendment would abandon those plans endorsed by 
Congress.
  We cannot turn back NASA's long-range plans. I certainly urge all of 
my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and let's stay on track.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Just the 
fact that the gentleman from Massachusetts has spent so much time 
explaining what his amendment means I think is the best proof that it 
is so vague that we don't really know what we are not funding with this 
amendment.
  There is $3.9 billion in the Constellation Systems account. 
Conceivably, the amendment could prevent any of that spending. All of 
it, it could be argued, relates to a manned space mission to Mars.
  The amendment is so vague that I think that is why everybody is 
really concerned about it.
  It is absolutely true that NASA is having problems. There is no 
question about it. The President has proposed a space exploration 
initiative. He calls it a vision, in some ways of course it would be 
if, if, it were genuinely funded. My concern is that it is not 
genuinely funded.
  There are a lot of problems with NASA funding, but it all has to do 
with not enough funding to do everything that we want to do. That is 
evidenced by the myriad of science programs that are either cancelled 
or cut in the President's budget. It is terrible.
  Every scientist that is at all concerned about operating in the NASA 
camp has expressed how opposed they are to the NASA funding. But this, 
to me, is not the way to get at that.
  What we do need is more money in NASA, and NASA, I think, frankly 
needs to come forward with a budget that is more specific, one that we 
can deal with, instead of coming up with these operating plans. That 
really is a very imperfect way to fund an agency.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I have to say to my friend, I would be 
impressed if they would come forward and say, yes, we think, as the 
gentleman from Florida said, we should be able to go to Mars. But to 
argue that because an amendment which says no money can be used for a 
manned space mission to Mars, that that means you can't use it for the 
Moon or anything else simply isn't the English language.
  The fact is the amendment is very narrowly drawn. It says you cannot 
use the money for manned space to Mars or for another purpose.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Can't we get an honest debate about 
whether or not to go to Mars?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Not in 5 minutes, unfortunately.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Gordon).
  Mr. GORDON. As usual, my friend from Massachusetts raises good 
points, and, as usual, he is a good watch dog for our Congress. I agree 
with him; we have to have priorities. But I think he has picked the 
wrong priority on this occasion.
  NASA, as has been said, under the right occasions is underfunded. It 
is not overfunded. It is an investment in our country. Then so you have 
to think, okay, within the NASA budget, where do we spend our money?
  Let me agree with my friend from Massachusetts that I think that we 
do need to slow down some of the manned Mars missions and fund other 
programs. I would like to see more funds then. But if we are not going 
to have adequate funding, we need to slow it down. But it would be 
irresponsible to do away with some of the planning in other sorts of 
areas.
  His amendment, I think there are really two main problems: one, that 
you don't just all of a sudden get in a space capsule and go to Mars. 
There is a lot of planning that goes before that. Additionally, there 
is overlap with a lot of the other missions.
  Even though I know the gentleman is trying to be clear in what he is 
doing, it simply doesn't come out that way. It would be a major problem 
for this country, a major problem for NASA. I will certainly work with 
him to try to, again, help better prioritize the planning of a Moon-
Mars mission.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Would the gentleman from West Virginia 
yield?
  Mr. GORDON. If there is time left, I would certainly yield to my 
friend.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I do not believe that anybody seriously 
says that if the bill says you can't spend, an amendment says you can't 
spend it on a manned mission to Mars, that anybody would then think you 
had to stop it on the Moon.
  Of course, that is one of the arguments you would make beforehand 
that you would have to disregard after. But let me disagree with my 
friend from Tennessee. He said, he agrees we should slow it down. What 
is stopping us? Where is the language that does that?
  Mr. GORDON. If you could reclaim your time.

[[Page 12957]]


  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GORDON. What is stopping us would be this amendment. This 
amendment simply is not drawn, as much as the gentleman would like for 
it to be drawn in a narrow sense and as much as he would like for it to 
be a scalpel, it is not. Maybe, again, all working together in the 
future, we could come up with a better one. Right now, the intention is 
not what has resulted.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment 
offered by Congressman Frank that would put a funding limitation on 
manned space flight.
  NASA is at a critical crossroads. Over the next few years, the agency 
must complete the International Space Station, retire the Space 
Shuttle, develop a new space vehicle, and maintain needed science and 
aeronautics programs. Congress has already spoken in support of a 
manned mission to Mars with the NASA Authorization bill earlier this 
year. Disrupting the vision now only sets America back. At a time when 
the United States is concerned about global competitiveness, cutting 
NASA funding would send our country in the wrong direction.
  Mr. Chairman, NASA is a good investment. Over the last 10 years, 
NASA's budget has decreased or remained flat while overall domestic 
spending grew substantially. Fully funding the space exploration vision 
represents only 7 percent of the Federal budget and yet this small 
investment yields large returns in health care, public safety, and 
telecommunications. Space exploration technologies have produced 
advanced semiconductors that power our businesses, materials employed 
by our military to keep our men and women safe, and software that aids 
our law enforcement personnel in fighting crime and detecting illegal 
drugs. The Appropriations Committee has done a commendable job 
balancing our national needs with our budget realities. They have 
preserved vital funding for critical areas, including science 
initiatives, and I would urge the House to support the underlying bill 
and vote against the Frank amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to the Frank amendment to H.R. 5672, which would prohibit funds from 
being used for a manned space mission to Mars. I believe the amendment 
should be defeated.
  NASA recently announced the work assignments for Exploration Systems' 
Constellation program at NASA centers. These assignments will ensure 
that the agency can begin to meet the challenges of the Vision for 
Space Exploration while maintaining 10 healthy and productive field 
centers.
  NASA's plan to implement the Constellation Program depends upon funds 
that carry over from fiscal year 2006-2007 into fiscal year 2008-2009. 
This authority ensures that funding will be available in 2008, when 
development work begins to ramp up significantly with the Critical 
Design Review for Constellation's Crew Exploration Vehicle, CEV.
  If NASA is unable to secure the necessary resources, the gap between 
Shuttle retirement and CEV availability will expand. This will increase 
both the risks and overall costs for bringing the new CEV and CLV 
systems online, as well as increasing the safety risk of operating the 
International Space Station. An extension of the gap will also cause an 
unacceptably high number of departures of our skilled workforce across 
the NASA Centers, and threaten to erode the Nation's industrial base 
for human space flight activities. We therefore consider preservation 
of this funding an important economic issue for our districts, as well 
as a national priority.
  The CEV and the companion Crew Launch Vehicle are once-in-a-
generation development efforts. The effective transition from the Space 
Shuttle to the CEV will be NASA's greatest management challenge over 
the next several years. NASA's Exploration Systems ought be fully 
funded, not cut, to ensure that NASA has the resources it needs when 
the critical moment arrives.
  I urge defeat of the Frank amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts will be 
postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Chocola

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

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Chocola:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for business class or first class airline travel by 
     employees of the Department of State in contravention of 41 
     CFR 301-10.122 through 301-10.124.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Chairman, not a day goes by that I am not amazed by 
the waste of tax dollars by Federal agencies. Sometimes the waste is a 
result of bad management. Sometimes it is the result of willful 
violation of established policies, but it is always inexcusable.
  A recent GAO report reveals just how bad it can get. In March of 
2006, the GAO found that the State Department is wasting nearly $100 
million a year on unauthorized premium travel. In 2004, the State 
Department spent $140 million on premium travel; that is usually 
business class travel, and 67 percent of that travel was either not 
justified, not properly authorized or both. And that resulted in $94 
million of taxpayer money wasted.
  Not only is the fact that the money was wasted troubling, but the 
management practice of disregarding what it cost when it is not your 
own money is a cause for great concern. As an example, most of the 
authorizations for the premium travel came from subordinates of those 
that were traveling who told the GAO that they were afraid to challenge 
senior executives of the State Department for violating established 
travel policies.
  It is not just an excusable practice of putting subordinates in 
intimidating positions at work here; it is also a lack of basic 
management practices. As an example, GAO also found that although 
government tickets that are purchased and not used are fully 
refundable, the practice of the State Department is not to bother to 
try to reconcile tickets that are purchased and not used, which 
resulted in a flat-out waste of $6 million of taxpayer money.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply requires the State Department 
personnel to follow established travel policies, and it is an 
understatement to say that it is unfortunate that I even have to come 
to the floor and offer this amendment.
  I guess we have to send a clear message to senior State Department 
officials that when they are traveling on their own dime, they can sit 
wherever they want on a plane, but when you are traveling on the 
taxpayers' dime, you should follow established policies and sit in the 
back of the plane.
  Although I understand that flying coach can be cruel and unusual 
punishment, I think that those that willfully waste the taxpayer 
dollars for personal comfort are getting off easy if we pass this 
amendment.
  I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in support of the amendment. It is a good amendment. 
There has been a government-wide review of the waste, fraud and abuse 
of the government travel card program. The Government Accountability 
Office has reviewed the State Department policy and has concluded a 
similar review of the Department of Defense policy.
  The State Department manages the second largest centrally billed 
travel card program in the Federal Government after the Department of 
Defense. A GAO audit of the State Department's centrally billed foreign 
affairs travel found that 67 percent of premium class travel by State 
and other foreign affairs personnel during most of fiscal years 2003 
and 2004 were not properly authorized.
  Although GAO found deficiencies in documentation for premium class 
travel, GAO did not find in any instance

[[Page 12958]]

travel that was conducted for other than official purposes. GAO has 
made 18 recommendations to improve the State Department's travel card 
program. The committee has looked into the issue and understands that, 
as of June 1, the Department of State has taken action on all the 
recommendations outlined in the GAO's March 6th report. The 
Undersecretary of State for Management has made this a top priority for 
the Department.
  I wonder how they even got to this point. I agree with the gentleman, 
and I want to thank him for that. We must ensure that U.S. taxpayer 
money is not subject to waste, fraud and abuse, and I strongly, 
strongly support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Wolf for his 
hard work and his support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Watson

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Watson:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VIII--ADDTIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to negotiate the accession by the Russian Federation 
     into the World Trade Organization.

  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 2006, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with Mr. Issa, and offer this 
amendment that disallows the use of taxpayer dollars to negotiate 
Russia's accession into the World Trade Organization until Russia is 
removed from the United States Trade Representative's priority watch 
list for intellectual property violations.
  Russia should not be allowed consideration until it takes steps to 
protect intellectual property before we let them into the exclusive 
World Trade Organization. The cost of Russian piracy, from the 
copyright community from the motion picture and recording industry, to 
software inventors and patent holders, was over $1.7 billion in 2005, 
and losses topped $6.8 billion over the last 5 years.
  Russia has been on the USTR's priority list for intellectual property 
violations for 9 straight years without showing any significant signs 
of improvement. Delaying Russia's entrance into the WTO until Russia 
enacts and enforces laws to protect intellectual property rights will 
send a strong and serious message that the United States values its 
Nation's ideas and products.
  We learned this lesson the hard way with China. Once China became a 
member of the WTO, it has been a very difficult, time-consuming and 
expensive task to bring a case against them before the WTO to get them 
to enforce IP protections.
  The time to pressure Russia, to put an end to their egregious 
intellectual property violations is now, and I urge my colleagues to 
support the Watson-Issa amendment.


                             Point of Order

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). Does the gentleman from Florida 
insist on his point of order?
  Mr. SHAW. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I raise a point of order against 
the amendment on the grounds that this amendment violates clause 5(a) 
of the House rule XXI because it is a tariff legislation not reported 
by a committee with jurisdiction over revenue measures.
  The countervailing duty law provides special treatment to the World 
Trade Organization members. This amendment would impact Russia's 
membership in the World Trade Organization and thus impact the tariff 
treatment of Russia under the countervailing duty law in the Tariff Act 
of 1930.
  The rule referred to is very specific that that is reserved to the 
House Ways and Means Committee, and the second portion of that rule 
provides, for purposes of this paragraph, a tax or tariff measure 
includes an amendment proposing a limitation on funds in a general 
appropriation of a fund for administration of a tax or tariff.
  I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members desiring to be heard on 
the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Florida raises a point of order against the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California on the ground that 
it violates clause 5(a) of rule XXI.
  As the Chair stated on June 18, 2004, clause 5(a)(2) of rule XXI 
enables a point of order against limitation amendments addressing the 
administration of a tax or tariff whether or not the maker of the point 
of order can demonstrate a necessary and inevitable change in tax or 
tariff statuses or liabilities or in revenue collection.
  The amendment would limit funds for the negotiation of Russia's entry 
into the World Trade Organization. As argued by the gentleman from 
Florida, membership in the World Trade Organization as a matter of law 
effects various changes in the treatment of a country's products under 
domestic tariff law. An example of such law is Section 1671 of title 
19, United States Code. By limiting funds for an activity that, if 
completed, would engage tariff law, the amendment is a limitation on 
funds for the administration of a tariff within the meaning of clause 
5(a) of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, it is appropriate that we live under the 
rules of the House that we have voted in the 108th and the 109th 
Congress. But I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important 
matter.
  I appreciate that had the Ways and Means Committee addressed this 
issue in a timely fashion to make a stronger statement heard to Russia 
for their misconduct, for the billions of dollars lost to U.S. 
companies, including the music and television industry and software 
industries, all of which are very important to California, we would not 
be here today.
  Additionally, it is with regret that I remind the Appropriations 
Committee that had they simply chosen not to fund this, this amendment 
would not be necessary, but the not funding by the Appropriations 
Committee is in order.
  So although I don't approve of this rule, in hindsight, I recognize 
that the time to object to it was at the beginning of the Congress. 
Before yielding back, I will, therefore, attempt to have this rule 
modified in the next Congress so as to allow people to determine where 
their funds will be spent. Because this rule effectively made it 
impossible to not fund something simply because in previous Congresses 
decisions had been made on tariff.
  I do appreciate, though, that we will live under the rules of the 
House; and Congresswoman Watson and myself will continue to work to 
make sure that Russia lives up to the standards before entering the 
WTO.
  And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your kindness in giving me 
this opportunity to speak.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I would like to respond to the 
gentleman and his comments.
  Actually, last month, the committee of jurisdiction, which is the 
Ways and Means Committee, and the Finance, sent a very strong 
bipartisan message to the administration, which I am sure you quite 
approve of, opposing concluding even a bilateral market access

[[Page 12959]]

deal with Russia until that country meaningfully addresses its rampant 
IPR piracy problems.
  The committee of jurisdiction is monitoring this issue very closely 
and is consulting with the U.S. Trade Representative at every step. The 
administration assures us that it will not allow Russia to join the 
World Trade Organization unless we achieve strong intellectual property 
rights protection with Russia. The United States will not allow Russia 
to become a World Trade Organization member until this is confronted.
  Simply not negotiating with Russia, however, would be a mistake and 
would not be productive. Congress will have the opportunity to impact 
the World Trade Organization accession process because it must pass 
permanent normal trade relations in order for this to happen.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. In conclusion, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. 
Issa.
  When we traveled together to the Duma in Russia, we stated our 
position very clearly; and at that time there were 57 different 
locations in Moscow alone that were selling our copied materials. They 
would go out and close them and they would open right up in another 
location the next day. So we are acting as the watchdogs. I appreciate 
the help from the committee in keeping this on front and center and on 
the table, and we are going to continue to watch.
  So thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for this time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, look what China is doing. I think you are 
right on doing this. I wish you had actually been successful, from my 
own perspective. But look at what China is doing. Windows 95 was 
available on the streets of Beijing before it was available on the 
streets of Washington, D.C. So be careful. And I am not sure the 
administration is going to look out for your best interest on this 
either.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who seeks time?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage the Chairman of the 
Science, State, Justice and Commerce Subcommittee in a colloquy 
regarding the importance of the State Department's Bureau of Economic 
and Business Affairs.
  Mr. Chairman, additional funding for the Bureau of Economic and 
Business Affairs is important to further diplomatic efforts to protect 
intellectual property rights in countries that are not members of the 
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD.
  Countries that joined the OECD did so because they share a commitment 
to a democratic government and market economy which depends on adequate 
protections for intellectual property rights. The non-OECD countries 
especially need the benefit of United States diplomacy to understand 
the importance of protecting intellectual property, not just for 
others' intellectual property but also because it is in the best 
interest to protect their own ideas and creations with laws and then 
enforce those laws.
  Fighting intellectual property violations in developing countries 
will take more than cracking the whip on illegal sales. We need to 
create the political will at the top of the governance structure so we 
can drive a real impact on the ground.
  Mr. Wolf, I would like to thank you for your leadership on our 
Nation's diplomatic priorities and ask if you would be willing to work 
with me to provide additional funding for the State Department's Bureau 
of Economic and Business Affairs to give them the resources to work on 
developing institutions to enforce intellectual property protections in 
non-OECD countries.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman; and I will 
work with her to provide additional resources for the State 
Department's Economic Bureau to enhance their ability to pursue better 
enforcement of intellectual property protections in non-OECD countries.
  But where is the amendment to put the will, the commitment, the 
passion? And frankly, we will be glad to do this. But some big law firm 
down on K Street is going to be retained by some of these people, and 
they will be coming up here and working the administration and working 
others. Funding is good, but give me somebody who really cares, really 
believes, really is committed.
  When you have people out there representing the Khartoum Government 
in Sudan, when Darfur and China has all these big law firms on 
retention, just funding this, so unless there is the commitment, the 
determination, but, yes, we will work with you every way we possibly 
can.
  Ms. WATSON. Mr. Chairman, we are going to see that your passion 
spreads throughout this House.
  And I would like to ask, now, Mr. Mollohan the same question. Would 
you be willing to work with me to allocate additional funding for the 
State Department's Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs to give them 
the resources to work on developing political will to enforce 
intellectual property protections in the non-OECD countries?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, I would be pleased to work with the chairman and 
the gentlewoman; pledge to work to increase resources for the State 
Department's economic bureau to enhance their ability to improve 
enforcement of intellectual property protection.
  Ms. WATSON. And I want to thank you so much, Mr. Mollohan and Mr. 
Wolf.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Culberson

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

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used in contravention of section 
     1373 of title 8, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the State of Texas today executed one of 
the most dangerous, vicious killers in our State's history. Maturino 
Resendiz was known as the ``Railway Killer.'' He had killed repeatedly. 
He was a serial killer who had been arrested and deported seven times 
prior to the murder of Dr. Claudia Benton in Houston.
  This individual was present in the United States illegally, but the 
City of Houston has a policy, in violation of Federal law, that 
prohibits Houston police officers from asking whether or not an 
individual they pick up is in the United States illegally.
  The Federal law is very clear that local governments, local law 
enforcement agencies, cannot have any policy that prohibits or 
restricts the ability of a police officer from determining someone's 
presence in the country, whether or not they are legal. And my 
amendment simply enforces existing Federal law and makes it clear that, 
in order for a local government or police agency to receive Federal 
money, they must comply with Federal law and follow Federal law in 
determining whether or not the person they have detained is here 
illegally.
  The City of Los Angeles has a similar policy. Yet 95 percent of their 
outstanding warrants for homicide are for illegal aliens. This is a law 
and order amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

[[Page 12960]]


  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is a conflict, and you are 
conflicted when you come to the floor and a good friend and colleague 
wants to undermine his own city.
  Frankly, I think my colleagues need to understand what this sanctuary 
means. It is a misnomer. It gives a suggestion that we are, in fact, 
welcoming and providing a grand parade. What it simply says is that we 
are going to burden, this amendment is going to be an unfunded mandate 
on local cities and jurisdictions whose law enforcement officers are 
busy in various parts of their communities trying to protect Americans 
from break-ins.
  There is no way that you can connect the tragedy and horrificness of 
this executed individual, which no one has disagreed with, with the 
policies of individual cities where they make a decision that they are 
utilizing their police officers to take care of the juveniles who need 
help, to take care of the victims of rape, unfortunately, who need 
help, to take care of those who are victimized by homicide who need 
help.
  The City of Houston is on record, the chief of police is on record, 
and the record is that our officers are there to do the work of the 
local government. They are not there to do the work of the Federal 
Government.
  I would wish my good friend and colleague would add and join us in 
reinvesting into border patrol agents and ICE agents. And, by the way, 
any suggestion that they are not cooperating, I met with the police 
chief. There is no indication whatsoever in Houston that they are not 
cooperating with the local law enforcement and ICE.
  What you do with this, and I hope my colleagues are listening. I know 
this sounds like Let's Bash an Immigrant Day. But what you will be 
doing is you will be cutting off funds from your local jurisdictions. 
They need to make their own decisions without the punitive measures of 
this Federal Government, particularly when we have fallen down on the 
job and not provided the kind of funding that we need for internal 
enforcement and for law enforcement and for border patrol agents.
  So I would hope this distinguished gentleman would understand that 
you are putting an unfunded mandate on your own city and many other 
municipalities across America.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to point out 
that the sanctuary policy my colleague is attempting to protect is a 
policy designed to protect and shield criminal aliens, and my amendment 
enforces Federal law. Federal law is intended to uncloak those criminal 
aliens and allow local law enforcement officers to identify people like 
the Railway Killer so they can turn them over to Federal authorities.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague 
from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend 
and colleague from Texas for this amendment.
  My hometown of Austin has seen the horrifying effects that a 
sanctuary policy can have on a community.
  Nearly 3 years ago, an 18-year-old woman by the name of Jenny Garcia 
was found stabbed to death in her northwest Austin home. An illegal 
alien by the name of David Diaz Morales was one of Jenny's coworkers. 
He made it clear to her that he wanted to be more than that. When Jenny 
rejected his advances, this put him into a rage. And on January 26, 
2004, Morales broke into Jenny's home, forcefully grabbed her, held her 
down, raped her and brutally stabbed her to death.
  In less than 24 hours, the Austin Police Department arrested this 20-
year-old criminal who had absolutely no business being in the United 
States, let alone Jenny's home.
  However, Mr. Morales had no business being free to walk America's 
streets either. You see, before murdering Jenny, he had been previously 
arrested for molesting a child in Austin. Travis County District 
Attorney Ronnie Earle declined to prosecute the case. Morales wasn't 
deported. Instead, he was released on the streets of Austin, resulting 
in the murder of Jenny Garcia. Jenny did not have to die that day.
  This is one of many horrific examples of the many preventable 
injustices that have resulted from this irresponsible sanctuary policy. 
We owe it to victims like Jenny Garcia and so many others to include 
this language in the underlying bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues 
to support the Culberson amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out to the House 
very briefly that the House has already approved this amendment on a 
vote of 218.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the 
committee, who, I understand, is going to accept this amendment. I want 
to thank the author of the amendment.
  This has come up time and time again in front of this House. We have 
cities all over this country that are ignoring the law. It is part of 
the law today that says you cannot have sanctuary cities, and yet 
cities are doing it, and they are snubbing their noses at the Federal 
law. And as a result of it, crimes are being committed. People have 
been killed as a result of the fact that cities provide sanctuary for 
people who are here illegally, have come in contact with the police, 
and the police have refused to make that known to the ICE agency. As a 
result of that kind of policy, people in this country have died.
  I, again, want to thank the author of the amendment and the committee 
for accepting this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to 
clarify, I think, the discussion here on the floor, and my deepest 
sympathy for cases that have been previously cited.
  The sanctuary terminology, again, is a misnomer. It is a suggestion 
that law enforcement has actually put a welcome mat out for criminals. 
It is well known that any criminal that does a criminal act or is 
stopped for a traffic infraction is, in fact, taken care of by the 
local municipality. Where we have had failures is that we have not had 
sufficient funding for internal enforcement officers and others dealing 
with immigration issues for these individuals to be transferred.
  I cannot stand here on the floor and allow the debate to suggest that 
local law enforcement, sheriffs, constables, police are letting 
horrific criminals go. They simply are not. If you do the crime, you 
will be arrested and do the time if your law enforcement are engaged.
  This will punish cities who are not turning their law enforcement, 
their meager law enforcement resources, into immigration patrols. That 
is a responsibility of the Federal Government. And to suggest that this 
amendment is going to stop the railroad killer and others; that was a 
combination of U.S. Marshals and FBI and HPD and everyone who was 
focused on finding that killer. No one is letting killers get away. And 
this particular amendment is not what Members may think it is, a way to 
get and to stand tall on illegal immigration. This is a way to 
undermine your respective local jurisdictions who have the 
responsibility of the enforcement of the law to protect the citizens of 
the jurisdiction or this Nation. All this does is jeopardize their 
funding when one citizen says, ``You know what? They let this 
individual go that looked like they were undocumented, and they were 
driving a car.'' This is what this does. And you go to any of your 
towns and find out that there are individuals whose surnames

[[Page 12961]]

are other than ours or other than what you would perceive to be a 
standard name, if you will, and has a Hispanic sound or has some other 
sound to it and you want law enforcement then to arrest them, and you 
would suggest that law enforcement is not doing their job if they 
release them. This is the kind of determination you are going to ask on 
the streets of your respective cities and counties and jurisdictions 
when you should be dealing with this from the funding perspective of 
the Federal Government.
  This is a bad provision. Whether it has been voted on before, it is a 
bad provision, and all it is going to do is hurt the cities. And, 
clearly, my good friend and colleague knows that this debate is going 
on in the City of Houston as we speak, and those are the individuals 
that need to make that decision.
  I ask my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from 
Texas for yielding.
  Let me make it clear. What this amendment does, which I support, is 
very simple. There is a Federal law that says you may not prohibit, it 
does not require you do it, but you may not prohibit local law 
enforcement officials from cooperating on immigration issues. This 
amendment simply says you cannot use Federal funds to violate Federal 
law. Pretty simple. Pretty logical. Do not use Federal funds to violate 
existing Federal law. You do not have to make them, but do not prohibit 
your law enforcement from cooperating on immigration issues.
  We should pass this amendment.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to point out that 
Congress has passed and the President has signed Federal legislation on 
the books which requires local law enforcement officers to identify a 
person who is in the country illegally. Local law enforcement needs 
every tool in their tool kit possible to identify and uncover criminal 
aliens.
  This amendment is aimed at enforcing Federal law, giving local law 
enforcement the tools they need to identify and uncover killers like 
the Railroad Killer, who was executed today in Texas.
  The sanctuary policy that my colleague from Houston is attempting to 
defend is a ``don't ask and don't tell'' policy that prohibits officers 
from identifying criminal aliens. A vote for this amendment is to help 
law enforcement identify and report criminal aliens and enforce Federal 
law.
  I urge a ``yes'' on the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Etheridge

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

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. For the Public Safety Officers' Death Benefits 
     program, as authorized by part L of title I of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, to fund 
     obligations of the Department of Justice resulting from 
     subsection (k) of section 1201 of such part, in additition to 
     amounts otherwise appropriated by this Act under title I for 
     ``public safety officers'' for payments authorized by such 
     part L and hereby derived from the amount provided in this 
     Act under title I for ``General administration--salaries and 
     expenses'', $38,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Michael Childress, Randelman, North Carolina; Roger 
Armstrong, Atlanta, Illinois; Steven Rosenfeld, Salem, Virginia; Donald 
Eugene Ward, Columbus, Ohio; Richard Allen Fast, Alum Bridge, West 
Virginia.
  Mr. Chairman, these are just five of the 135 eligible firefighters 
who have died in the line of duty since this House unanimously approved 
the Hometown Heroes Survivor Benefit Act and it was signed by the 
President into law on December 15, 2003.
  The Hometown Heroes Act, which had 281 bipartisan cosponsors, made 
sure that a public service officer, such as a fireman, law enforcement 
officer, EMT or other public servant, who died of a fatal heart attack 
or stroke in the line of duty would receive a benefit.
  Since the President signed this bill into law on December 15, 2\1/2\ 
years ago, 135 firefighters have suffered a fatal heart attack or 
stroke while responding to a call. However, in 2\1/2\ years, none of 
these survivors have received one single penny of these congressionally 
authorized benefits because the U.S. Department of Justice has not 
approved the regulations.
  I have offered this amendment to highlight the Justice Department's 
foot dragging and delays. The first delay came when they proposed 
regulations that were in direct contradiction to the legislation that 
was passed. They then delayed when they quibbled with the words and 
phrases. The last excuse is that they are waiting for approval from the 
Office of Management and Budget.
  Mr. Chairman, Members and staff spent countless hours while writing 
this legislation to clarify what it really meant. During the Judiciary 
Committee markup on this measure, Chairman Sensenbrenner stated, ``I 
believe this bill provides the Bureau of Justice Assistance with the 
direction they require in reviewing and granting these benefits to 
deserving and qualified public safety officers who dedicate themselves 
to the public interest and pay the ultimate price for the public 
good.''
  Once the President signed the bill into law, we were in constant 
contact with DOJ, working through the queries.
  The brave men and women who serve our cities and towns every day, 
many of whom are volunteers, do not delay when they are given a call 
and someone is in distress. They act, and they act immediately.
  I call on Attorney General Gonzales to stop making excuses, to end 
the delays, stop denying these victims and families the benefits they 
deserve. The brave men and women should not have to wait another day.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Kennedy), who just lost a fireman in his district.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
North Carolina for his work on this issue.
  On June 13, Rhode Island and Providence lost Mike Day due to a heart 
attack just after he had returned from a fire to the fire station. He 
is the son of a firefighter, and he is one of four brothers who all 
became Providence firefighters. He was passionate about helping save 
people's lives and helping to serve people.
  Who has he left behind? He has left his wife of 22 years behind, 
Cynthia, as well as four children, Mike Jr., Amanda, Brianne and 
Stephanie.
  The Hometown Heroes Act was signed by the President 3 years ago. 
Where is the support for these families who put their lives on the line 
to save our lives and our communities? The delay out there from the 
Department of Justice means that these benefit applications of people 
like Mike Day are waiting, collecting dust in the Department of 
Justice. This is inexcusable.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe our public safety officers need to know that 
if they lay down their lives for us that we are going to be there to 
back their families up and make sure those families are supported. The 
hardship of these families shouldn't wait on the Department of Justice 
and neither should we in Congress wait for the Department of Justice.
  I urge passage of this amendment.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

[[Page 12962]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Bob Etheridge should be 
commended for what he did 3 years ago; and we had an overwhelming vote 
on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Unfortunately, none of the survivors of the 135 firefighters that he 
mentioned just a few moments ago and which Mr. Kennedy mentioned a few 
moments ago that died have received a single penny of the authorized 
benefits. This is because the Justice Department has not approved the 
regulations that would put the provision of the Hometown Heroes Act 
into effect.
  This is unconscionable. This is wholly unacceptable. This is another 
time where the will of the Congress has not been activated.
  This amendment sends a necessary directive to the Attorney General 
that the families of our Nation's first responders should not be made 
to wait for what they deserve any longer. This amendment is a clear 
message that the Congress will no longer allow the Department of 
Justice to inexplicably harm the families of our Nation's heroes.
  This was the right thing to do 3 years ago. It is the right thing to 
do now, to pass this amendment now. I was proud to stand with the 
gentleman from North Carolina when we passed this, many of us, all of 
us, in December, 2003. We want their loved ones to be fully taken care 
of. This amendment is that message. It is time for us to act, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman is going to 
withdraw the amendment. On page 65 of the report, the subcommittee says 
the committee expects the Department of Justice to work swiftly toward 
full implementation of the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Act.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I was just going to compliment the 
gentleman from North Carolina for bringing this issue up. I remember 
when he first brought it to the Congress, and I want to compliment him 
for bringing this amendment to the floor.
  I also want to compliment the chairman for recognizing this has been 
a problem. It is contained in our report that the Justice Department 
move quickly. I just want to point out this isn't a hard thing for the 
Justice Department to do. Rulemaking as simple as this ought to be done 
in 30 days. Publish the proposed rule, get a few comments and get it 
out there. It is inexcusable that this program, which is so 
meritorious, hasn't been implemented for 3 years.
  I support the gentleman's effort.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his willingness 
to work on this and also Ranking Member Mollohan. They are absolutely 
right. There is no excuse for this. Men and women are doing their job, 
and we ought to support them.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, with 
the understanding it is going to be in the report language.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Capuano

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Capuano:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. For grants for young witness assistance, as 
     authorized by section 1136 of the Violence Against Women and 
     Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 
     109-162), and the amount otherwise provided by this Act for 
     ``Other--salaries and expenses, departmental management'' is 
     hereby reduced by, $3,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, very simply, this amendment will help protect young 
juvenile witnesses who have the courage to do the right thing and stand 
up and testify against criminals that they have witnessed.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentleman's amendment. I was 
waiting to hear his speech. I was listening and settling in. I do 
accept the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts.
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

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

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 303 of the Energy Policy 
     Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13212).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I am offering the same amendment that 
I have offered to almost all the other appropriations bills which have 
all been accepted, because I think it is so important for the Federal 
Government to put its money where its mouth is.
  We are all running around talking about alternative energy and 
alternative fuel vehicles. All the while, our Federal agencies are 
failing to fully implement the 1992 Energy Policy Act which the 
Congress passed and which the President signed into law.
  Seventy-five percent of new vehicles purchased for the Federal fleet 
should be alternative fuel by now, but it is only about 26 percent. For 
the major agencies in this bill, the numbers are disheartening. The 
Department of Commerce has only 32 percent of alternative fuel 
vehicles, the Department of Justice came in at a paltry 6 percent, and 
the Department of State was just 9 percent.
  We have not only the opportunity to end our addiction to oil, we have 
the need to do so. Our national security continues to be threatened 
because we are reliant on undemocratic sheikdoms in the Middle East 
that funnel money to the terrorists who would do us harm.
  Our energy policy and our national security policy are intertwined, 
and we can start right here by mandating that our Federal agencies look 
for alternative fuel vehicles, which they have to do by a law that we 
passed more than a decade ago.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and provide the 
leadership that is so desperately needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, before beginning, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.

[[Page 12963]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments at the desk having 
to do with the medicinal use of marijuana. I understand that the first 
one has been allocated 10 minutes and the second one has been allocated 
20 minutes, is that correct?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. That is correct.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     used by the Department of Justice to prevent the States of 
     Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode 
     Island, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington from 
     implementing State laws authorizing the use of medical 
     marijuana, and the Attorney General shall transfer from 
     available appropriations for the current fiscal year for the 
     Department of Justice any amounts that would have been used 
     for such purpose but for this section to ``Drug Enforcement 
     Administration, Salaries and Expenses'', for the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration to assist State and local law 
     enforcement with proper removal and disposal of hazardous 
     materials from illegal methamphetamine labs, including 
     funding for training, technical assistance, a container 
     program, and purchase of equipment to adequately remove and 
     store hazardous material.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 2006, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment was to reallocate funding 
in this bill away from the prosecution of the use of marijuana for 
medicinal purposes in those 11 States where either the legislature or 
the people of those States by referenda have decided that they would 
like to have marijuana use for medicinal purposes under the supervision 
of a licensed physician in those 11 States, to have it moved from there 
to the enforcement of methamphetamine violations.
  My understanding is that the chairman is going to insist on a point 
of order, saying that this is legislating on an appropriations bill. Am 
I correct about that?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has reserved a point of order.
  Mr. WOLF. I reserved the point of order.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I don't know why there would be a point of 
order against this amendment, because it seems to me that we have the 
ability to make these kinds of decisions now. This is not legislating 
on an appropriations bill. It is simply moving one appropriation for 
one particular purpose to a better purpose.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, regardless of how you have voted in the 
past, there are two critical developments since the last vote that make 
compelling arguments for a ``no'' vote on the Hinchey Amendment to the 
SSJC Appropriations bill. The Hinchey Amendment would deny law 
enforcement agencies Federal funds to enforce the Controlled Substances 
Act in those States where `medicinal' marijuana is legal under State 
law.
  First, the FDA in April of this year confirmed that there is no 
research to sustain the supposed ``medicinal value'' in smoked 
marijuana. On April 20, 2006, the FDA stated, ``A past evaluation by 
several Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies, 
including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Substance Abuse and 
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and National Institute 
for Drug Abuse (NIDA), concluded that no sound scientific studies 
supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, 
and no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of 
marijuana for general medical use.'' Furthermore, the ``FDA has not 
approved smoked marijuana for any condition or disease indication.''
  Second, research from a 25-year longitudinal study by the 
Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Services showed that regular 
or heavy marijuana use was linked to a wide range of other illicit 
drugs and to a dependence or abuse of these other illicit drugs.
  The research concluded that ``following tight statistical controls, 
there is a clear tendency for those using cannabis to have higher rates 
of usage of other illicit drugs. This tendency is most evident for 
regular users of cannabis, and is even more marked in adolescents than 
in young adults.'' These researchers, using the most robust 
longitudinal database in the world, show what we have long suspected--
marijuana is a gateway to even more dangerous drugs of abuse.
  A handful of states have legalized smoked marijuana for medical 
claims. Not only are patients being given an ineffective, unapproved, 
and even harmful drug, but also one that is illegal under Federal law.
  Time and time again, research has demonstrated the harmful effects of 
marijuana. According to Dr. Nora Volkow, the Director of the National 
Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), marijuana ``can produce adverse 
physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral changes, and--contrary to 
popular belief--it can be addictive. Marijuana smoke, like cigarette 
smoke, can harm the lungs. The use of marijuana can impair short-term 
memory, verbal skills, and judgment and distort perception. It also may 
weaken the immune system and possibly increase a user's likelihood of 
developing cancer. Finally, the increasing use of marijuana by very 
young teens may have a profoundly negative effect upon their 
development.''
  It is of the utmost importance that law enforcement be able to 
protect this country from dangerous drug trafficking, including 
marijuana. Join us in opposing the Hinchey amendment.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey 
amendment.
  I acknowledge that this is a controversial issue, and it has been a 
difficult decision for me. While scientific evidence is inconclusive 
and the medical community has yet to speak with one voice as to whether 
there is a unique, therapeutic benefit to inhaled marijuana, some 
studies suggest that marijuana can relieve pain, nausea, and appetite 
loss. I have heard from many patients, suffering from some of life's 
most challenging conditions, who have informed me that the therapeutic 
value of inhaled marijuana is unmatched. I have always supported 
further study of medical marijuana because of the potential to ease the 
suffering of the many Americans dealing with chronic illness and 
disease.
  While I have not supported amendments similar to this one in the 
past, the issue is different for me this year, as the Representative 
from the Second Congressional District of Rhode Island. Since we last 
debated this issue in June 2005, the state legislature of Rhode Island 
has passed--and the state Department of Health has implemented--a law 
allowing for legal access to medical marijuana. Under this law, the 
state established a registry that issues identification cards to 
qualifying patients or caregivers who register with the state. These 
patients, who suffer from an approved list of conditions including 
cancer, multiple sclerosis and AIDS, must provide certification from a 
Rhode Island physician. Once approved in the registry, the patient or a 
designated caregiver is permitted to possess up to a certain amount of 
cultivated marijuana and to grow up to 12 marijuana plants. The 
statewide discussion over the issue made clear that my constituents 
overwhelmingly support regulated access to marijuana for medical 
purposes; and the state legislature responded with overwhelming support 
by overriding a governor's veto with significantly more than the 
necessary 2/3 support in each chamber. I am aware that I now represent 
some constituents who are using medical marijuana, in compliance with 
state laws. I am also aware that under federal law, these Rhode Island 
patients run the risk of being arrested and prosecuted for federal drug 
offenses--and this troubles me greatly.
  My vote for the Hinchey amendment should not be interpreted as an 
unconditional endorsement of medical marijuana. I do believe the 
therapy deserves further clinical trials and scientific scrutiny. As we 
move forward with these policy discussions, we must bear in mind that 
marijuana is a narcotic and therapeutic usage must be carefully 
controlled. However, I rise today in support of the Hinchey amendment 
because I do not want my constituents, or those of the ten other states 
that have passed similar laws, to live in fear of arrest when they are 
complying with state law.

[[Page 12964]]

  I urge my colleagues to support the Hinchey amendment, as well as the 
further study of the therapeutic value of medical marijuana.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, June 28, 2006, I voted in favor of 
the Hinchey amendment to H.R. 5672, the FY 2007 Science, State, 
Justice, and Commerce Appropriations Act.
  Eleven states have passed laws to allow the use of medical marijuana. 
This amendment would prohibit federal funds from being used to prevent 
the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, 
Rhode Island, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington from implementing 
state laws authorizing a physician to prescribe the use of medical 
marijuana for their patients in those states. I voted for this 
amendment because I do not believe that the federal government should 
be preempting state medical laws approved by either the state 
legislature or voter referendum.
  I served as Johnson County District Attorney for 12 years. I do not 
believe in the legalization of drugs. But this amendment has to do with 
compassion for people who are suffering from horrible pain or may be 
dying, and the ability of doctors in states in which those people live 
to provide means by which their suffering can be relieved.
  Medical marijuana may alleviate suffering from debilitating diseases 
such as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and multiple sclerosis. Some contend it 
has no medicinal value whatsoever. Regardless of one's opinions within 
this debate, the federal government should not be spending our limited 
funding for law enforcement to target American citizens in states where 
the voters or the legislature have passed laws allowing for the use of 
medical marijuana. To be clear, this amendment would do nothing to 
legalize marijuana use for any purpose in states, such as Kansas, where 
voters or the legislature have not approved measures to allow marijuana 
for medical use.
  Under the provisions of this amendment, patients in states that have 
enacted laws to allow the use of medical marijuana would be prescribed 
the medication under the direction and careful supervision of their 
physician. Patients would not be permitted to use this medication for 
any other purpose.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, in any case, I respect the chairman's 
decision; and, with that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

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

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Justice may be used to prevent the States 
     of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, 
     Rhode Island, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, or Washington from 
     implementing State laws authorizing the use of medical 
     marijuana in those States.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 27, 2006, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member 
opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to do with two things: It has to do 
with compassion, compassion for people who are very seriously ill and/
or dying, and the ability of States in which those people live to 
provide means by which their suffering can be relieved.
  It also has to do with one other point, and that is the issue of 
States' rights, the ability of the States to determine how medical care 
will be regulated in those States.
  We have 11 States in our country, Mr. Chairman, that have determined 
that it is in the interests of the people of those States that they be 
allowed to use marijuana for medicinal purposes to alleviate the 
suffering from such things as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and multiple 
sclerosis: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Rhode 
Island, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. However, the Federal 
Government has decided that they are going to intervene and prevent 
those States from carrying out the laws which were passed in two cases 
by the State legislatures and in nine cases by referenda by the people 
of those States.
  We will hear from the people who oppose this amendment that marijuana 
has something to do with a gateway drug. In other words, it introduces 
people to other drugs. This amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with 
that. This amendment has nothing to do with drug addiction. This 
amendment has nothing to do with the potential for drug addiction. This 
amendment simply has to do with the ability of States to relieve the 
suffering of their citizens without Federal intervention and the right 
of States to pass laws regulating medical practice without Federal 
intervention. It is a very simple amendment, and it ought to be passed.
  Those people here who believe in small government should support it. 
Those people here who believe in the issue of States' rights ought to 
support it. And those people here who believe that State governments 
and the people in those governments have the right to take care of 
their citizens and alleviate their suffering, those people in this 
House ought to support this amendment as well.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind our guests in the gallery 
that demonstrations of either approval or disapproval are not 
appropriate.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 10 
minutes in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Latham).
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Hinchey amendment.
  Let's be clear: Marijuana is not harmless, as some claim. It is a 
schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act, meaning it has no 
accepted medical use in treatment and has a high potential for abuse. 
In fact, marijuana continues to be the most widely abused drug in the 
United States.
  Those who anecdotally claim that marijuana has a medical benefit do 
not differentiate between THC and whole marijuana. Whole marijuana 
contains hundreds of chemicals, many of which are harmful to one's 
health. An evaluation by several Federal agencies concluded that no 
sound scientific studies supported marijuana's medical use, and smoking 
marijuana is not approved as a legitimate medical use by the FDA.
  The bottom line is, marijuana is an addictive substance that is 
linked to cancer and respiratory ailments and problems with the immune 
and reproductive system.
  Let me say as a member of the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free 
America, marijuana is the drug that will tell whether or not someone is 
going to get on methamphetamines. It is the precursor, the gateway 
drug, for heroin use. As we continue to fight this battle against 
illegal drug use, this is the drug that gets people started.
  Anyone who is trying to send a message to our young people today 
should be embarrassed by having an amendment like this, because this is 
telling people that this is okay, that it is socially acceptable, that 
you can start here and it won't hurt you. And, in fact, medically, 
scientifically, that is dead wrong.
  The message we are sending to our children today is very strong. 
Whether we support legal use of marijuana as a precursor to 
methamphetamines, to heroin, this is the message we will be sending if 
we approve this. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this 
amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the cosponsor of this 
amendment, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment. Our amendment would prohibit any funds 
made available in this act to the Department of Justice from being used 
to prevent the implementation of legally passed

[[Page 12965]]

State laws in those 11 States authorizing the use of marijuana for 
medical purposes.
  Our coalition of freedom-minded Republicans and Democrats on this 
issue is based on compassion for those who are suffering, a commitment 
to personal liberty and a firm belief in the principles of federalism.

                              {time}  1645

  The use of marijuana to relieve the pain of victims of a wide variety 
of medical conditions is well known and increasingly documented in the 
media and in medical journals. For many of these people, medical 
science has not been able to relieve their pain.
  Just recently a friend of mine and a friend of many years passed 
away, Lyn Nofziger, and many of you here probably know him. He was 
Ronald Reagan's first press secretary. I went to see him after he got 
out of the hospital with his treatments for cancer.
  He had his good days and his bad days. I saw him about a week before 
he died. And I asked Lyn about it, and he said, yes, sometimes it is 
bad, and other times it is not, but I could not get myself to eat, and 
I had the pain no matter what they did for me.
  And I said, well, did you ever try that medical marijuana that we 
have been talking about and debating about? And he got a twinkle in his 
eye, and he said, yes, I did. And it brought my appetite back, and I 
slept like a baby. Do not tell me that we should have Federal law 
enforcement people come into a State where the people have voted to 
approve that if a doctor agrees and get in the way of Lyn Nofziger or 
anyone else who is suffering and use Federal money and Federal 
resources that should be going to fight crime in order to create that 
obstacle.
  That is a travesty. Individuals who live in the 11 States affected by 
the amendment have been granted by the voters of these States the legal 
right to use marijuana to alleviate their pain if a doctor agrees. If 
the voters have so voted and a doctor agrees, it is a travesty for the 
government to intercede, the Federal Government, allocating our scarce 
resources to fighting this, getting in the way of someone using 
something to alleviate their suffering.
  This is something which should be left to the States as American 
tradition dictates. Sandra Day O'Connor stated it best, and she stated 
that States should serve as a laboratory so that people can try certain 
new ideas out to see how they work.
  Well, the Federal Government should not get in the way of what is 
going on in these 11 States to see how this works. The most recent 
decision of the Supreme Court has thrown the ball into the hands of the 
U.S. Congress. Paul Stevens, Justice Paul Stevens, made it clear: the 
voices of the voters may one day be heard in the Halls of Congress on 
behalf of legalizing marijuana. Eleven States have already acted.
  I would hope you would all join us for the principles of federalism, 
compassion and individual liberty and not get in the way of the people 
who are suffering.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, we have people out there, not just Lyn 
Nofziger but others, and my mother suffered. I remember how she lost 
her appetite after suffering a debilitating disease in which she had to 
go through treatments.
  This is a travesty to use scarce Federal resources. Join this 
coalition of people who are Republicans and Democrats who believe in 
federalism, who believe in compassion and believe in personal liberty. 
Let doctors prescribe these things, not Federal Government bureaucrats.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the authors of this amendment. I simply 
want to say this: If I am terminally ill, it is not anybody's business 
on this floor how I handle the pain or the illness or the sickness 
associated with that illness.
  With all due respect to all of you, butt out. I did not enter this 
world with the permission of the Justice Department, and I am certainly 
not going to depart it by seeking their permission or that of any other 
authority.
  The Congress has no business telling people that they cannot manage 
their illness or their pain any way they need to. I would trust any 
doctor in the country before I trust some of the daffy ducks in this 
institution to decide what I am supposed to do if I am terminally ill.
  The idea that somehow this is a gateway that we are creating for a 
drug like meth is a joke. I detest meth. I have seen what it does. It 
is a plague on my district. It is especially horrendous in the midwest, 
and it is getting worse every day. That has nothing whatsoever to do 
with the management of pain and misery for people who are sick and who 
are dying.
  When is this Congress going to recognize that individuals in their 
private lives have a right to manage their problems as they see fit 
without the permission of the big guy in the White House or the big guy 
in the Justice Department or any of the Lilliputians on this 
Congressional floor? Wake up.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
time and for the privilege to address this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard from the other Member from Iowa (Mr. 
Latham) that the Food and Drug Administration has classified marijuana, 
along with heroin, LSD, methamphetamine, hashish and a number of other 
drugs, as Schedule I drugs. That is because they carry a high potential 
for dangerous abuse.
  And so doctors in most States even prohibit them for being prescribed 
for medicinal purposes. That is a standard. That is the national 
standard. The issue was raised about States' rights. But no one has 
raised the issue about States' rights about the other drugs that are 
Schedule I drugs.
  But we do have a right, a constitutional right and an obligation to 
regulate drugs in America. The question really is, is marijuana among 
them? And it is. And so we would be seeking to, by this amendment, 
usurp that decision and change that standard.
  But with regard to the addictive nature of marijuana, I am looking at 
a study here that says that if adults started at a fairly young age, 
say by the time of 26 or older, they used marijuana before the age of 
15, 62 percent reported a lifetime cocaine use, 9 permanent reported 
lifetime heroin use, and 54 percent reported nonmedical use of 
psychotherapeutics. And this does not include methamphetamines, which 
is abused more than any of these drugs that I mentioned here.
  So this is a high use issue. It is also something that infringes upon 
or inhibits our ability and our reflexes with regard to driving. So, 
for example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports 
that marijuana use has been shown to impair driving performance. These 
things we know.
  Then with regard to the gentleman from California's statements about 
he could not, that Mr. Nofziger could not get himself to eat, if that 
is our issue, then let us focus on the synthetic THC that is now 
available. It is available in a drug by the name of Marinol, and it has 
been proven to be effective, especially dealing with cancer patients 
and with the nausea associated with the chemotherapy treatments and 
also with the appetite, that might help assisting the appetite with 
AIDS patients.
  There is a way that we can use the THC, and there is a way also that 
we can protect this country against that kind of Schedule I drug.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Four and a half minutes.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher-
Paul-Farr amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, every year we bring this amendment to the floor. So far 
it

[[Page 12966]]

has never passed. Some may ask, well, why are we doing this again? 
Well, the answer is because of the statements that have been made 
already by Mr. Hinchey and Mr. Obey about compassion for people who are 
suffering.
  We offer this amendment for terminal cancer patients, for AIDS 
victims, for persons who suffer chronic pain. We offer this amendment 
not only to protect those people; we offer this amendment to protect 
these States that are progressive enough to provide alternative medical 
options to those who need it.
  So often this body insists on protecting the rights of States to 
define marriage. So often this body insists on protecting the rights of 
States to set abortion policies. So often this body insists on 
protecting the rights of States to determine education curricula and 
standards.
  But when it comes to protecting the rights of States to set medical 
scope of practice, this body balks. All of a sudden States no longer 
have the right to determine what is best for their citizens when it 
includes medical marijuana.
  The Hinchey amendment does not change Federal law. It does not change 
drug policy. It does protect States' rights. For those of you who come 
from States that do not have medical marijuana laws, nothing in this 
amendment will affect your State. Everything in your State remains 
status quo.
  For those of you who come from States that do have medical marijuana 
laws, very little in this amendment will impact your State. The only 
difference now is that your State will be able to implement its laws 
without little old ladies being busted by Federal cops. I support this 
amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), a member of the committee.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this 
amendment. For 20 years, in State government, I worked on health 
issues. I chaired the health committee for a decade. I asked leaders 
and major medical groups; I asked leaders in the medical societies; and 
since I have been here I have asked leaders at NIH, do we need to 
legalize marijuana? And I have never had a positive answer.
  They said, we have more drugs than we need. We have more things that 
are out there for people that will perform better than marijuana. But 
what I tell you what I do not want to do, I do not want to support the 
belief that too many of our young people already have that marijuana is 
a harmless drug. I know better. I had young people work for me in my 
supermarket who I knew were using marijuana.
  And they used it for a period of years, folks. And they are not as 
sharp after years of marijuana use as they would have been. It dulls 
the brain. It holds back the growth. Brains are not mature until they 
are 25. And marijuana use has been proven to deter brain growth. A 
close friend of mine in Harrisburg who was a prominent State legislator 
was having dinner with me 25 years ago, and he was talking about 
Johnnie, who was attending Penn State, the brightest of three children.
  And all of a sudden, Johnnie in his junior year in college was not 
doing well. He could not figure out why. He visited him two or three 
weekends in a month, 3 months in a row, to try to figure out what was 
wrong with Johnnie. In his senior year of high school, Johnnie had 
started using marijuana.
  Johnnie lost his thrust for life. Johnnie lost the keen mind that God 
had given him. Marijuana stole him from the potential he had. Folks, if 
I thought the American public needed legal marijuana for pain and 
suffering, I would support it. We have more drugs than we need on the 
marketplace.
  Marijuana destroys young people's chances to have good lives. I have 
close friends and even relatives who are living less of a life than 
they would have if they had not spent years abusing marijuana. 
Marijuana is a dangerous drug that is not adequately respected by the 
young people of this country because they have been seduced by leaders 
in this country advocating that it is a perfect, wonderful drug.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for 
the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
   Mr. Chairman, I stand to support the Hinchey/Rohrabacher Amendment, 
an amendment to end federal raids on medical marijuana patients and 
providers in states where medical marijuana is legal.
  Despite marijuana's recognized therapeutic value, including a 
National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine report recommending 
its use in certain circumstances, federal law refuses to recognize its 
medicinal importance and safety.
  This amendment does not change the classification of marijuana as a 
Schedule I narcotic. It does not legalize marijuana, or stop law 
enforcement officials from prosecuting individuals for recreational use 
of marijuana. It does not require that states adopt laws protecting the 
medicinal use of marijuana. It simply extends the protections already 
provided at the state level in ten states to the federal level. It 
ensures that critically ill patients can find relief from nausea and 
pain without worrying that the federal government will prosecute them.
  The federal government should use its power to help terminally ill 
citizens, not arrest them. I strongly urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have never been an 
advocate for drug testing for Members of Congress, but hearing that 
marijuana use can dull the brain makes me think maybe this is something 
that we ought to be checking into.
  I am always heightened in my support of an activity, an amendment, 
when those opposing will not argue it directly. We are not talking 
about 18-year-olds getting into methamphetamines. This is a very narrow 
amendment. It says, where a State has decided by its own democratic 
processes to legalize marijuana according to a doctor's prescription, 
we will not arrest people who try to do it federally.

                              {time}  1700

  Very few of the arguments have met that. The question of marijuana in 
general is not before us. This does not legalize marijuana. We have 
many drugs that can legally be prescribed that are far more behavior 
altering, far more addictive than marijuana has ever alleged to be.
  This is a question about whether or not we are going to reach into 
medical practice and say to medical practitioners whose States would 
allow them to do it that, because of cultural and other concerns about 
this drug, we ban its use when you might find it medically appropriate.
  This is, again, the time when I think the slogan of this House ought 
to be: We are not doctors; we just play them on C-SPAN.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the 
amendment. As a member of the medical community, I understand the 
importance of effectively treating and preventing pain.
  However, the medical use of smoked marijuana has been rejected by the 
American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society and other 
leading health care organizations.
  The concern is that marijuana smokers are exposing themselves to a 
crude and harmful drug delivery system.
  Marijuana smoke contains a variety of toxic chemicals that can cause 
damage and may even exacerbate the underlying medical condition.
  The Federal Government has provided money for research into the 
medicinal use of THC, which is believed to be the primary chemical 
component responsible for marijuana's psycho-pharmacological effects. I 
support that approach.
  As a result of such research, synthetic forms of THC have been 
available as an oral prescription for 20 years.
  Ultimately, inhaling marijuana smoke and tar are not effective 
treatments for medical conditions.
  For these reasons and primarily because of the opposition of leading

[[Page 12967]]

health care organizations, I must rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, over the past months, we have all met with 
them. They live in our towns. They come to our offices. They come to 
the Hill every single year, and they come from all walks of life. They 
share with us their experience or the experiences of someone they 
loved, someone with epilepsy, glaucoma, cancer, AIDS or other chronic 
pain. Their stories touch our lives, and if only for a moment, we feel 
their misery.
  But unless we are affected personally or know somebody who is 
affected, after a few hours, we inevitably get caught up in something 
else. Today, we can actually do something that might improve their 
lives. We can stop prosecuting the use of medical marijuana in the 
States that legally permit it.
  The choice to use medical marijuana is mostly made out of medical 
necessity and the desire to get through the day with as much normalcy 
and strength as possible.
  This is the right thing to do for those who are sick, who are in pain 
and those who cannot keep a meal down. Let's not be bad politicians. 
Let's make smart decisions. Let's help these good people.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment. There has been a lot of talk 
about the Fraternal Order of Police and how we support our police. Here 
is a letter from the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck 
Canterbury, National President, saying, referring to the Hinchey 
amendment:

       Such an amendment threatens to cause a significant 
     disruptive effect on the combined efforts of State and local 
     law enforcement to reduce drug crime in every region of the 
     country. On behalf of the more than 324,000 members of the 
     Fraternal Order of Police, we urge its defeat.

  We talked a lot about the police and how we want to do this to 
support them. I think we should support the police here. I urge a 
strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and 
for, once again, his leadership on this important issue.
  Taxpayers dollars quite frankly should not be spent on sending 
seriously or terminally ill patients to jail. Their doctors, not 
Congress, should decide which drugs will work best. So I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and ensure patients' 
rights because that is what this is about, that patients' rights are 
upheld.
  This amendment does not encourage nor does it make legal the 
recreational use of marijuana. For example, Angel Raich, my constituent 
from Oakland, has been diagnosed with more than ten serious medical 
conditions, including inoperable brain tumors. She, and others who use 
medical marijuana, are simply trying to relieve their crushing pain 
while following the guidelines and the laws that their doctors and that 
their States have already established.
  So please pass this amendment. Patients deserve this. We should not 
send terminally ill patients or seriously ill patients to jail.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Chairman, the arguments that have been put forth against this 
amendment have nothing to do with this amendment. This amendment has 
nothing to do with legalizing marijuana. It has to do with two simple 
things: being compassionate for people who are suffering and dying 
under the lawful provisions of laws passed in their States, the 11 
States that have done so; and States' rights, the right of States to 
govern medical malpractice, not this Congress. This Congress should 
recognize States' rights and live up to the provisions of the 
Constitution and pass this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  For 5 years in the Senate, I was a staffer under Senator Hawkins, who 
chaired the Drug Policy Committee on the Senate side. I have served 
most of my time in the House on the Criminal Justice Drug Policy 
Subcommittee or one of its predecessors. I chaired Criminal Justice 
Drug Policy.
  I point that out to tell you, in the nearly two decades, I have never 
heard one credible source that said that there is a need for medical 
prescription and use of marijuana, not one credible source through 
dozens and dozens of hearings.
  In fact, we have heard the other side say, let the doctor decide, and 
in fact, the experts, and there is no bigger association than the 
American Medical Association of doctors. The National Multiple 
Sclerosis Society has opposed this. The American Glaucoma Society has 
opposed it. The American Academy of Ophthalmology and the American 
Cancer Society have all opposed this type of use.
  Millions of dollars have been spent in an effort to try to push this 
agenda, and we know Mr. Soros has spent millions.
  In 1979, Keith Stroup, the NORML founder, announced that NORML would 
be using the issue of medical marijuana as a red herring, not my term, 
red herring to give marijuana a good name.
  You have heard the testimony. In over half the instances of use of 
cocaine and marijuana, the gateway drug that is used, in fact, is 
marijuana.
  So this is a gateway opportunity to use and encourage the use of 
marijuana. In fact, early marijuana users are eight times more likely 
to use cocaine and 15 times more likely to use heroin and five times 
more likely to develop a need for treatment. That is according to our 
Office of National Drug Control Policy.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, this 15-
minute vote on the Hinchey amendment will be followed by 2-minute votes 
on the amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding Arthur Avenue, the 
amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding the Bronx Council, the 
amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding JARI, the amendment by Mr. 
Flake of Arizona regarding Fairmont State University, the amendment by 
Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding Kentucky Tourism, and the amendment by 
Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
  Again, the Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic 
vote after the first vote in this series.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163, 
noes 259, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 333]

                               AYES--163

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Campbell (CA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)

[[Page 12968]]


     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--259

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Gerlach
     Holden
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Poe
     Sherwood

                              {time}  1735

  Mr. SHAW, Ms. HART and Mr. MEEK of Florida changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. SIMMONS, BURTON of Indiana and GILCHREST changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Skelton was allowed to speak out of 
order.)


  Honoring Congressman Jim Marshall on His Induction into the United 
                    States Army Rangers Hall of Fame

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I announce 
to our colleagues today that a gentleman, a veteran from Vietnam, a 
member of the Armed Services Committee, is receiving an extraordinary 
honor tomorrow. Tomorrow afternoon, the gentleman from Georgia, 
Congressman Jim Marshall, will be inducted into the United States Army 
Rangers Hall of Fame, and we are very proud of that.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
regarding Arthur Avenue on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 76, 
noes 345, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 334]

                                AYES--76

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Campbell (CA)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Ford
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Matheson
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield

                               NOES--345

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui

[[Page 12969]]


     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Farr
     Gerlach
     Holden
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Poe
     Sherwood


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute 
remaining.

                              {time}  1742

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
regarding the Bronx Council on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 74, 
noes 343, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 335]

                                AYES--74

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cooper
     Cubin
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Ford
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Leach
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Westmoreland

                               NOES--343

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     DeGette
     Evans
     Farr
     Gerlach
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Neal (MA)
     Poe
     Sherwood
     Slaughter


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1 minute 
remaining.

                              {time}  1746

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.

[[Page 12970]]

  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 63, 
noes 356, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 336]

                                AYES--63

     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Burton (IN)
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Ford
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Jindal
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kirk
     Leach
     Linder
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Westmoreland

                               NOES--356

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Farr
     Gerlach
     Holden
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Poe
     Pombo
     Sherwood
     Slaughter


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there is 1 
minute remaining.

                              {time}  1750

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
regarding Fairmont State University on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 70, 
noes 350, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 337]

                                AYES--70

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Cantor
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cooper
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Ford
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Westmoreland

                               NOES--350

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)

[[Page 12971]]


     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Farr
     Gerlach
     Holden
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Poe
     Sherwood
     Slaughter


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1755

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
regarding Kentucky Tourism on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 56, 
noes 363, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 338]

                                AYES--56

     Akin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Bradley (NH)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cooper
     Deal (GA)
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Ford
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Inglis (SC)
     Istook
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (MN)
     Linder
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Ramstad
     Rohrabacher
     Ryan (WI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Westmoreland

                               NOES--363

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Farr
     Gerlach
     Holden
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     King (IA)
     Poe
     Sherwood
     Slaughter


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there is 1 
minute remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1759

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


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page 12972]]

  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145, 
noes 274, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 339]

                               AYES--145

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boswell
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Chabot
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hart
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kline
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Ramstad
     Renzi
     Rothman
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Sensenbrenner
     Shays
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--274

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Farr
     Gerlach
     Holden
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Poe
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Slaughter


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  1805

  Mr. WU and Mr. TOWNS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Pearce) assumed the Chair.

                          ____________________