[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 12972-13010]
[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.


                Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Stearns:
       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 
     be used to carry out any provision of section 203 of the 
     Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973aa-1a).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Since 1975, the Bilingual Election Assistance Provisions of the 
Voting Rights Act have forced States and political subdivisions to 
accommodate multiple languages at the polls. The provisions prohibit 
States from providing voting material only in the English language.
  While all of us enjoy hearing a wide variety of languages spoken here 
in the United States, I think that official government functions of the 
government ought to be conducted in English. Let me repeat that. I 
think the official government functions of this government ought to be 
conducted in English.
  Let me state that my amendment is not about immigration, intimidation 
or discrimination. It is about assimilation. This is also an amendment 
about States' rights. States or political subdivisions can provide 
voting assistance in other languages if they want to, but I do not 
believe this is good for the United States to mandate.
  The United States of America is a Nation of immigrants. We are the

[[Page 12973]]

original melting pot. Importantly, though, the first motto of the 
United States of America was E pluribus unum: ``Out of many, one.'' 
This motto symbolizes the integration of the 13 independent colonies 
into one united country. The motto assumed even further meaning as 
Americans welcomed ever more immigrants from many lands to our shores. 
And one of the most unifying elements of one Nation is a common 
language.
  Since our Nation's founding, there have been people who would 
literally suffer life and limb to be an American citizen. And I think 
that if you have the good fortune to be able to vote in the United 
States, then it is not too much to ask that this be accomplished in 
English. You can bring your own assistance to the polls if you need it, 
but I do not think the United States Government should be forced to pay 
for such assistance.
  So, in my opinion, section 203 of the Voting Rights Act would 
exacerbate isolation and segregation. If individuals are not nudged, 
not pushed by the circumstances of daily living, including voting, to 
get out and master the basics of the English language, then they are 
denied all the rich opportunities that life in this great Nation 
offers. Further, depending upon how you got here, it is generally 
expected that you have a command of the English language. If you are 
born here and you obtain voting age and are limited for some reason in 
English proficiency, then I consider this quite a failing of the 
schools. And for most naturalized proceedings, you must pass a limited 
English proficiency requirement. Of course, democracy does not end at 
the polling place, so if one faces a language barrier to voting, then I 
suspect that he or she is secluded from enjoying all the full rights 
and privileges of democracy in the United States.
  And, finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about applying our 
scarce resources wisely in this country. The Bilingual Election 
Assistance Provisions come at no small cost to our States, our counties 
and our small towns.
  For example, does a language with several dialects, such as Chinese, 
trigger the assistance requirement? Then the statute says that the 
jurisdiction's obligation is to ascertain the dialects that are 
commonly used by members of the applicable language minority group in 
the jurisdiction and to provide oral assistance in such dialects. Does 
a language that is unwritten trigger the requirement? Then oral 
assistance and publicity are required. We simply cannot, Mr. Chairman, 
afford to translate government documents and transactions into every 
possible conceivable language.
  Now, if my amendment passes and becomes the law of the land, what 
would happen? Here is what: Voters not confident of their command of 
the English language would do what all of us would do, bring in their 
friends and neighbors and ask for help and assistance. Until 1975, 
there was no government duty to provide ballot translation, but a voter 
could certainly bring an interpreter of his choice to the voting booth.
  I think that all eligible voters should knowledgeably, vigorously 
seeking knowledge, exercise their franchise. But let us just be a 
Nation that votes united, not divisively.
  And I would say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, States should not have 
to print ballots in all these various languages. Let us just have the 
ballots printed in English.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the 
time in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment of my good friend, whom I 
admire in an extraordinary fashion, Mr. Stearns.
  One of the great advancements, Mr. Chairman, in our American 
democracy and of our American democracy was precisely the Voting Rights 
Act that made it possible, in effect, for millions of American 
citizens, minority American citizens, to have access to that sacred 
right that is voting. It is important, Mr. Chairman, that we keep in 
mind that this is not an immigration debate, as Mr. Stearns said. We 
are talking about American citizens and only about American citizens.
  There are, Mr. Chairman, millions of native born American citizens 
that speak languages other than English. For example, there are over 4 
million native born American citizens from Puerto Rico who speak 
Spanish. Many speak English; others do not. They speak primarily 
Spanish. It is our belief and it was a great advancement of American 
democracy to say that American citizens whose primary language is not 
English should also be able to understand ballots, even the most 
complicated or simple of ballot initiatives, petitions, ballots with 
candidates.

                              {time}  1815

  What this section of the Voting Rights Act says is when there is a 
community that has a significant number of people whose language is 
other than English, that that community should have access to ballots 
in their language of preference, in their language of most fluency.
  In addition to the fact that there are millions of American citizens 
who are native born and who speak languages other than English, our 
laws also establish and call for elderly resident aliens, residents of 
the United States, immigrants, who have resided legally in the United 
States for more than 15 years, our law says that they can take the exam 
to become a citizen of the United States in their native language.
  So there are many elderly American citizens, naturalized American 
citizens, who are allowed, according to our laws, the laws of our 
Congress, to take their naturalization exam to become a proud American 
citizen in languages other than English. They should also, Mr. 
Chairman, be allowed to vote, and they should also be allowed to 
understand even the most complicated of ballot initiatives. So that is 
what the law does.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the 
comments of my colleague from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. Chairman, as Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American 
Caucus, I rise also today to oppose the Stearns amendment.
  Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act provides protection to enable 
every American citizen to exercise their most fundamental and important 
right, the right to vote. In short, voting is power.
  Unfortunately, even today, many minority voters face impediments or 
barriers to voting, including language barriers. The Stearns amendment 
will eliminate funding for enforcement of section 203. When that 
happens, States and localities will be free to discriminate against 
tax-paying American citizens and impede their right to vote.
  Section 203 has support from both Democrats and Republicans in 
Congress and from Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush.
  The Tri-Caucus strongly believes that VRA continues to effectively 
combat discrimination and protect the gains achieved for minority 
voters. For instance, the U.S. Department of Justice has reported that, 
in one year, registration rates among Spanish and Filipino-speaking 
American citizens grew by 21 percent and registration among Vietnamese-
speaking American citizens increased over 37 percent after San Diego 
County started providing language assistance.
  In Apache County, Arizona, the Department's enforcement activities 
have resulted in a 26 percent increase in Native American turnout in 
four years, allowing Navajo Code talkers, veterans, and the elderly to 
participate in elections for the first time.
  The Stearns Amendment to H.R. 5672 would undermine the Voting Rights 
Act reauthorization process and effectively disenfranchise language 
minority voters through the appropriations process.

[[Page 12974]]

  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
Stearns amendment (#21) to H.R. 5672, the Science, State, Justice, 
Commerce Appropriations Act for FY 2007.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I stated, this is a great advancement in our 
democracy that we should be proud of. We are talking only about the 
rights of American citizens. American citizens whose primary language 
is other than English should also be able to vote.
  As a Nation, we took an important step forward that, as I say, we all 
should be proud of when we facilitated that sacred right to vote to 
American citizens whose primary language, whose most fluent language, 
is one other than English.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to my dear friend, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 30 
seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the focus of the debate has gone awry. You are 
right. It is not an immigration issue. It is a citizen issue.
  But I do want to tell my colleagues that many people have fled 
persecution, sought asylum, and then become citizens. They come as 
adults, they come as elderly persons, but they are now citizens. They 
have been fleeing the persecution of oppression, and they come here for 
hope, and they come for a dream of opportunity.
  When they become citizens, this will simply allow them to partake of 
that dream, and that is to vote. This is a bad amendment because it 
does not respect the idea that this is a country of freedom. I ask my 
colleagues to oppose the Stearn Amendment and support the full 
implementation of the Voter Rights Act Reauthorization. 
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to the Stearns amendment to H.R. 5672, which would prohibit the 
Department of Justice from enforcing section 203 of the Voting Rights 
Act. The amendment is divisive, punitive, and will take America in 
exactly the wrong direction.
  Section 203 removes barriers to voting faced by tax paying American 
citizens: Citizens who do not speak English well enough to participate 
in the election process. Tax-paying citizens should not be penalized 
for needing assistance to exercise their fundamental right to vote. 
Language minority citizens are required to pay taxes and serve in the 
military without regard to their level of English proficiency. If they 
can shoulder those burdens of citizenship, they should be able to share 
in the benefits of voting with appropriate assistance to exercise the 
vote.
  Section 203 protects citizens, not illegal immigrants: Section 203 
mandates language assistance based on a trigger formula for language 
minorities from four language groups: Native Americans, Native 
Alaskans, Asian Americans, and persons of Spanish heritage. The 
immigrant debate should not influence the debate on ensuring that the 
fundamental right to vote is exercised equally by English and non-
English proficient citizens. According to the 2000 census, three-
quarters of those protected by Section 203 are native-born citizens. 
For example, 100 percent of Native Americans and Native Alaskans were 
born in the United States; 98.6 percent of Puerto Ricans protected by 
Section 4( e) were born in the United States; and 84.2 percent of 
Latinos were born in the United States.
  Section 203 was enacted to remedy the history of educational 
disparities, which have led to high illiteracy rates and low voter turn 
out: These disparities continue to exist. As of 2000, three fourths of 
the 3 to 3.5 million students who are native-born were considered to be 
English Language Learners (ELLs), meaning the students don't speak 
English well enough to understand the basic English curriculum. ELL 
students lag significantly behind native-English speakers and are twice 
as likely to fail graduation tests. California has over 1,500,000 ELLs; 
Texas has 570,000 ELLs; Florida has 250,000 ELLs; and New York has over 
230,000.
  Since 1975, there have been more than 24 education discrimination 
cases filed on behalf of ELLs in 15 states: Fourteen of the States in 
which education discrimination lawsuits have been brought are covered 
by language assistance provisions. Since 1992, 10 cases have been 
filed. Litigation and consent decrees are currently pending in Texas, 
Alaska, Arizona, and Florida. Discrimination cases that have been 
brought address issues such as inadequate funding for ELLs, inadequate 
curriculum to assist ELLs become proficient in English, and lack of 
teachers and classrooms. These disparities increase the likelihood that 
ELLs will achieve lower test scores and drop out of school, ultimately, 
leading to lower voter registration and turnout.
  Adults who want to learn English must endure long waiting periods to 
enroll in English Second Language (ESL) literacy centers: The lack of 
funding to expand the number of ESL centers around the country leaves 
minority citizens unable to enroll in classes for several years. For 
example, in large cities such as Boston citizens must wait for several 
years to enroll. In New Mexico, citizens must wait up to a year. In the 
State of New York, the wait lists were so long, the State eliminated 
them and instituted a lottery system. Once enrolled, learning English 
takes citizens several years to even obtain a fundamental understanding 
of the English language--not enough to understand complex ballots. 
Citizens should not be barred from exercising their right to vote while 
trying to become English proficient.
  Most jurisdictions covered by section 203 support its continued 
existence: According to a 2005 survey, an overwhelming majority of 
jurisdictions covered by Section 203 think that federal language 
assistance provisions should remain in effect for public elections. In 
fact, in a poll of registered voters, 57 percent believe it is 
difficult to navigate ballots and instructions and that assistance 
should be provided.
  I urge defeat of the Stearns Amendment. 
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) has 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, it is a Federal mandate for foreign 
language ballots. Anybody can vote locally on that. But it takes away 
the Federal requirement for foreign language ballots and allows 
individuals to bring interpreters into the voting booth. That is 
protected by Federal statute, those two points. So it doesn't take away 
foreign language ballots. It just takes away the Federal mandate that 
requires them. There is surname analysis. We are also using dialects, 
16 to 17, in Michigan; and that has got to stop.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the right to vote is precious, 
almost sacred, and one of the most important blessings of our 
democracy. The Stearns amendment is an attack on the voting rights of 
millions of American citizens. It is a modern day literacy test.
  This is not about illegal immigration. These are American citizens we 
are talking about. If the Stearns amendment becomes law, what message 
are we sending to the Apache, to the Navajo Nation, to the Native 
Alaskan, to Vietnamese Americans, to Russian Jews, who are all 
citizens?
  These are our neighbors. They are taxpayers. They are Americans. We 
should be opening up the process to each and every American. Let them 
come in and participate.
  Instead, this amendment will return us to the dark past. I don't 
think we want to go back as a Nation and as people. Vote ``no'' on 
Stearns.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this is a very shameful 
amendment, and I will tell you why it is shameful.
  Here we are on the eve of the 4th of July at the very foundation of 
this country when those noble words were spoken by Thomas Jefferson, 
``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created 
equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among 
those, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'' and the most 
important guarantee of that pursuit of happiness is the right to vote.
  Not long ago, many of my colleagues on that side of the aisle stuck 
their finger in purple ink and proudly went around and promoted it 
because the Iraqis had the freedom to go and vote. There was a private 
first class named Private First Class Rincon from my

[[Page 12975]]

district in Conyers, Georgia, who gave his life and died for that 
right, and he was not even a United States citizen. This House had to 
approve his citizenship posthumously.
  Now we want to pass an amendment that would give just a little bit of 
help to his wife, to his mother, to his grandmother, who have 
difficulty with the English language.
  This is a terrible moment at a terrible time, when we should be 
speaking to the greatness of this country, to the right to vote, to 
cherish it. Here we are on the eve of the 4th of July being what was 
referred to 40 years ago in the bestseller, being the Ugly American.
  Let us prove that we are the good American and vote down this ``Ugly 
American'' amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting. I have a 
button on my television that, if you click it, you can convert 
everything that you hear to Spanish so that people can hear American 
Idol and Desperate Housewives, and my English-only friends on the other 
side have not so much as lodged an objection to that button on my TV. 
They don't have a problem translating what goes across the dial every 
night. It is more than passing strange that they are troubled by making 
the ballot accessible, when our televisions are accessible.
  My friends from Georgia have said it very well. This is about 
American citizens. You can't vote unless you are an American citizen. 
If you are an American citizen, we all have a stake in removing the 
obvious impediments toward voting, and what do we gain in terms of high 
ground by objecting to some of our fellow citizens having all the tools 
that they need to translate the choice of the elections? How do we 
justify televisions translating, and ballots not being translated?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the 
gentleman yielded to me.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment prevents the Department of Justice from 
enforcing section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. We know from our 
hearings that section 203 works. If you enforce section 203, more 
people vote. It only applies where there is a large number of voters 
with that particular language, a critical mass, enough to affect an 
election.
  If we pass this, it won't encourage people to learn English. There 
are waiting lists to learn English already. If people could vote, maybe 
they could have more resources applied to English language.
  We need a fair opportunity for people to vote. Section 203 brings 
that opportunity to people. We should reject this amendment and enforce 
the Voting Rights Act. This is a very important aspect, the Voting 
Rights Act, and we should enforce the Voting Rights Act, not tell the 
Department of Justice to fail to support it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this is our opportunity to state 
whether or not we believe that the United States of America is 
benefited by bilingualism.
  In every other country of the world where we have permitted and they 
have actually promoted bilingualism, it has led to divisiveness and 
balkanization of countries and hatred between peoples.
  One of the things that has created the unity of our country that is 
made up of so many different ethnic groups, so many different races, so 
many different religions, has been the English language. We are not 
doing anyone a favor by making it easier for them not to speak English. 
We are, in fact, doing a great disservice to those least fortunate 
people and those immigrants who come to our country by not encouraging 
them, by not giving them the incentive to learn English. It is a crime 
against those people and against their children.
  More than this, what we have here is an expensive mandate. In my 
county, we have five different languages that are mandated, and two 
more on the way. In L.A. County, there are 10 different languages, an 
enormous expense in order to produce ballots and ballot measures and 
the descriptions of those measures for the population.
  What are we doing this for? In the long run, it is damaging to our 
country. Vote against bilingualism. Support the Stearns amendment. If 
States want to do it, let them go ahead, but the Federal Government 
should not be mandating this and putting this burden on the States, 
something that, again, hurts the very people that they are claiming it 
is trying to help and will definitely in the long run hurt the United 
States as it keeps us divided into groups, rather than bringing us 
together as our Founding Fathers suggested that they wanted to have in 
the first place.
  Vote against bilingualism. Vote for the Stearns amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
opposition to the Stearns amendment. This amendment would allow States 
and localities to discriminate against tax-paying American citizens. 
This amendment forces the Federal Government to disenfranchise American 
citizens from our most precious right of voting.
  Unfortunately, a misinformed few from the other side of the aisle 
have confused this issue. The Voting Rights Act has nothing to do with 
immigration. Let me repeat that: section 203 of the Voting Rights Act 
has nothing to do with immigration. One hundred percent of the people 
served by section 203 are U.S. citizens.
  I know a little bit about this. Both of my parents are naturalized 
citizens. My mother is an elementary schoolteacher who teaches other 
people's children English. She has difficulty sometimes.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. Chairman, if we want to spread democracy around the world, we 
should not be disenfranchising American citizens who want to vote here. 
That is why I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Stearns amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, there are really only two reasons 
that a person might ask for a ballot in a language other than English. 
One of those reasons would be if you are a naturalized citizen and you 
had received and earned your citizenship here. That is a Federal 
requirement, though, to demonstrate proficiency in the English 
language, both the spoken and the written.
  So one would presume that if you are a naturalized citizen and you 
ask for a ballot in a language other than English, that you somehow 
circumvented the standards that are in Federal statute. So I do not 
think that is a legitimate reason to ask for a foreign language ballot.
  The second reason would be if you were born in this Nation, by 
birthright citizenship, and you had grown up in an enclave where you 
did not absorb enough English to be able to go to the ballot box and 
cast a ballot in English. In that case, we have a Federal statute to 
protect your right to vote, and you have a right to vote, because you 
can bring someone into the voting booth with you to do that 
interpretation.
  So those two things are covered. What this Stearns amendment does is 
removes the Federal funding that enforces this multilingual ballot 
mandate. It ends the Federal foreign language mandate, at least for a 
year. It is a good thing to do.
  But if localities want to express this, they can. The States or the 
counties or the voting districts can still continue to present ballots 
in any language that they choose. That is why this is a good Stearns 
amendment. That is why it is something that we ought to do for the 
future.
  We are looking at bringing in perhaps millions and millions of new 
citizens. That is hanging in the Senate today. If

[[Page 12976]]

 we do that, with the President talking about the need to learn 
English, then for those reasons we need to assimilate and encourage 
people to use the English language. This is a gentle amendment. I urge 
its adoption.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition 
to the Steams Amendment to H.R. 5672, which would prohibit funds from 
being used for the design, renovation, construction, or rental of any 
headquarters for the United Nations in any location in the United 
States.
  I believe the amendment is unwise, short-sighted, and harmful attack 
on one of the most important international institutions in the world. 
Withholding funds that are lawfully owed to and desperately needed by 
the United Nations to perform its essential functions is harmful to the 
U.N. and against the interests of the United States.
  In this era of new global challenges, the global war on terror to the 
problematic war in Iraq to the threats to world peace posed by 
ambitions of North Korea and Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, we need 
the U.N. more than ever. And for the most part, the U.N. does a good 
job meeting these challenges. The organization conducted the first-ever 
national election from scratch in Afghanistan and trained 150,000 
Iraqis as election staff for the elections in that country. The U.N. 
also was instrumental in coordinating the massive tsunami relief and 
reconstruction effort, involving multiple governments and hundreds of 
NGOs, that brought relief and healing to hundreds of thousands of 
people suffering in Indonesia. The U.N. helped to end violence and 
instability in Haiti, Sierra Leone, and Liberia.
  With 191 diverse members, the U.N. is not perfect. It is unrealistic 
to expect perfection from an imperfect international system. The U.N. 
surely has many of the virtues and faults of its member countries, 
including our own country. But with all its faults, it is still an 
indispensable forum for the peaceful resolution of conflict.
  Despite both managerial and systemic limitations, the U.N. has shown 
resourcefulness in confronting the new challenges posed by failed 
states, infectious diseases that transcend borders, global climate 
change, famine, weapons trade and terrorism.
  The U.N.'s current Secretary General, Kofi Annan, is a leader 
determined to implement serious reforms. He recognizes that the United 
Nations is at a critical crossroads and that it must be modernized and 
rationalized if it is to survive. For over a year now, informed by the 
work of the high-level panel he appointed, the Secretary General has 
been working on a plan to overhaul the U.N. completely so that it is 
more professional and more capable of confronting global threats, 
challenges and change.
  I caution my colleagues to resist the temptation to withhold the 
payment of our U.N. dues. As we all know, the United States just 
recently completed a multi-year process of paying off a massive debt to 
the U.N. that had accumulated over many years. During that process, we 
successfully reduced the percentage of the U.N. budget that U.S. 
taxpayers are responsible for funding.
  So as we map out our nation's strategy for the next decade at the 
glass edifice on the East River, we must remember that operating the 
United Nations costs a lot of money. But not nearly as much money as 
international strife and chaos. The United Nations is deserving of the 
continuing support of the world, and of the United States of America.
  I urge defeat of the Stearns amendment.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Stearns 
Amendment. This amendment would set a dangerous precedent in the way 
that this Nation and Congress approach minority voting rights.
  Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act sets specific guidelines and 
requirements for providing bilingual ballots for political subdivisions 
with limited English-proficiency populations. The Stearns Amendment 
would essentially eliminate Section 203 and would discourage and 
disenfranchise entire populations of American citizens from voting. The 
Voting Rights Act of 1965 sought to protect the right to vote for those 
in our Nation whose voices were not being heard, the very same voices 
that this amendment seeks to extinguish.
  Voting is one of the most important duties that citizens perform. It 
allows citizens to choose who will represent them and who will make 
decisions on important issues that will impact their everyday lives. 
Nothing is more fundamental to our democracy than the knowledge that no 
citizen's right to vote will be hindered.
  Any election reform should break down barriers that face minority 
voters, not increase them. The Stearns Amendment would instead build 
new barriers to democratic participation for American citizens.
  H.R. 9, the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King 
Voting Rights Act Reauthorization Act of 2006 would extend Section 203 
provisions for 25 years, until 2032. I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
Stearns Amendment, and urge my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to work with Democrats to enact H.R. 9 in order to protect the 
voting rights of all Americans.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendment by the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Stearns.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us seeks to disenfranchise 
millions of American citizens by placing obstacles on their right--and 
their civic duty--to vote. The essence of our democracy is the right to 
vote. No right is more precious.
  Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act provides for ballot and language 
assistance for language minority citizens, so all citizens are fully 
able to participate in our democracy.
  Ballots and procedures are often complex and bewildering, even for 
those completely proficient in English. To ensure that all are able to 
participate on free and fair terms, language assistance is vital to 
protecting the right to vote, especially among Latinos, Native 
Americans, Asian Americans, and Alaskan Natives.
  Impact of Section 203: A key objective of the Voting Rights Act is 
not only to remedy past and current attempts to suppress the vote, but 
also to remove obstacles to the right to vote and bolster voter 
participation among populations where participation has historically 
been low.
  As the Judiciary Committee noted in its recent bipartisan committee 
report, Section 203 is needed today, and should be reauthorized to 
continue to achieve its purposes. For instance, after San Diego County 
provided language assistance, the registration rates among Spanish- and 
Filipino-speaking American citizens grew by more than 20 percent and 
registration among Vietnamese-speaking American citizens increased by 
nearly 40 percent. Likewise, in Apache County, Arizona, enforcement 
activities resulted in a 26 percent increase in Native American turnout 
in four years, allowing Navajo Code talkers, veterans, and the elderly 
to participate in elections for the first time.
  The Stearns amendment, however, by preventing enforcement of Section 
203, will allow states and localities to discriminate against taxpaying 
American citizens because of their language ability, and impede their 
right to vote.
  That is wrong. In our country, our laws and our Constitution draws no 
distinction between American citizens born here or not. In fact, three-
quarters of those who are covered by the language assistance provision 
are native-born United States citizens. The rest are naturalized U.S. 
citizens.
  The opponents of Section 203 claim that the costs are too great. 
Studies disprove that contention, but costs are not the issue. Securing 
the right to vote must never--and cannot--ever be considered a burden. 
It is our moral and constitutional obligation.
  The arguments of the opponents of Section 203 are suspiciously 
similar to the arguments once employed for literacy tests to 
disenfranchise African American voters. I had hoped we had passed that 
period in our country's history when such tests were widely used. We 
cannot permit the use of these tests once again.
  Mr. Chairman, we are supposed to unite together as Americans with one 
voice to reaffirm our commitment on the fundamental subject of voting 
rights for all of our citizens. Instead, this ugly amendment seeks to 
undermine that moral and historic commitment. The constant scapegoating 
of our fellow American citizens--and attempts to suppress their voting 
rights--must end.
  Any diminishing of language assistance is a diminishment of our 
American democracy. We must defeat this amendment, and affirm our 
support of Section 203.
  The right to vote must never, ever be compromised. Every vote 
counts--every vote must be counted.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, as Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific 
American Caucus (CAPAC), I rise today to oppose the Stearns Amendment 
(#21) to H.R. 5672, FY 2007 Science, State, Justice and Commerce 
Appropriations Bill.
  Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, or VRA, provides protections to 
enable every American citizen to exercise their most fundamental and 
important right--the right to vote. Voting is the most important tool 
Americans have to influence the policies our government adopts that 
affect every aspect of our lives. In short, voting is power. 
Unfortunately, even today, many minority voters face impediments or 
barriers to voting including language barriers.
  The Stearns Amendment (#21) would eliminate funding for Section 203 
of the Voting

[[Page 12977]]

Rights Act (VRA). By eliminating funding for Section 203 enforcement, 
states and localities would be free to discriminate against taxpaying 
American citizens and impede their right to vote.
  The VRA that includes Section 203 has received bi-partisan support 
from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and from Ronald Reagan 
to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. The Tri-Caucus strongly believes the 
VRA continues to effectively combat discrimination and protect the 
gains achieved for minority voters.
  It is well documented that language assistance is needed and used by 
voters. For instance, the U.S. Department of Justice has reported that 
in one year, registration rates among Spanish- and Filipino-speaking 
American citizens grew by 21 percent and registration among Vietnamese-
speaking American citizens increased over 37 percent after San Diego 
County started providing language assistance.
  In Apache County, Arizona, the Department's enforcement activities 
have resulted in a 26 percent increase in Native American turnout in 4 
years, allowing Navajo Code talkers, veterans, and the elderly to 
participate in elections for the first time.
  The Stearns Amendment to H.R. 5672 would undermine the Voting Rights 
Act reauthorization process and effectively disenfranchise language 
minority voters through the appropriations process.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
Stearns Amendment (#21) to H.R. 5672, the Science, State, Justice, 
Commerce Appropriations Act for FY 2007.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this mean spirited 
Amendment, which would prohibit any federal funds to be used in 
enforcing bilingual balloting.
  Let's be crystal clear, we are not talking about undocumented 
residents. These are citizens of the United States. Many of whom have 
voted you and me into the office that we hold today.
  It is apparent that instead of passing meaningful bi-partisan 
legislation to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act; instead the majority 
plans to use these little tricks and delaying tactics to disenfranchise 
ethnic and minority voters.
  From not counting votes, forced mid-century redistricting and voter 
intimidation it is clear now more then ever that the Voting Rights Act 
must be reauthorized as the original drafters of the legislation 
intended--including bilingual assistance to voters.
  These people have earned the right to vote just like everyone else in 
this chamber.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Stearns 
amendment.
  I cannot think of a more pernicious amendment that is being 
considered today than this amendment.
  For more than 30 years, Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act has 
ensured that U.S. Citizens, who may require assistance to cast an 
educated vote in a language other than English, have the ability to 
vote in the language in which they are most adept.
  Section 203 has proven to be a constitutional, just, and practical 
way to maximize voter participation and ensure our democracy truly 
reflects its citizens.
  Every Member of this body who cares about voting rights should join 
me in condemning the amendment before us.
  It is nothing short of a cynical attempt to disinfranchise eligible 
voters and to undermine core protections afforded by the Voting Rights 
Act.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this attempt to roll back the clock on 
civil rights.
  Defeat the Stearns amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeGette

  Ms. DeGETTE. 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 Ms. DeGette:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by increasing the amount made available for ``Office 
     of Justice Programs--justice assistance'' and reducing the 
     amount made available for ``Department of justice--general 
     administration--salaries and expenses'', by $3,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
June 27, 2006, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, the Internet Crimes Against Children Task 
Forces, or ICACs, are Federal-local partnerships that help track down 
the perpetrators of online child exploitation.
  Ninety percent of this important work occurs at the local level by 
ICAC investigators all across the country. Their jobs become more 
important every day as the incidence of child pornography rises to 
nearly epidemic proportions.
  I want to consider these chilling statistics: In fiscal year 2003, 
ICACs received 3,741 reports of Internet crimes against children. In 
fiscal year 2004, that number was 24,138. But, Mr. Chairman, in fiscal 
year 2005, that number was 198,883, an increase of 5,216 percent in 
just 2 years.
  The increase is not just a result of better reporting. It reflects an 
unthinkable rise in the worst kind of crimes. The ICACs are in need of 
more funds for three reasons: number one, to increase investigations; 
number two, to enhance law enforcement training; and, number three, to 
conduct forensic analysis.
  The budget for ICACs has increased incrementally the last few years; 
and, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you and the committee for adding 
$5 million to the Internet Crimes Against Children Tasks Forces, but, 
frankly, with these increases in the crimes, even if we tripled the 
ICAC budget, it would still barely manage to keep up with online child 
pornography.
  The extra funding is critical for training, for investigations, for 
forensic exams, and to stop these terrible perpetrators from committing 
these crimes against children.
  Mr. Chairman, the problem of online child pornography is growing. 
This amendment will simply increase the budget by $3 million. And I ask 
my colleagues, what lengths are we willing to go to to save them? I 
urge a ``yes'' vote on the DeGette amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

  Mr. WEINER. 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. Weiner:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by increasing the aggregate amount made available for 
     ``community oriented policing services'' (consisting of an 
     additional $476,574,000 for grants authorized under section 
     1701 of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
     Act of 1968, as amended by section 1163 of the Violence 
     Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act 
     of 2005), and by reducing the amount made available under the 
     item relating to ``science, aeronautics and exploration'' for 
     exploration systems (and conforming the aggregate amount set 
     forth in such item, accordingly), by $476,574,000.

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

[[Page 12978]]


  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment with Mr. Ramstad and other 
Members of this body. It is very simple. It takes perhaps the single 
most important anticrime program of the 1990s and the early part of 
this decade, the COPS program, and restores the hiring component, which 
is the portion of the program that puts cops on the beat.
  It has been zeroed out in this budget. We are not going to restore it 
completely to its authorized level, but we at least are trying to put a 
little more funding in that would allow us to hire about 6,500 
additional cops.
  For those of you who are unfamiliar with the COPS program, this is 
perhaps the most democratic, with a small ``D,'' program, anticrime 
program Congress ever envisioned, from coast to coast, State by State. 
West Virginia got 692 officers, Virginia got 2,400 officers, Texas got 
600, big towns, small cities, all across the country.
  This bill zeroes out the COPS program. What we seek to do is to 
authorize an additional 6,000 or so police officers. The offset that we 
seek is in the space exploration, the Mars program. We do not zero it 
out by any stretch of the imagination. We still ensure a large increase 
in it, about a 10 percent increase.
  But this would be a way to take this single crime fighting program, 
and, frankly, an antiterrorism program, and breathe some life into it. 
We have already said in this body that we believe the COPS program 
should live. We reauthorized it. Now this is an effort to put some 
funds in.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very, very, very, very strong 
opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  The COPS Program is already $468 million over the request, $57 
million over last year. The amendment proposes reductions to NASA that 
are devastating. If you are opposed to the space program or you do not 
like the space program or you do not want America to be number one, you 
ought to support this amendment.
  But if you want America to have a strong space program, you ought to 
strongly defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time; 
and I especially thank him for his strong support for America's space 
program. The Weiner amendment would take $477 million from NASA's space 
exploration budget, essentially would cripple the CEV-CLV program.
  Ladies and gentlemen, just so you know what that means, we are 
scheduled to fly our last shuttle mission in the year 2010. We have a 
bird on the pad. We hope we get it up July 1 or sometime soon. But we 
will be down for sure by 2010. We will have no manned space flight 
program after that unless we continue with the CEV development. This 
amendment basically wipes out that development in this budget cycle.
  I will tell you we need a next generation of vehicles or we will not 
be in the human space flight business. The Weiner amendment raids the 
account that is necessary to keep the workforce in place.
  If you allow the workforce to disappear from 2010 to, say, 2015 or 
2020, you can never replace these people. The expertise that you lose 
cannot be put back together again. Once Humpty Dumpty and the skilled 
workforce is dead and depleted, you can never put it back together.
  But I am not here just to talk about America's space program. I want 
to tell my colleagues about a firsthand experience I had. If you are 
not concerned about space, you ought to be.
  I was the first American, along with our colleagues Rick Larsen and 
Mark Kirk, invited to see the Chinese human space flight program. They 
got started in 1995. They are 35 years behind us in time, but they are 
remarkable in how fast they have caught up in their human space flight 
program.
  The Shenzhou vehicle has flown five times now, twice with Taikonauts 
that have come back successfully, and they have had extraordinary 
success. While our workforce is basically keeping healthy a 40-year-
old, 30-year-old technology, the young Chinese engineers have put 
together a remarkable new technology that will be very, very powerful 
in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to read the Chinese announcement of their own 
human space flight program. They say, by 2007, there will be a series 
of unmanned satellites from the year 2007 through 2015. Starting in 
2017, they expect to have unmanned missions to the Moon to bring back 
lunar samples. By the year 2024, they say they will have landed men and 
women on the Moon.
  Folks, I think their real schedule is much more ambitious than that. 
If and when we get back to the Moon under the Weiner amendment, we will 
be looking at Chinese flags and maybe Chinese bases when we get there.
  And if that does not stimulate your competitive interests, I am 
telling you that they are producing 5 to 600,000 engineers a year, by a 
factor of 8 or 10 what America is able to produce. Nothing stimulates 
our math and science brains in middle and high schools more than space 
exploration. The Weiner amendment would put an end to that.
  Finally, I will tell you if you are not worried about human space, 
China is developing the Long March 5 vehicle. It will be able to take 
25 tons into orbit. It is not just their human space capabilities that 
they are working on. They are trying to get space predominance so that 
they can potentially incapacitate all of our communications satellite 
and all of the satellites that America depends on for our force 
multipliers that allow our military to be the most capable in the 
world.
  Ladies and gentlemen, please do not gut the human space component of 
America's exploration; and, if you do, be prepared for what happens 
when the Chinese beat us to outer space.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, with all of the discussion about China, I 
am curious, is the crime rate high in China? Is the crime rate high on 
Mars? No one is saying to zero out the program. I am saying give it a 
10 percent increase.
  Mr. FEENEY. Will the gentleman yield? He asked a question. Will he 
yield for a second?
  The COPS program has been completed.
  Mr. WEINER. It is completed.
  Mr. FEENEY. It was intended to put 100,000 officers on the street.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time is controlled by the gentleman from New 
York.
  Mr. FEENEY. I apologize. I thought he asked a question.
  Mr. WEINER. Apparently, the gentleman from Florida is unfamiliar with 
the rhetorical question which is so commonly used in New York and 
frequently in Washington.
  Florida got 7,400 police officers under the COPS program. The COPS 
program was reauthorized in this body for additional hiring. We 
reauthorized it.
  Now I am saying, put a few dollars in there. And I am not saying, do 
not go to Mars; I am not saying, do not go to the Moon. How about this? 
Let's make a deal. Let's have a 10 percent increase in that program 
that is so important. That is a pretty healthy increase. And if we do 
that, then we do not go from 7,400 cops in Florida to what the bill 
proposes, which is zero cops in Florida. That is what voting against 
the Weiner-Ramstad amendment would propose.
  We are saying that this is a successful program. When Tom Ridge said 
that homeland security starts in our home towns, when John Ashcroft 
said this has been a remarkable program, you know, frankly, it has been 
a bipartisan, across-the-board success. We have reauthorized it in this 
body. All I am saying is, breathe new life in it.
  I would just remind the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee, 
that large increase that you described still is zeroing out, I would 
say to the gentleman from Virginia, the hiring component.

                              {time}  1845

  What the Department of Justice has done is put a whole lot of 
programs in

[[Page 12979]]

this one line. The hiring component is zero, none, kaput, despite the 
fact that we reauthorized.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment not because I not 
recognize that we need lots of additional dollars in law enforcement 
and particularly to support our State and local law enforcement, as we 
have talked about a number of times on the floor today and throughout 
this session.
  This administration made a point of cutting local law enforcement, 
and it is a travesty because the demand is out there, and there is this 
real correlation between the reduction in Federal support to State and 
local law enforcement and an increase in violent crime rates. It is 
there. We can see it. That is why the gentleman is offering his 
amendment.
  But the bottom line is, we do not have the allocation, and this 
offset is terrible. I mean, we are trying to keep these programs alive 
throughout the bill.
  The President came forward with a budget that devastated what in the 
NASA budget? Science. What else? Aeronautics. Well, this amendment 
would cut an additional, as I understand it, $100 million from NASA. 
Science, aeronautics would be further cut. These programs cannot 
survive in NASA with these kinds of cuts. We cannot do it.
  We need to restore additional money to law enforcement. There is no 
question about that. That is a debate that maybe will go beyond this 
Congress; maybe it will go beyond this appropriation bill, and perhaps 
that debate should be had across the land. But right now, given the 
money that we have in the bill, we cannot afford the offset for funding 
the COPS program or any other State and local law enforcement, and is 
that not a sad comment?
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me just acknowledge that 
I agree with much of what the gentleman says, except the part about us 
gutting anything.
  What we did is we took the space exploration program and limited the 
increase to 10 percent. We by no means cut it to last year's level. We 
by no means slashed it to the bone. What we did is we took a program 
that grew the most and said, we are going go allow it to grow only 10 
percent in the alternative.
  I want to point out the program that did get slashed to the bone, 
which was the COPS hiring component. You know, if you have a COPS 
program which put 117,000 police officers on the street and you say, we 
are going to reauthorize it but we are not going to provide any funding 
to do the hiring component, then we are going to start seeing what we 
are seeing now, which is, nationwide the seven index crimes are 
starting to creep up again.
  We saw the single best Federal program against crime perhaps in 
history was the COPS program, and despite the protestations of some of 
the folks who were here at the time, it was distributed throughout the 
country. Now the COPS department at Justice in the hands of the 
Republican party fervently says, you know what, having a COPS program 
without having hiring in it is like having no COPS program at all.
  Also, in the reauthorization, we acknowledged in a bipartisan way 
some of the weaknesses of the program. Some departments said, you know 
what, the way it was structured was too limited. They wanted 
flexibility. We acknowledged that. The chairman, to his credit, and 
this House, to its credit, overwhelmingly reauthorized that program, 
but it is a hollow victory if we have the COPS program and no money.
  So the offset admittedly is not ideal. I think you and the gentleman 
from Virginia do yeoman's duty each year trying to squeeze more and 
more into a smaller bag.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas to speak in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Weiner knows that I have 
voted with him consistently on the COPS program and, of course, am 
chagrinned to stand here to argue against a program that is so vital, 
but Mr. Mollohan is correct.
  These are tough decisions that have to be made, and the decision that 
has to be made is whether we want to remain competitive in science and 
technology, and we have to cut the science programs. It is a bad budget 
that we have to operate under, but frankly, in the shadow of a pending 
launch and the commitment to remain at the cutting edge of science that 
generates out of exploration and technology and science that comes 
under this particular funding, we are losing ground.
  I would hope that we go back to the drawing board and get the money 
that we need for the COPS program. It is a good program, but this is 
not the kind of decision that draws anyone to a degree of happiness. 
This is splitting the baby, and we have nothing when we get through 
with it.
  This is an important program to support, and that is the space 
exploration, the science programs. The minimum moneys we have and the 
fact that we have to take moneys for the COPS program, we need to fund 
it from the President's budget. He needs to fund the COPS program. This 
is not the way to do it.
  I would ask my colleagues to oppose the Weiner amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to my colleague's 
amendment, not because of the merit of the intent, but because of the 
harm it does in taking money away from an already under-funded NASA. 
This amendment would cut $476.5 million from science, aeronautics and 
space exploration systems. I wish the President's budget had allowed 
for full funding of the COPS program. The quarral is with the White 
House not with NASA.
  I wholeheartedly support the work of NASA, and I am committed to the 
future of scientific and space exploration. I am deeply concerned that 
the amount appropriated in the FY07 budget does not meet all the needs 
for future space exploration as we move forward in this new century. A 
lack of necessary budget authority makes scientific innovation and 
space exploration very difficult. As I have stated before, this 
Administration has made many bad budgetary choices, including zeroing 
out the COPS program. However, it is not in the nation's best interest 
to compound that mistake with this one.
  My greatest concern at this point is that we may not allocate enough 
money or resources to ensure the safety of all NASA astronauts and 
crew. After the Columbia disaster, safety must be our highest priority 
and it is worrisome that there is not a noticeable increase in funding 
to address all safety concerns.
  Additionally, I am concerned that pressure to retire the Shuttle by a 
fixed date to free up resources for other activities, coupled with the 
need to fly up to 28 Shuttle flights to assemble the Space Station, 
could--if not handled properly--lead to the types of schedule and 
budgetary pressures that were cited by the Columbia Accident 
Investigation Board, CAIB, as contributing to the Columbia accident. I 
know that this concern is paramount at NASA as we move forward in the 
future.
  NASA has the ability to inspire the generations toward untold 
discoveries. As always I look forward to working with the good men and 
women of NASA as we push the boundaries of our world once again.
  Thus, because this amendment cuts funding so desperately needed by 
the researchers, engineers, and innovators at NASA, I cannot support 
it, and I urge my colleagues to follow my lead.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that if we were not immersed 
in this stupid war in Iraq, the money that we are spending in just 2 
months would correct all of the problems we have in all of these 
appropriation bills and we would not be facing this tradeoff. We could, 
in fact, afford to do both the COPS program and the space program that 
others in this chamber would prefer to see us pursue.
  But the fact is, our Republican friends have voted for a budget 
resolution which has imposed these kinds of tradeoffs, and given that 
fact, I worry a whole lot more about Chinese products wiping out 
American jobs than I

[[Page 12980]]

worry about Chinese flags somewhere else in the world, although I do 
not like either.
  Some people attack Members of Congress for having Potomac fever. I 
think some Members of this House have Mars fever. The fact is, if we 
are going to make a choice about where to put the best money, right 
now, I think a far better bet is law enforcement.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member 
and also my cosponsor. I rise as the cosponsor of this amendment.
  President Clinton was right back in 1994 when many of us worked in a 
bipartisan way to fashion the 1994 Crime Control Act and when community 
policing was made part of that important legislation. I remember those 
meetings at the White House, talking about community policing, and 
President Clinton was right. The COPS program has been a key component 
of the Federal effort to keep our communities safe, and crime has 
dropped significantly.
  President Clinton was right that community policing works to reduce 
crime. Ask any cop on the street, whether it is in the Third and Fourth 
Precincts of Minneapolis Police Department or my suburban police 
departments in the Third Congressional District, they all say it is 
shortsighted and counterproductive to underfund this critical law 
enforcement tool.
  I think it is simply wrong to shortchange public policy, and I 
understand the dilemma faced by the appropriators, believe me. This 
amendment, the Weiner-Ramstad amendment, would fund the COPS program at 
its fully authorized level by adding about $476 million for the 
program.
  I understand how painful that offset is to many of you who prioritize 
NASA, but I think we have to ask ourselves, all of us, the simple 
question: What is more important, spending more money to fly to Mars or 
keeping millions of Americans safe here on earth? That is the key 
question.
  As I said, I have seen in my home State of Minnesota firsthand the 
importance of the COPS program to local police in reducing crime and 
improving public safety. The COPS program really does work, and it has 
helped State and local law enforcement agencies in their hiring, 
technology, school safety grants, personnel, equipment, training, 
technical assistance.
  In short, the COPS program has been a critical tool in the war on 
drugs and now in homeland security efforts.
  So as cochair with my friend from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, of the 
Congressional Law Enforcement Caucus, I encourage my colleagues to 
support this amendment to increase the funding levels for the COPS 
program. I think it is critical to all Americans. Certainly Edmund 
Burke had it right over 200 years ago when he said, the main reason we 
have government is to keep people safe.
  No question the COPS program has kept people safer, and I believe we 
should pass this amendment to increase the funding here today. By 
passing this funding, we also honor the sacrifices made each and every 
day by our country's law enforcement community and give our Nation's 
finest the support they need.
  Again, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Let me conclude by saying that I have been listening to what has been 
said, and I think I have got a compromise we can all accept.
  What if we pass an amendment that increases the number of COPS by 
6,500? There are none in the bill now. We make it 6,500, and we still 
give a $300 million plus up, an increase of 10 percent in the 
President's moon and Mars initiative, give an increase in space 
exploration and COPS program? Sound like a deal?
  Well, this is the amendment. That is what the Weiner-Ramstad 
amendment does. It gives an increase to both. This notion that we are 
eviscerating a program is just not true. We are taking a program and 
giving it a 10 percent increase and funding another program that has 
done this much good around the country. This is the number of police 
officers around the country.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The Chair would remind Members that the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Weiner) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining on his time, and the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has 1 minute remaining. Who seeks time?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, if I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida, then if I strike the requisite number of words, I can get 5 
minutes, correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this amendment, and it is not exactly correct to say this is just going 
to cut money from the Moon and Mars. We have a program underway to 
develop a safer, less expensive, more reliable vehicle than the space 
shuttle, and that is called the crew exploration vehicle. If this 
amendment goes through, it is going to delay that program; it is going 
to run up the costs, and it is going to create a situation where we are 
going to have no way to get men and women into space.
  Now, this program, I agree, sounds like a worthwhile program, but 
frankly, when it got established, I had serious misgivings in the 1990s 
because I thought we were going to have a real serious problem finding 
the funding for it on into the future. It was originally sold as just a 
short-term thing, but as you would expect, people are going to come 
back.
  This is really the Federal Government getting involved in a local 
issue, and I would say the decline in the crime rate in the United 
States was because of locking up repeat offenders and not because of 
the COPS program.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, do not make any mistake about this. The 
Weiner amendment will gut NASA. Do not make any mistake. This amendment 
will transfer the preeminence that we presently have in space to India 
and others and China especially.
  As my friend, Mr. Feeney, from Florida was saying, China is investing 
significant amounts of dollars in their program, and their program is 
not a civil space program.
  Our country's economy and success is because we prevailed in doing 
hard things. That is why we have the technology and the ability to do 
the computers, the cell phones, the satellites, that NASA helped 
create.
  Do not vote for this amendment. It is the wrong thing to do. Vote 
down the Weiner amendment.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for this time. I am a 
member of his subcommittee, and I appreciate his leadership and the 
leadership of the ranking member as well.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment, and it troubles me to do 
that. I was a district attorney prior to my time in Congress, and so I 
know a little bit about law enforcement and what law enforcement needs.
  These programs that are the object of the Weiner amendment, they are 
important programs, there is no doubt, but the chairman and the ranking 
member have worked together in a bipartisan manner to restore $1.1 
billion in proposed cuts to State and local law enforcement programs.

                              {time}  1900

  Now, that is not as much as it should be, but that is a good-faith 
effort within the budget allocation to get money here. This is the 
wrong offset. Please vote against the Weiner amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I 
rise in

[[Page 12981]]

opposition to this amendment, regrettably for my friend from New York.
  I also am a very strong supporter of the COPS program, like my friend 
from Alabama, a former prosecutor. I have always supported and continue 
to support the COPS program. But robbing one vital program to support 
another is not the answer.
  Representing Southern California, the home of the Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory, I have seen the tremendous space science that has come out 
of our robotic exploration of Mars and out of the entire space program. 
This has manifest itself in health technology and telecommunications 
technology. It has had tremendous benefits to all of our constituents.
  I don't want to see that research go away. I don't want to see that 
space science go away. And already there are dramatic cuts and delays 
in some of the space sciences that we just cannot afford. We have to 
find a different way to fund the COPS program. Taking the money out of 
this vital NASA effort is not the answer, and I must oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I strongly urge defeat of the 
amendment. China is using their space program for military reasons. 
They now have laser beams. For the members of the committee that came 
to the subcommittee briefing, the closed briefing, you saw where they 
are. It is frightening. China has 200,000 engineers working on the 
space program, and we have 75,000.
  If the Weiner amendment passed, the nmber of U.S. engineers would 
drop. America, under the Weiner amendment, would no longer be number 
one. That would be dangerous to our country and absolutely wrong. So I 
strongly, strongly urge the defeat of this amendment, which I think 
would almost guarantee, if it passed and stayed in the law, the loss of 
American leadership in space.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that I disagree 
with very little of what has been said on both sides. I think the 
chairman and ranking member have done a remarkable job balancing the 
equities, but it is simply not fair that the COPS program gets zero.
  To keep saying that State and local enforcement has got additional 
funds, let us not forget that we authorized the COPS program at $1 
billion. This amendment doesn't seek to fund it at that level, but it 
seeks to put some money in.
  And if you think we are going to lose the edge in space exploration 
because we have the audacity to give it a 10 percent increase this 
year, I just disagree. It is a matter of trying to find a way that we 
can do both.
  We do not gut the space program. We give it a 10 percent increase 
with the Weiner amendment. But what we do is we make sure that we don't 
have this. This is what the bill presently has in the number of new 
cops under the COPS program. None. Zip. Zero.
  Crime rates around the country are creeping back up. I heard at least 
one gentleman over there say, at least he is being honest, he believes 
that cops deserve no credit for the reduction in crime. It is an 
unusual position to take. The Fraternal Order of Police, the National 
Association of Police Associations, and every law enforcement group 
nationwide supports the Weiner amendment.
  What we are seeking to do here is to say, you know what, we can't in 
the Federal Government be at the sidelines in the fight against crime. 
We need to be in the game. We need to participate.
  The COPS program was a success. Congressman Sensenbrenner said it. 
Attorney General Ashcroft said, and I quote, ``Let me say that I think 
the COPS program has been successful. The purpose of the COPS program 
was to demonstrate to local police departments if you put additional 
people, feet on the street, that crime would be affected and people 
would be safer.''
  He is right. I am sure if he were here today he would say support the 
Weiner amendment. I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WEINER. On that I request a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Stearns

  Mr. STEARNS. 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. 20 offered by Mr. Stearns:
       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 the design, renovation, construction, or rental 
     of any headquarters for the United Nations in any location in 
     the United States.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment would prohibit funds from the United States being used 
for the design, renovation, construction or rental of any headquarters 
for the United Nations in any location in the United States.
  I offered this type of amendment 1 year ago, and then I agreed to 
withdraw it. My honorable colleague, Chairman Wolf joined me in 
requesting a GAO investigation of the United Nations headquarters 
renovation. That ongoing investigation has done little to advance our 
understanding of what the U.N. is doing besides how good the U.N. is at 
spending our taxpayers' money.
  One of the lead experts in the GAO's ongoing investigation, Thomas 
Malito, testified in the Senate just last week. ``The U.N. is 
vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement due to a range of 
weaknesses in existing oversight practices.'' That is why I have 
returned to ask that we withhold funding until the United Nations makes 
public and transparent its contracting and disbursement information 
relative to the renovations.
  The United Nations estimates that the planned renovation of its 
headquarters building in New York City would cost $1.7 billion, 
billion, for a work site that is over 2\1/2\ million square feet.
  The most expensive building sold in Manhattan, the General Motors 
building, recently sold for $1.4 billion. The entire U.N. building 
could be built again for under $2 billion. Still, repair and 
refurbishing are activities that involve greater financial 
opportunities, one would suppose.
  Now, even if the U.N. cost estimates remain constant, a big if, the 
U.S. share of renovation would be about $480 million. That would be in 
addition to our regular annual dues of $423 million, plus all other 
contributions of nearly $2.4 billion.
  The General Assembly has yet to approve a plan amongst the four being 
considered, but the U.N. has already spent almost $40 million on 
preferred renovation plans, $20 million in the last month alone, 
according to the GAO.
  The GAO also found that the $1.7 billion cost estimate only scratches 
the surface of the expected costs. The estimate does not include any of 
the following: new furniture, at least $100 million per year for an 
unknown number of years; new security costs, as well as temporary 
security costs during construction; new phones and information 
technology systems; and new office equipment.
  Moreover, according to the GAO, ``While the U.N. has yet to finalize 
a specific procurement strategy for the renovation project, to the 
extent that it relies on current U.N. processes, implementation of the 
planned renovation is vulnerable to the procurement weaknesses we have 
identified previously.'' And the GAO continues: ``For example, it has 
not,'' the U.N. now, ``has not established an independent

[[Page 12982]]

process to consider vendor protests that could alert senior U.N. 
officials of failure by procurement staff.'' And the U.N. has yet to 
establish an independent bid process, something that the U.S. 
Government has in place and we all take for granted.
  In addition, although the U.N.'s Office of Internal Oversight 
Service, OIOS, has a mandate establishing it as an independent 
oversight entity and to conduct oversight of the renovation, it lacks 
the budgetary independence it requires to carry out its 
responsibilities. The OIOS is dependent on the whims of the very 
department and program heads it is auditing. The problems with this 
setup were made plain in the Oil-for-Food program when OIOS was 
prevented from examining high-risk areas where billions of dollars were 
subsequently found to have been misused.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the patience of my good friend from 
Virginia, Chairman Wolf, on this amendment, and his approach to the 
very difficult work of crafting and passing the appropriation bill for 
this subcommittee. In this case, dealing with the United Nations, we 
have 61 years of patience, and this patience has to be very frustrating 
for all of us. But, Mr. Chairman, do we simply continue to grant the 
United Nations the possibility of continued corruption and possibly 
graft with this project? I don't think so.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment; and I 
would first like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes of my time to the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the chairman for yielding; and I want to join 
him in opposing this amendment.
  Really, to support this amendment you have to oppose the U.N., 
because this goes to the very ability of the United Nations to perform 
its responsibilities. It has to have a home. It has to have a house. It 
has to have space to operate in.
  The U.N. is old. It is a fire hazard. There is a number of safety 
concerns associated with it. There is a request in this bill from the 
administration for $22 million to address these concerns, or our share 
of these concerns, and I think that a limitation amendment is exactly 
the wrong thing to do here.
  We have had a lot of cuts in this bill, and this kind of a limitation 
really is a statement that the United States of America does not want 
to participate in the U.N. into the future. It is just that serious. It 
has to have a home. It is, in my judgment, not only ill-advised but 
really silly if you believe we should have a United Nations to begin 
with.
  I oppose the amendment and encourage very strongly that everyone 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment, and let me read a letter from our Secretary of State, 
Secretary Rice.
  She says, ``I write in strong support of our contribution to the U.N. 
Capital Master Plan.'' That is what we are talking about, CMP.
  ``The U.N. facilities pose a number of serious safety and security 
concerns for the American and foreign staffs, diplomats, and 
visitors.'' Many of these are American citizens. ``In particular, the 
U.N. facilities do not,'' do not, ``meet fire and life-safety building 
codes or modern security requirements. We support the renovation of the 
facilities to address these deficiencies.
  ``The Department remains strongly committed to ensuring transparency 
and effective oversight of the project. We have worked closely with 
U.N. Under Secretary General Chris Burnham,'' who is an American, ``to 
take steps to strengthen internal controls of the CMP. In particular, 
Under Secretary General Burnham, with our support, has set up a U.N. 
CMP Project Office as an independent office reporting to him. The U.N. 
CMP Project Office has allowed access to project documents and review 
of ongoing work. And, the CMP Project Office has used a value 
engineering process and third-party contractor reviews of design 
documents to improve cost and quality control.
  ``We realize this will be an ongoing effort and are committed to 
close U.S. Government monitoring of the project's implementation 
throughout its life span. I urge full funding for this important 
renovation project.''
  What if there were a fire at the U.N.? What if something happened and 
we were to deny this money?
  I have been as critical of the U.N. as anybody for their failure to 
deal with the issue of Darfur and things like this. They stood by and 
allowed Srebeniza to take place. They stood by and allowed Rwanda. But 
I am not going to stand by and allow the building to crumble and not 
have safety conditions in the building.
  So I ask you, before you vote on this, take a minute to look at the 
letter of the Secretary of State. The administration is not for the 
Stearns amendment. It is a safety issue not only for American citizens 
but also the foreigners at work in the building. But also American 
visitors. If you go to the U.N., there are many tourists that go 
through the building.
  So I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment; and again I urge 
you, if you have any doubts, come over and read the letter from 
Secretary Rice. It is a safety issue.
  I urge defeat of the Stearns amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.

                              {time}  1915

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. 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 Florida will be 
postponed.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. ROTHMAN. I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding 
and would ask to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman 
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. Chairman, recent data released by the FBI shows violent crime on 
the rise for the first time in 15 years. The violent crime rate rose 
2.5 percent across the country. Areas of New Jersey, including the 
cities of New York and Jersey City have disproportionately high rates 
of crime, two to three times more than the average national rate.
  These cities, while only about 5 miles apart are the two largest 
cities in my State. Preliminary data for 2005 shows that the violent 
crime rate for Jersey City, New Jersey, is 1,302 crimes per 100,000 
people and the violent crime rate for Newark, New Jersey, is 1,008 
crimes per 100,000 people. The national average is significantly lower, 
478 violent crimes per 100,000 people, less than half of Newark's and 
Jersey City's.
  These high levels of violent crime, including murders, rapes and 
aggravated assaults, tear families and communities apart. Just this 
past Sunday evening, at least two people were killed and eight injured 
in four separate shootings in Newark.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding there is $16 million in the bill 
for 15 violent crime impact teams. These teams of ATF agents, U.S. 
Marshals, DEA agents and Federal prosecutors work together to reduce 
violent crime for an area. Will you, Mr. Chairman, work with me to 
direct one or more of the violent crime impact teams to these areas of 
New Jersey?
  I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman. I completely agree with what he 
said. I appreciate his efforts to combat violent crime, and I am happy 
to do everything I can to work with the gentleman and the ATF to 
address the crime in New Jersey. Quite frankly, there ought to be an 
office in New Jersey.
  I thank the gentleman, and will try to help.


                Amendment Offered by Mrs. Jones of Ohio

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. 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 Mrs. Jones of Ohio:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:

[[Page 12983]]



               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used for operation of the National Contact Center 
     (NCC) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit any 
funds under this act to be used for the operation of the National 
Contact Center of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 
something that was created and has already failed, and now they want to 
make it permanent.
  As a result of the support that I enjoy from my colleagues, I yield 
1\1/2\ minutes to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. Congresswoman 
Norton was the former member, actually Chair, of the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentlewoman for her initiative. As a former 
chair of the EEOC credited with bringing efficiencies that eliminated 
the backlog, I strongly support her amendment. The efficiencies that I 
brought to the commission included settling cases. At first, they were 
controversial, but the civil rights community focused in and around 
them. When the remedy rate increased, the businesses were very grateful 
for them because they got them out of the city.
  The call system is not such an efficiency. It makes work that has not 
saved either work or money. Callers instead want to get to somebody who 
really knows something, the way when you have a recording or a customer 
service person and you say, let me speak to a real person who can tell 
me some real information.
  Meanwhile the Nation's civil rights enforcement agency is being 
dismantled. What other agency has lost 20 percent of its staff since 
this administration took power? What kind of message is the 109th 
Congress sending to civil rights. Eliminate the call center. Let 
trained staff do their work.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to support this amendment 
because it properly refocuses the mission of the Equal Employment 
Opportunity Commission. The goal is to ensure that all Americans are 
protected against discrimination in the workplace, and to do this, we 
should make sure that EEOC offices are properly staffed with workers to 
handle complaints and assist employees in taking action.
  Instead, the current chair has pushed for the development of this 
National Contact Center. In effect, we are outsourcing the protection 
of civil rights on the job to entry level personnel who rely on scripts 
instead of expertise. The National Contact Center, which costs $2.5 
million annually, continues to have a backlog of cases. The caseloads 
grow. The staff has expressed great frustration in dealing with this 
new structure.
  In fact, 91 percent of the employees when surveyed reported that the 
process required through the call center is as long or even much longer 
than when calls come directly through the field offices. That doesn't 
sound like a streamlined process to me.
  Focusing resources into the contact center is directly inhibiting the 
EEOC's ability to perform its duty of protecting victims of 
discrimination. I urge passage of this amendment that we may end 
wasteful spending and refocus our energies in hiring more qualified 
staff on the ground where the workforce is.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. In 2003, the National Academy of Public Administration, 
NAPA, completed a study recommending the creation of the EEOC National 
Contact Center. So NAPA, a nonpartisan, bipartisan group, has 
recommended that the call centers, which the gentlewoman wants to shut 
down, be established.
  Following a 6-month startup period, the National Contact Center 
handled 402,383 inquiries in a 12-month period in addition to the 
118,322 hits on frequently asked questions. The National Contact Center 
staff handled 302,622 of these inquiries, resolving 70 percent without 
further involvement of EEOC field staff.
  Also, it has been said, if you shut these call centers down, the 
technology that EEOC would have to have would cost anywhere from $10 to 
$12 million. Currently, the volume of inquiries coming into the 
National Contact Center is increasing as field offices have begun to 
route their calls through the contact center.
  By handling these inquiries, the National Contact Center has not 
caused any further staff reductions but rather has freed up EEOC 
employees to devote more time to the critical functions of mediating, 
investigating and litigating charges.
  I do agree it has to be monitored, but to that, I believe the staff 
and Mr. Mollohan's staff have worked together to provide oversight in 
this regard. The report accompanying the bill includes language to 
require the commission to implement the recommendations of the 
Inspector General. We are working to ensure a better EEOC National 
Contact Center, but prohibiting the funds for the center would increase 
the workload on the EEOC front line, detract from the people that are 
helping. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, in all due respect, that is not 
what the IG report, in fact, stated. It stated that the EEOC backlog 
continued to accelerate with 39,061 unresolved cases in 2006. In fact, 
they are up from 33,562 in 2005. It only saves the agency six full-time 
positions. The contractors do not understand their role as an agency. 
That is the report of the IG.
  The importance that I need to bring to your attention, sir, is that a 
contract center for equal employment opportunity complaints is not like 
a contact center for your utility bill or your telephone bill or your 
gas bill. This is about employment discrimination in jobs across this 
country.
  Having worked as a trial lawyer for the EEOC, as a person who worked 
in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, I know that the contact 
center is not the place in which you want to resolve your claims. If 
you had an age discrimination claim, you wouldn't want to do it over 
the telephone.
  So what I am suggesting to you is, the reason I am opposing these 
contact centers is because it is not giving people the opportunity to 
do what they really do need to do, which is have the opportunity to 
talk with a person who is experienced. It is like all the centers now 
who are using India in order to take calls from people in America, and 
you have to explain four or five, six times. I don't have anything 
against Indians. But in order to make my complaint, I want to make sure 
that I have someone who is experienced and knowledgeable of the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission and the laws and what I need to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Do I get to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has the right to close.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I want you to note, recently the Washington Post 
published preliminary findings of a study commissioned by the EEOC 
which highlighted various concerns by job performance commissions, 
recommended significant changes, significant changes, or that the 
national call center be eliminated. I agreed with them that the center 
should be eliminated, that people across America who have claims with 
regard to employment ought to have the opportunity not to deal with the 
call center but to deal with an experienced employee who has worked 
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and has

[[Page 12984]]

the background and experience to take those claims.
  I want to thank my staffer, Terence Houston, for all the work he did 
in helping us put this amendment together. I thank you for the 
opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. But what I would 
like to do, this is a pilot program, and the pilot, if my memory serves 
me, ends in September of this year, September of 2006, so the pilot has 
not finished.
  So to destroy the pilot before the pilot is finished, what I would 
like to do is, when we finish the pilot in September or maybe even we 
could try to expedite it a little bit to see, is to invite the 
gentlewoman up and ask NAPA to come up with us and sit down and have 
NAPA take a look at that, maybe at an appropriate time.
  But I think the pilot has to go. NAPA is a very good organization. We 
have used the NAPA people with regard to the reorganization of the FBI 
and many other agencies.
  What I would ask is we have a ``no'' vote. At the end of the pilot, 
in September, I am going to remind the staff; we will call NAPA up, 
also call the EEOC. I would invite the gentlewoman to come to the 
meeting and kind of see where we are. Fortunately, we will still have 
time to kind of deal with the issue, because I don't believe that we 
will be in conference by then.
  But we are in the middle of the pilot; you don't kill it while the 
pilot is still operating. This is the National Academy of Public 
Administration, which so many individuals have used so many times.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, would you yield for just a moment?
  Mr. WOLF. Yes, I would yield.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. The reason I am making the amendment, I brought 
up the amendment, is the proposal is to make the NCC permanent before 
the pilot is over with. That is why I am screaming and hollering. If 
you are saying to me that it is not going to be made permanent by this 
bill and that we will have an opportunity after the pilot is completed 
to have a conversation about this and make sure things are taken care 
of, I am willing to work with you. I would love to be able to wait 
until the pilot ends before we make an amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. I can't answer that. The staff said they are going to vote. 
But what I would like to do tomorrow is write the commission or ask the 
commission that they not vote in July to make it permanent until the 
pilot is finished.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I would love to join you in a letter like that.
  Mr. WOLF. Does that mean you withdraw the amendment?
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Let me just say this, if I have the assurance of 
the chairman, and I have not worked with you before, but I know that 
you are a man of your word, you are willing to work with me to try to 
keep it from being permanent until we hear what is happening with the 
pilot, I will withdraw my amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Yes. I would do that. I would also ask if we can ask the 
National Academy of Public Administration also be part of that process.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. If you would allow me, I would love to have my 
colleague, Congresswoman Norton, join me. She was a former commissioner 
and worked with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
  Mr. WOLF. Sure.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
my amendment based on the comments of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Ohio?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gingrey

  Mr. GINGREY. 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. Gingrey:
       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 title IV of 
     this Act may be used for negotiating the participation of 
     additional countries under the visa waiver program described 
     in section 217 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1187).

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

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I believe our Nation needs to secure its 
points of entry and we need to do it now. Specifically, I believe we 
should prevent any additional countries from joining the United States 
Visa Waiver Program until we have the technical and human resources to 
secure our points of entry. And that is my amendment. I do not believe 
our Nation can afford the security risk of allowing more visitors to 
the United States without screening them prior to arrival. This 
amendment would prevent funds from being used to negotiate additional 
visa waiver countries.
  Mr. Chairman, the State Department would not be using funds to 
negotiate new visa waivers until the machine-readable and tamper-
resistant biometric identification standards on passports that were 
mandated by the PATRIOT Act and the 9/11 Act in 2004 as the cornerstone 
of this entry-exit system are fully operational. There are currently 27 
visa waiver countries, and I believe it is simply too risky to 
negotiate additional countries without first having our security 
screening system in place.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow additional visa waiver countries which 
could provide more opportunities for terrorists to breach a loophole in 
our security. How long will it be before Immigration Customs 
Enforcement, ICE, the Air Marshals, or TSA, Transportation Security 
Administration, misses the next Richard Reid?
  Mr. Chairman, I understand concerns about how spending or limiting 
the Visa Waiver Program may adversely affect cultural exchange or 
possibly hurt the airline and tourist industry. However, at what point 
are we willing to risk security for new pen pals and business as usual?
  Habib Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan descent and a 
name we all know very well, used his French passport without a U.S. 
visa on February 23, 2001, to fly from London to Chicago and on to 
Oklahoma City where he began flight training at an aviation school. On 
August 16, 2001, the INS arrested Moussaoui because he remained in the 
United States well beyond the 90 days allowed for the Visa Waiver 
Program entrants and was in violation of the requirement that Visa 
Waiver Program travelers enter for business or tourism.
  Had INS and law enforcement not been on top of their game, Moussaoui 
could have been a part of the 9/11 attacks, thanks to a visa waiver. In 
fact, we have referred to him as the twentieth hijacker.
  So, Mr. Chairman, the Visa Waiver Program was only designed to be a 
temporary program for a small and a select group of nations, starting 
with the UK, Japan and France in 1986. Today, 27 countries are eligible 
under visa waivers, opening the door widely for unscreened terrorists 
to attack the United States. Twenty-seven countries are enough to keep 
ICE and TSA exceedingly busy. Do we really need to fund efforts to add 
a 28th and 29th country to their list of responsibilities?
  I just don't want to see our Nation attacked because we couldn't 
carry through with our commitments to security first.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, please support this Gingrey 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for Dr. Gingrey. We 
have talked about this amendment prior to him bringing it up; and I 
know he is

[[Page 12985]]

very, very sincere. But there is more that has to be told about the 
visa waiver and the success of not the program itself but in the way in 
which it is moving to get to an arena where we all want it to be, where 
we want biometric passports, where we want identification.
  I chair the Baltic Caucus. The Baltic Caucus has about 45 Members of 
this body. The Baltic countries are Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Some 
of the newly emerging democracies have only been in existence after the 
fall of the Soviet Union, and yet they are some of our strongest allies 
in the war against terror. They have had successful integration into 
NATO, NATO membership. They are members of the European Union. They 
have soldiers that have not only fought and died in Afghanistan but 
also in Iraq. In fact, Lithuania is leading one of the provincial 
reconstruction teams. These countries are doing everything that we are 
asking them to do as a nation, as part of the coalition of the willing.
  How does this relate to visa waiver?
  Well, we have other allies who aren't part of the coalition of the 
willing, who already have this venue of visa waiver. So what kind of 
message are we telling these new emerging democracies, those that are, 
by percentage of soldiers, committed by far outstripping some of the 
larger countries that are part of our alliance? We say, these countries 
have this visa waiver process, but you can't have access to that; and I 
would say that that sends a terrible signal that we, in essence, now 
are asking some of our strongest allies, and we are discriminating 
against them.
  And the point that really, the point about the amendment is that 
Chairman Sensenbrenner, I think, is going to come down and speak on 
this amendment. We disagree on some of this visa waiver debate. I would 
like to see it happen now.
  He wants to proceed on the plan with the State Department which says 
there has got to be a road map. Let's bring in these new countries, but 
let them meet these requirements, requirements like recidivism. Get 
their numbers down. Process like biometric passports, things that 
countries that have visa waiver now aren't even required to do.
  So when you pull the money and freeze it from the developing of the 
road map, then what you are, in essence, doing is stopping the 
encouragement of people to do the very things we want to do to secure 
our borders.
  So, with that, I am going to strongly oppose this amendment.
  I would like to yield to my colleague from Chicago for as much time 
as he may consume, Mr. Lipinski.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I completely understand the concerns that 
the gentleman from Georgia has, talking about the potential that this 
could have if we would just open up the Visa Waiver Program to any 
country, to open it up wide.
  But there are specific countries, Poland, for example. Poland was 
included in the Senate Immigration Reform bill. Poland has been a great 
ally of the United States, has been a fantastic ally, has given troops 
to the war on terror; and, as Mr. Shimkus said, I believe that this 
would be a very bad signal to say, no, no more countries can be 
included here, even on a temporary basis, even if we put all these 
other restrictions on. So I think we need to continue to allow other 
countries to possibly be accepted into the Visa Waiver Program.
  So I understand the concerns with terrorism, concerns with protecting 
our country. Security needs to be up there foremost. But part of 
security is also bringing in more of our allies.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect for my colleague 
from Illinois; and I know his passion for the Baltic countries and 
particularly Lithuania. And this is not about them. This is not about 
any specific country, although there are two that are in line to expand 
this Visa Waiver Program from the current 27 to 29. It is not the 
Baltic countries. But we are in a situation where we have got to accept 
the reality of the risk that we are in.
  If I really had my way, I would like to see the Visa Waiver Program 
completely suspended, all 27 countries suspended. In fact, I have 
introduced a bill to that effect and brought that amendment to the 9/11 
bill. And I had a colloquy then, withdrew that amendment with the 
agreement that hearings would be held and this issue would be 
addressed.
  The 9/11 bill in 2004, the PATRIOT Act called for making sure this 
entry-exit system and the biometrics on the passports were secure by a 
date certain. We are beyond that date certain, Mr. Chairman. And now, 
from these countries, no, they weren't coalitions of the willing, but 
France certainly has been our friend and for the sake of tourism, but 
we can't afford to continue to do that in this time.
  I urge my colleagues, I beg my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I yield back.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I will just end in saying it is about 
these new emerging democracies. It is about our friends, the smallest 
countries and the new emerging democracies and the former captive 
nations. If anyone understands freedom and democracy, it is the 
governing officials of these Baltic countries who had fathers and 
grandparents enslaved in Siberia. They know what it is about to defend 
and fight for freedom. And you know what? They have chosen sides. And 
you know whose side they have chosen? They have chosen the United 
States.
  What this amendment does is just like capital formation. You show 
that there is no ability of return, you lose the investment. And this 
is a loss of investment for our friends.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia Mr. Gingrey. His 
amendment would deny any Federal funding to negotiate the addition of 
other countries to the U.S. Visa Waiver Program.
  This amendment would essentially kill the expansion of the U.S. Visa 
Waiver Program, something that I believe is a diplomatic mistake for 
our country to undertake.
  The Visa Waiver Program enables nationals of certain countries to 
travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 
days or less without obtaining a visa. The program was established in 
1986 with the objective of promoting better relations with U.S. allies, 
eliminating unnecessary barriers to travel, stimulating the tourism 
industry, and permitting the Department of State to focus consular 
resources in other areas.
  Currently there are 27 countries participating in the Visa Waiver 
Program, all strong allies of the United States. Currently South Korea 
is seeking to become part of the Visa Waiver Program. We have very 
strong economic, cultural, and diplomatic ties with South Korea and the 
time has come to expand that relationship further to include the 
citizens of South Korea under the Visa Waiver Program.
  While the sponsor of this amendment states the Visa Waiver Program 
makes the USA less safe, I argue the exact opposite. Not all countries 
participate in the Visa Waiver Program, and not all travelers from Visa 
Waiver Program countries are eligible to use the program. Visa Waiver 
Program travelers are screened prior to admission into the United 
States, and they are enrolled in the Department of Homeland Security's 
U.S.-VISIT program.
  The reason this program is needed is that processing visas in some 
countries can tie up about 80 percent of American Embassy and Consulate 
resources. If we extended the Visa Waiver Program to countries that 
have met the requirements and conditions set by our Department of 
State, we can free up much needed resources and devote them to other 
tasks such as: stopping terrorists, combating illegal immigration, drug 
trafficking, human trafficking, and weapons proliferations.
  To stop funding the Visa Waiver Program, is wrong and dangerous for 
Americans.
  As a Representative from one of the most diverse districts in the 
United States, I know first hand the contributions that our naturalized 
citizens can make to a community.
  I have constituents, that would like their families to legally come, 
visit and enjoy the United States, but are having a difficult time 
because the visa application process has become arduous and too time 
consuming. On the behalf of my constituents, I say that we must expand 
and continue the Visa Waiver Program.
  I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.

[[Page 12986]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  The amendment was rejected.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Lipinski

  Mr. LIPINSKI. 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. Lipinski:
       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--state and local 
     law enforcement assistance'' for the Law Enforcement Tribute 
     Act program, as authorized by section 11001 of the 21st 
     Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization 
     Act (Public Law 107-273), and the amount otherwise provided 
     by this Act for ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--General 
     Administration--salaries and expenses'' is hereby reduced by, 
     $500,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan 
amendment to provide $500,000 in funding for the Law Enforcement 
Tribute Act program. This program provides one-time grants to help 
State and local governments complete permanent tributes that honor the 
men and women of law enforcement and public safety who have been killed 
or disabled in the line of duty.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) for their cosponsorship of this 
amendment. This amendment would simply restore the funding for this 
program to the fiscal year 2003 level.
  There are currently 17,535 names engraved on the walls of the 
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, including 72 
who were killed on 9/11, so many heroes who have given their lives to 
protect our families.
  Many communities also want to honor their local law enforcement 
heroes with memorials or other permanent tributes. This program 
provides support to States and localities to help them do this. Without 
this support, many of them could not provide these worthy tributes.
  Mr. Chairman, law enforcement and public safety officers dedicate 
their careers and their lives to protecting us. Tributes provide us 
with a constant reminder of the sacrifices that they have made. The 
least we can do is help local communities honor these brave heroes.
  I urge my colleagues to join us with their support.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the committee has no objection to the 
amendment and is prepared to accept it
  Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Mollohan for 
their support on this amendment; and I thank them for accepting the 
amendment.
  Mr. CULBERSON. We commend the gentleman for his amendment and are 
willing to accept it.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
this amendment restoring funds for the Law Enforcement Tribute Act 
Program to its FY03 funding level of $500,000.
  Mr. Chairman, only seven weeks ago, the Fairfax County Police 
Department suffered the loss of two officers in the line of duty, the 
first fatal shooting in the department's long history.
  As I join the Fairfax County community in mourning the loss of Master 
Police Officer Michael Garbarino and Detective Vicky Armel, I also have 
in my thoughts the roughly 740,000 officers nationwide who put their 
lives on the line for the safety and protection of others on a regular 
basis.
  Mr. Chairman, every day, we are honored by the service these men and 
women give to our communities. This amendment will allow us to give 
those who sacrifice the most for our community and safety the 
recognition they deserve. I am pleased that the chairman has agreed to 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, hundreds of thousands of men and women each 
day put on a uniform and put their lives in danger to protect our 
neighborhoods. Just last year, 154 police officers were killed in the 
line of duty in the United States. There were 17 police officers who 
were killed in the line of duty in 2005 in my home State of California, 
alone. These are men and women who serve us bravely and with 
distinction, and they will not be returning home to their families.
  When I introduced the Law Enforcement Tribute Act in 2001, the city 
of Glendale had wanted to honor Officer Lazzaretto as well as three 
other police officers and one sheriff's deputy that had been killed in 
the line of duty. Chuck Lazaretto was tragically killed in a shooting 
in May 1997. Because of this House's support, we enabled Glendale to 
place a memorial honoring its fallen heroes outside its new police 
department headquarters.
  The parameters of LETA are very simple. Maximum grants are $150,000, 
and they must have at least a 50 percent local match. This amendment 
would appropriate $500,000 for fiscal year 2007.
  In addition to the memorial that was erected in my district, the Law 
Enforcement Tribute Act program provided funds in 2004 to 17 local law 
enforcement memorials all over this Nation, including memorials in 
Tacoma, Washington; Fairbanks, Alaska; Tucson, Arizona; and Memphis, 
Tennessee.
  It is a fitting tribute for the Federal Government to continue to 
provide a small amount of assistance to honor these fallen heroes.
  I ask for my colleague's support in honoring the fallen men and women 
of law enforcement, and restore funds for the Law Enforcement Tribute 
Act Program to its FY 03 funding level of $500,000.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas

  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. 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. McCaul of Texas:
       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 a United Nations peacekeeping mission if an 
     individual who is participating in that mission is under 
     investigation for alleged human rights abuses, including 
     sexual exploitation, and that individual has not been removed 
     from that mission for the duration of that investigation.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order on 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 2006, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise to offer this amendment, which will prevent individuals who 
are under investigation for human rights violations, including sexual 
abuse, from participating in current peacekeeping missions.
  The underlying bill includes good language that will prevent funds in 
the bill from being spent on new peacekeeping programs until the 
allegations of human rights violations have been investigated and the 
guilty have been purged. My amendment simply expands on this initiative 
and makes current U.N. peacekeeping missions accountable for human 
rights violations.
  Over the past year, several cases of human rights abuses, 
specifically sexual exploitation and abuse, by individuals involved in 
U.N. peacekeeping operations have raised the suspicions of many Members 
of Congress and members of the International Relations Committee. The 
U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services has opened an investigation 
into these allegations, and the evidence in several of these cases is 
compelling and very disturbing. Sadly,

[[Page 12987]]

in some cases, the U.N. has failed to remove the accused individuals 
from their posts, leaving them in a position to continue abusing 
innocent victims. Whatever the world gains by placing peacekeeping 
forces in an embattled country or region we lose tenfold by having 
deviant and abusive members of the peacekeeping force exploit the local 
populations.
  Peacekeeping funds are an important and necessary part of what 
America does for humanity and the rest of the world. It is a worthwhile 
cause and a very important resource in spreading American goodwill to 
other nations. However, I believe the U.N. peacekeeping program must be 
reformed and Americans should not be spending their valuable tax 
dollars on the program until this serious problem has been fixed.
  I thank the chairman for allowing me to discuss this issue. I 
understand it is subject to a point of order, and I will withdraw my 
amendment with the hope that the chairman and ranking member will 
address this issue in conference and in future appropriations bills.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  Ms. DeLAURO. 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. DeLauro:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by increasing the amount made available for 
     ``violence against women and prosecution programs'' 
     (consisting of an additional $2,000,000 for grants to assist 
     children and youth exposed to violence, $2,000,000 for 
     services to advocate for and respond to youth, and $1,000,000 
     for the national tribal sex offender registry, as authorized 
     by sections 41303, 41201, and 905(b), respectively, of the 
     Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005, and $5,000,000 for grants for 
     sexual assault services, as authorized by section 2014 of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as 
     amended by section 202 of the Violence Against Women and 
     Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005), and by 
     reducing the amount made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF 
     JUSTICE--General Administration--salaries and expenses'', by 
     $10,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment, which I offer with Mr. Inslee, would provide $10 
million for several newly authorized Violence Against Women Act 
programs, including $2 million for children exposed to violence, $2 
million for youth services and $1 million for the national tribal sex 
offender registry, as well as $5 million for the Sexual Assault 
Services Program.
  The House last year voted almost unanimously to reauthorize the 
Violence Against Women Act, which dedicated $50 million for the Sexual 
Assault Services Program, funding vitally needed. It was the first 
Federal program to provide direct funding for counseling, legal 
accompaniment, training for law enforcement, and the prevention and 
education services that rape victims rely on.
  Sexual violence remains a problem in this country. Rape remains the 
only violent crime to still be on the rise. One out of every six women 
are raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetimes, more than 200,000 
in 2004 alone. Worse, only 36 percent of victims say they reported the 
crime to the police.
  Those most likely to be raped or sexually assaulted are young women 
between the ages of 16 and 24, women with their whole lives ahead of 
them. This one act of violence will alter their lives forever. But 
absent proper treatment and timely counseling, it could destroy any 
possibility of a healthy life, resulting in depression, addiction, 
eating disorders and even suicide.
  The need to take action is now. When Congress recognized the need to 
authorize this program, it was one time when we spoke with one voice in 
this body. While the program was authorized at $50 million, the 
underlying appropriations bill includes no funding for it whatsoever.
  We can take a small step toward following through on a commitment for 
direct services with this amendment, to get funding where it is needed 
most, to rape crisis centers.
  Let us start to truly make go ahead on this commitment that we made. 
And by simply redirecting $5 million from the Department of Justice 
general administration account to this program, we can give these women 
hope that there are better days ahead.
  Let us pass the amendment and let us do it today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, we know two things about domestic violence 
and violence against women. Number one, it is still at epidemic levels 
across our Nation. And, number two, it is almost an inherited trait 
where children who are exposed to domestic violence themselves become 
perpetrators frequently. Ten million children a year are exposed to 
domestic violence in our country, and we know that men who have 
experienced it and viewed it as children are twice as likely to become 
perpetrators themselves.
  So one aspect of this bill is to fund a portion of the Violence 
Against Women Act to break that chain, nip this in the bud, stop that 
chain from continuing across multiple generations. The other part of 
our amendment will make sure that we treat children. Teenagers are a 
special group that are increasingly submitted to sexual harassment, 
sexual abuse and domestic violence themselves. These are bills that we 
need to get funded. Third, this will deal with the tribal problem. We 
need to have a tribal registry for sexual abuse.
  And just in conclusion, there will come a day, I hope, where we 
fathers are successful in teaching our sons that it is unmanly to abuse 
women. That is an obligation upon all of us as fathers. But as part of 
that, I am happy today and I hope this amendment will pass. It will 
fulfill our obligation in Congress to help break this chain of domestic 
violence.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, the committee has no objection to the 
amendment and applauds the authors for its intent and for bringing it 
to the House tonight and are prepared to accept it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, we thank the gentleman, and we appreciate 
the opportunity to move forward on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. McCaul of Texas

  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. 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. McCaul of Texas:
       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 administration and operation of the 
     United Nations Human Rights Council while countries 
     designated as state sponsors of terrorism by the Secretary of 
     State are members of the Council.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page 12988]]

  I rise today to offer this amendment, which simply seeks to prevent 
the funding of a Human Rights Council that represents state-sponsored 
terrorists.
  Currently, the United States provides 22 percent of the U.N. annual 
budgets, over $900 million in fiscal year 2007, and some of that 
funding goes to the Human Rights Council. My amendment states that no 
funds in this bill may be used to fund the administration or operation 
of the Human Rights Council while countries designated as state 
sponsors of terrorism remain as members of the council. The reforms to 
the Human Rights Council by the United Nations over the last year are 
purely cosmetic and without substantive change.
  Today, countries that sponsor terrorism and countries that have 
atrocious human rights records still remain on this council, and the 
American taxpayer funds them. And in my opinion, that is unacceptable. 
Any Human Rights Council reform that allows countries that sponsor 
terrorism to remain as members, such as Cuba, is not real reform. And 
in the past, countries such as Libya, Iran and Syria have participated 
on this council.
  Additionally, any Human Rights Council reform that allows countries 
with despicable human rights records to remain as members, such as 
China and Saudi Arabia, is not real reform. I believe that it would not 
only be a waste of America's valuable tax dollars, but it would be an 
insult to some of our taxpayers who are also soldiers who have fought 
so hard to defeat terrorism worldwide. It is an insult to elevate 
countries that sponsor terrorism to a position of authority over other 
countries for human rights abuses.
  Until the United Nations engages in true reform to defeat terrorism, 
we should send them a strong message through this amendment by cutting 
off U.S. funding to the Human Rights Council.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment which 
will work to prevent terrorism worldwide.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It is unfortunate that the United States did not participate in the 
establishment of the Human Rights Council. We were one of four nations 
out of over 170 that did support it who opposed it. But following the 
elections to the Human Rights Council, the Assistant Secretary of State 
for International Organizations, Kristen Silverburg, had this to say: 
On the whole, we think this demonstrates some progress. Those are her 
words.
  And the truth is that the Human Rights Council is an improvement over 
the discredited Human Rights Commission. Is it perfect? Of course not. 
But it does require candidates to be elected for the first time by an 
absolute majority of the General Assembly, not through selection. It 
also requires that those who serve on the council have their human 
rights records regularly reviewed and allows the human rights abusers 
to be suspended from the council. And the reality is that the only 
member of the council that is on the list of state sponsors of 
terrorism is Cuba. Sudan, Syria, Libya, Iran and North Korea were kept 
off. And the dominant majority of its members are democracies.
  I note that my friend and colleague from Texas, the proponent of the 
amendment, sent around a ``dear colleague'' about his amendment, and 
therein was a statement that a council that includes China does not 
signify reform. Well, I would submit that that puts him at odds with 
our ambassador to the United Nations and the Bush administration. 
Because Ambassador Bolton has initially suggested that the five 
permanent members of the Security Council, which clearly includes 
China, automatically be given membership on the Human Rights Council. 
And the administration subsequently, through Ambassador Bolton and 
Secretary Rice, have publicly committed to work with the council to 
make it effective.
  If the United States turns its back on the council, it will condemn 
the principal international human rights forum to failure and allow the 
handful of bad apples that remain in the body to dominate it.
  Instead, the United States should work with the 37 democracies 
elected to the 47-member council to strengthen and depoliticize it and 
ensure future elections to the council exclude members that commit 
human rights abuses.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It is amazing to me that anybody could agree that state sponsors of 
terrorism, that it is somehow acceptable that they serve on the Human 
Rights Council, and specifically countries like China, when we look at 
their human rights record in Tiananmen Square and the oppression that 
they have put on their people, countries like Iran, which is a state 
sponsor of terrorism, which has oppressed women in their society, 
oppressed their own people to a great extent.

                              {time}  2000

  Also Libya and Syria. I think this is a commonsense amendment, and I 
urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding the time; and I commend your efforts in this regard to limit 
the funding to this council and limit the funding, in essence, to the 
U.N. as well.
  This council and even the process by which members are selected to it 
are basically symptomatic of the problems that we see within the U.N. 
not just today but over its entire 60-year history.
  When we step back for a moment and say this is good and the next 
forward step because these members are selected to it by the entire 
body, we must remember what the entire body is made up of. This is the 
same body that is made up of the G-77 that is basically thwarting all 
efforts to reform the U.N., efforts that this House and this gentleman 
has also worked for to make sure we would have going forward in the 
U.N.
  But the G-77 and the other minority nations have worked to make sure 
that those reforms that this House has tried to envision and has 
envisioned and tried to get across in the U.N. have been thwarted.
  This same group of states, made up, as you indicate, of terrorist 
states as well, have seen to it that they have selected nations such as 
China, such as Pakistan and others, terrorist nation states, to be on 
this body.
  How can anyone sit back in good conscience and say that this council 
is going to be able, therefore, to judge any other nation in the world 
when their own nations have the problems within it?
  And, yes, it is true that these nations may have the opportunity or 
have the responsibility of having their human rights records reviewed 
more intensely, but I don't think that a more extensive review is 
necessary. The world has already seen these nations and how they 
conduct themselves on the international scene, and the world has 
already seen as well how they conduct themselves with regard to their 
own citizens.
  A nation that subjects their own people, a nation that puts their own 
people under the thumb of their leadership, a nation that subjects its 
own women to an inferior status within their country, is not a nation 
that I wish to be judging the quality of life in this country or any 
other country.
  So I commend the gentleman for his work in this regard. I think that 
this House should stand up behind him and make sure this legislation 
passes.

[[Page 12989]]


  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge that it is not a perfect mechanism. Would 
I have preferred to see a pure and pristine body created? Of course. 
But the truth is, and the gentleman has acknowledged it, we live in an 
imperfect world; and I would suggest the best example of that is the 
allies that this Nation has brought into the coalition of the willing. 
Let me just cite a few:
  Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan, headed by an individual by the name of Islam 
Karimov, who is responsible for the massacre of almost 1,000 innocent 
civilians in Andijan.
  Part of our coalition of the willing includes Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan, 
where the son of the president recently came and visited with President 
Bush in the White House. Read our Department of State's human rights 
reports on Azerbaijan.
  Another traditional ally of the United States, Egypt. Go read the 
Department of State's human rights reports on Egypt.
  And the gentleman is correct to talk about Saudi Arabia, where women 
don't have the right to drive.
  We are in a world that is imperfect, but there is no doubt that this 
particular council represents an improvement and has the support of the 
Bush administration.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).
  The amendment was agreed to.


        Amendment Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read 
the amendment so we can understand what amendment this is.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas:
       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--juvenile 
     justice programs'' for the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention 
     Block Grant program, as authorized by Part C of the Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, and the 
     amount otherwise provided by this Act for ``Broadcasting 
     Board of Governors--international broadcasting operations'' 
     is hereby reduced by, $5,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to not offer my amendment concerning the 
Juvenile Mentoring Program but will present this one concerning the 
Delinquency Prevention Block Grant program.
  Initially, the amount of money designated earlier for these programs 
was $33 million. That was the initial amendment. However, that has been 
reduced to $7 million, and I rise today to support the funding for 
Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Grants, because the funding is limited.
  Mr. Chairman, as violent crime continues to rise throughout this 
country, it is important that we give our young people the support they 
need to become productive adults. Delinquency Prevention Block Grants 
do just that.
  These grants provide assistance to at-risk youth through a number of 
programs, including family strengthening programs, drug and alcohol 
abuse treatment programs, gang prevention programs, job training and 
employment programs, and youth development programs. These activities 
are designed to prevent and reduce juvenile crime in communities that 
have a comprehensive youth crime prevention plan.
  Simply building more prisons is not an effective crime prevention 
strategy. Mr. Chairman, we must give our children a path to success, 
not a path to prison. Delinquency Prevention Block Grants give our 
young people a chance to excel and become productive adults. Through 
youth development, prevention and intervention efforts, we can keep our 
children safe and out of trouble. Research has shown that early 
investment in youth can dramatically reduce youth crime and violence.
  Additionally, delinquency prevention programs offer a considerable 
savings in the long term. For every dollar invested in prevention 
programs, we save about $4 to $7 in the long term.
  Providing all children and youth with constructive programs and 
alternatives is essential for our Nation's at-risk children. We must 
give our youth every opportunity to grow into responsible, productive, 
healthy and law-abiding adults. I ask my colleagues for their support 
for this important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not offer the amendment earlier we talked about. 
I ask for support for this one. I think this is the one that we had 
discussed. The one that I withdrew had to do with the mentoring program 
that I was told already had funding in under various organizations like 
Girls Clubs and Boy Scouts and organizations like that. So that is the 
one that I withdrew.
  This one was altered to show $7 million, which had been $33 million. 
That was an agreed amount. It is reduced to $7 million.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Wolf.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from California (Ms. Loretta 
Sanchez of California).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman 
Wolf for agreeing to enter into this colloquy with me on the subject of 
intellectual property rights.
  Discussions of international trade and intellectual property rights 
are often dominated by talk about China, but I would like to bring up 
that there is no country in the world who is doing a worse job at 
fighting piracy right now than the country of Vietnam. Ninety percent 
of all the software used in Vietnam in 2005 was pirated. That is more 
than the deplorable rate of 86 percent that China has. Piracy in 
Vietnam is costing our businesses $45 million a year.
  I know that the chairman shares my disappointment with the lack of 
action that we have seen from the administration on this issue so far, 
but despite Vietnam's complete failure to protect intellectual property 
rights, the administration and certain Members of this House want to 
grant Vietnam permanent trade relations and WTO membership. I think 
that it is a huge mistake.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady. I 
want to be on record I am absolutely, opposed to granting PNTR to 
Vietnam.
  If you read the Human Rights Report of the State Department of 
Vietnam, which probably not many people read, it is a disaster. It is a 
disaster. I cannot understand why a bill would even come to the floor.
  On the issue of intellectual property, if you look to see how they 
are treating the Catholic Church and the Buddhists, do you think they 
are going to be any better on intellectual property? No way.
  President Bush is going to visit this fall. We are hoping that the 
President will meet with dissidents here and also dissidents over there 
and speak out on human rights, religious freedom and on the 
intellectual property issue. So anything that we could do in this bill 
that

[[Page 12990]]

would be helpful with regard to beefing up intellectual property and 
doing as much is helpful.
  But, also, as I told another Member from your side earlier today, it 
isn't just putting a couple dollars in. I want somebody who really 
believes, and, as of now, I think this whole issue of trade trumps 
everything.
  I wish we could harken back to the days of Ronald Reagan, whereby 
Ronald Reagan just spoke out so boldly on the issue of human rights and 
religious freedom in Eastern Europe, called the Soviet Union the evil 
empire, was laughed at by the liberal media, and lived to see the fall 
of the Soviet Union.
  That type of approach that Ronald Reagan took would be the right 
approach to take with regard to Vietnam, whereby we could see 
additional trade and human rights and religious freedom and, lastly, 
the respect for intellectual property, so they are not just stealing 
everything that we have.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I 
represent the largest Vietnamese population outside of Vietnam in the 
world in Orange County, California; and certainly our number one issues 
with respect to how people are treated in Vietnam are the human rights 
issues, the issues of freedom of the press. There is no press that is 
not state-owned.
  I remember being with an archbishop, and he said that he couldn't 
even pass out information inside the church after the church service 
because that would be considered the printed word, and that would not 
be allowed because he was not a state agency, as well as confiscation 
of land rights, which I have got a bill in the House and we are working 
on to try to get that returned to religious institutions.
  But certainly there are moneys in this bill for intellectual property 
rights, and I would hope that this administration would concentrate 
some of that. Of course, we need to do it on China. It is a large 
economy that is growing there. But I think we really need to send a 
message.
  As I stated before, I have voted every single time against normal 
trade relations with Vietnam because I believe that their human rights 
record is so atrocious and they really haven't changed it.
  By the way, I have also been denied three times entry into Vietnam in 
the last few years, simply because I continue to bring up these issues.
  So I hope that the chairman will work with me, especially as we move 
forward as the President is deciding to go to Vietnam and as many in 
this House have decided to push for WTO entry and for normal trade 
relations with Vietnam. I would hope that people would begin to read 
some of these reports to understand just how terrible the human rights 
conditions are in Vietnam.

                              {time}  2015

  With that, I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman.


               Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

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

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to carry out section 924(p) of title 18, United 
     States Code.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment will prohibit any funds in this bill from 
being used to enforce the burdensome trigger lock law that was passed 
and that went into effect on April 24 of this year. I believe this law 
is needless and equivalent to a tax on citizens who purchase firearms.
  The law states that all licensed manufacturers, licensed importers 
and licensed dealers must provide a trigger lock with every handgun 
they sell. This is not a cost that will be absorbed by the gun 
industry; it is a cost that will be passed on to lawful gun owners.
  Trigger locks do not stop gun crimes or accidental shootings. 
Mandating gun buyers to pay for a gun lock is not making America safe; 
it just is making guns and self-defense and personal protection more 
costly.
  Mr. Chairman, should the government mandate safety devices for every 
possible household danger? Lawn mowers can be dangerous. According to 
the American Academy of Pediatrics, approximately 9,400 children 
younger than 18 years of age receive emergency care for lawn mower 
related injuries every year. Should we mandate that all lawn mowers be 
sold with a blade lock?
  Medicine cabinets contain dangerous substances. According to the 
Center for Disease Control, in 2000, over 1 million children younger 
than age 6 were exposed to poison, with some of the most common 
exposures being cosmetics and personal care products.
  Should we make medicine cabinet locks mandatory? Knives, electrical 
outlets, power tools. I could stand here and list hundreds of household 
mechanisms. Safety needs to be a priority in all households; we all 
know that. I believe that parents should be responsible and store and 
manage household products in a safe manner.
  But should lawn mower dealers be required to sell blade locks with 
every lawn mower sold or every cabinet maker sell a cabinet lock with 
every cabinet sold?
  Mr. Chairman, my point is that many things around the home are 
dangerous when used without proper instructions or supervision. But it 
is not the government's job or responsibility to mandate every 
conceivable protective mechanism imaginable.
  Responsible adults do not need the government to force them to 
purchase protective mechanisms for their homes or businesses. 
Responsible gun owners who need a trigger lock would have purchased one 
on their own without a government mandate. A government mandate is not 
the answer.
  Forcing gun buyers to purchase gun locks will not make guns more 
safe; it will only result in gun lock manufacturers making larger 
profits and increasing costs for all lawful gun owners.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my fellow Members to vote in favor of my 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, when the legislation was passed, it was 
passed with the help of 70 bipartisan Senators. With that, we had many 
strong certainly gun rights Senators voting for the amendment. We talk 
about gun safety. We talk about trying to certainly save and prevent as 
many injuries as possible. We talk about, you know, having it mandatory 
when you buy a gun. But we are not asking mandatory that the person use 
the gun lock.
  The whole idea was, hopefully, educational-wise, as we do with so 
many other products, we will have that gun owner use it. Many gun 
owners use storage locks. And that is great. We are trying to reach out 
to more.
  I have nurses around the country that actually go to gun stores and 
hand out gun locks like this. They are not expensive. They are $5 to 
$7. We have seen safety issues certainly at the forefront, helmets for 
kids when they ride their bicycles. That has saved a lot of head 
injuries.
  When we look at the health care issues on gun violence, 
unfortunately, especially to children, we see a lot of money in the 
health care system being used. It is just one other step to hopefully 
bring down certainly medical care costs in this country, but also more 
importantly than ever before, certainly work with children to save 
their lives.
  In this past week, we had an incident in New Jersey. A 12-year-old 
unfortunately got hold of a family gun. Playing with it with his 
friend, he shot and killed his friend. It was an accident. It

[[Page 12991]]

was an accident that certainly could have been prevented.
  I happen to think that when the Senators on the other side voted, and 
by the way, this House also voted for the bill, to pass it with the gun 
safety locks mandatory in that legislation, it is one more thing. Is it 
a perfect answer? No. We do not have perfect answers.
  Since I have been here, I have been trying to convince people that I 
am not out to take anybody's right to own a gun. But I also talk to an 
awful lot of gun owners. And they understand the responsibility that 
they have. Now, if someone buys a gun and it is mandatory to have a gun 
lock with that gun, they can choose to use it or not to use it. I hope 
that if they choose not to use it, they would at least give it to 
someone that would.
  As I said, my nurses, they do not have large budgets. But because 
they work in the emergency rooms and because they are the ones on the 
front line when these young kids come in, we have done, in my opinion, 
a very good job on bringing down the number of deaths with children, 
especially those under 18.
  To take away something that this Congress and certainly the other 
body felt was important enough to put into legislation is something 
that I think that we should be fighting for. I hope that my colleagues 
will oppose this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire how much time I have left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) and the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) have 2 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank 
Congresswoman Musgrave for her leadership on this amendment, which 
would prohibit any funds in the appropriations bill being used to 
enforce the mandatory trigger lock provisions, essentially a tax on 
citizens who purchase a handgun.
  It is my view that the new trigger lock bill is bad public policy. 
The new bill provides, or the law is a tax on citizens who purchase 
firearms. Responsible and law-abiding gun owners do not need the 
government to tell them to be safe. Responsible gun owners will take 
protective steps without the government mandating trigger locks.
  Responsible users who will use a provided lock would also be using 
safer and more secure methods, such as a lockbox, quick-action safes or 
full gun safes. I would like to thank Congresswoman Musgrave for her 
leadership in understanding there can be unintended consequences.
  It is my view that many people who in good faith are working for 
restrictions on the use of weapons are actually not achieving what they 
meant. My experience with this, I worked in the State of South Carolina 
in the State senate. To provide concealed weapons permits, we were 
warned that if persons who were law-abiding citizens could apply for a 
concealed weapons permit, it would lead to the shoot-out at OK Corral. 
The exact opposite has occurred. There has been a reduction in gun 
violence, a reduction in crime, almost 50,000 people in my home State 
now have a concealed weapons permit.
  And people who were opposing our bill now tell me that it works. And 
so I would like to commend Congresswoman Musgrave on her vision to 
protect the people of the United States.
  Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I think we are trying to change the 
debate again. Again, it is about gun safety. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 
minute to my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from New York for 
yielding me time.
  I rise to strongly oppose this amendment, which if enacted will lead 
to more accidental gun shootings in this country, including more deaths 
of children. Just last October, this Congress passed a piece of 
legislation that brought broad immunities to the gun industry. And we 
can have our differences on that issue.
  But as part of that legislation that was passed by this Congress and 
signed by the President back in October, there was a provision, Child 
Safety Lock Act of 2005. Let me just describe the purposes: To promote 
the safe storage and use of handguns by consumers; to prevent 
unauthorized persons from gaining access to or use of a handgun, 
including children who may not be in possession of a handgun.
  Who can argue against those purposes? That was the intent of the 
legislation. It said, if you are a gun dealer and you are selling a 
gun, let's at the very least ensure that you have to sell at the same 
time a gun safety lock to protect against accidental shootings. We know 
the terrible statistics of accidental shooting deaths of children in 
this country. Let's not change what this Congress did on a bipartisan 
basis.
  And when this came up in the Senate, there was a bipartisan vote in 
support of this.
  Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am here on the floor to present a 
different amendment. But I listened to the debate on this, and I am 
really amazed. This House voted overwhelming to require v-chips on 
television sets so parents can protect their children from improper 
programming.
  But it would be absurd to do that and then say we are not going to at 
least have a gun lock to protect children who may pick up a gun and use 
it inappropriately, use it out of ignorance.
  So I want to join you in opposing this amendment. I see nothing wrong 
with a gun lock. I do not think that means people want to take away the 
guns or anything else, just to make sure that it is locked so if it 
gets in the hands of a child, that the child will not use it, kill 
someone or do harm to other children and members of the family.
  We do have requirements of locks on all sorts of products in order to 
protect children. I think the rule that is in effect ought to be 
allowed to be continued without this amendment stopping it.
  Mrs. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, with that being said, you have to 
remember, we are not forcing anyone to use the lock. We are trying to 
educate them to save lives. It is a commonsense law. Hopefully, 
everybody will oppose this amendment.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the law is needless and 
equivalent to a tax on law-abiding citizens who buy guns. I urge 
Members to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado will be 
postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Waxman

  Mr. WAXMAN. 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. Waxman:
       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--
       (1) the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Chemicals, 
     Pharmaceuticals, Health/Science Products and Services (ITAC 
     3) unless the membership of the committee is ``fairly 
     balanced in terms of the points of view represented'' 
     pursuant to section 5(b)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
     Act (5. U.S. App.); or
       (2) the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual 
     Property Rights (ITAC 15) unless the membership of the 
     committee is ``fairly balanced in terms of the points of view 
     represented'' pursuant to section 5(b)(2) of the Federal 
     Advisory Committee Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27,

[[Page 12992]]

2006, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, the law for advisory 
committees requires that it be fairly balanced in terms of points of 
view represented, pursuant to section 5(b)(2) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee.
  Well, there are two trade advisory committees that influence a wide 
array of policy and negotiating decisions that impact access to 
medicine, both domestically and overseas. One is known as ITAC 3. It 
covers chemicals, pharmaceuticals, health products and services.
  The other, ITAC 15, advises the USTR on intellectual property rights. 
Pharmaceutical companies are represented already on these panels. But 
input from the public health community is nonexistent.
  To its credit, in December of 2005, the administration moved to 
rectify this imbalance by soliciting nominations for public health 
representatives to be added to the two committees.
  Yet more than 6 months later, despite numerous applications from the 
public health community and repeated inquires from Congress, no 
appointments have been made.

                              {time}  2030

  The longer the USTR delays, the more we need to be concerned about 
biased advice that is resulting in controversial trade policies on drug 
pricing, drug competition and reimportation and other sensitive issues.
  For example, recent free trade agreements extend patent terms, delay 
generic competition and make it more difficult for governments to 
respond in the case of a public health crisis.
  The USTR's 2006 Special 301 Report on intellectual property 
violations threatens sanctions against our ally Israel because the 
Israeli government declined to adopt drug regulations that go beyond 
the requirements of the WTO and even U.S. law.
  Our FTA with Australia interferes with the pricing system they use to 
keep down drug prices.
  Well, the consequences of not getting a balanced input from these 
advisory committees could lead to serious problems for people in these 
developing countries because, unless they have access to generic drugs, 
their people will not be able to afford the drugs that could be as 
successful in dealing with HIV/AIDS treatment programs, and it could 
even have an impact on the price of drugs in the United States.
  The status quo is unacceptable. USTR ought to live up to its 
commitment to add public health representatives and meet its obligation 
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and that is what the 
amendment seeks to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia rise?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I understand the Ways and Means Committee has 
concerns with this amendment. Although, looking around, I see no one 
from the Ways and Means Committee.
  We also are aware that the Office of the United States Trade 
Representative has committed to ensuring public health experts are 
included on this advisory committee. We have been led to believe this 
issue will be resolved in the near future, but with that understanding, 
I have no objection to the amendment personally. So I would accept the 
amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I hope this will be resolved very quickly. 
This is to give a push so it will be resolved.
  Mr. Chairman, I have time, and I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a cosponsor of this amendment, 
who wishes to speak on it.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I also want to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) and the work of his staff, Zahava Goldman, and 
Jamila Thompson on my staff for their tireless advocacy for access to 
affordable medicines for all people.
  I am delighted this amendment has been accepted tonight because it is 
a very important policy that we must have. It is not really an 
extraordinary request.
  Basically, we just are asking that what has been required in the 
past, public health officials, that they actually be appointed to these 
committees. Unfortunately, 7 months later, neither the USTR nor the 
Department of Commerce has provided a name or a plan or even a timeline 
to begin these appointments.
  Now, with these very aggressive bilateral and multilateral trade 
negotiations continuing, we cannot afford to wait.
  So this is a very important step in the right direction, and I thank 
both sides for accepting this amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
       Page 110, after line 8, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more 
     than 50 employees from a Federal department or agency at any 
     single conference occurring outside the United States.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I come to the floor this evening with an amendment that, quite 
frankly, I have offered and has been accepted on various other 
appropriation bills throughout this process, and I think it is time to, 
once again, thank the various chairmen of those respective committees 
for accepting some of those similar amendments.
  We may differ on each side of the aisle as to how we exactly got to 
the point that we are today, but one thing that we do agree on, as I 
have said on this floor in the past, one thing we do agree on is that 
we spend too much and our deficit is way too high.
  So my amendment that I come to the floor with tonight is basically a 
commonsense approach to see, how do we rein in that spending? How do we 
deal with the angst of our constituents at home that say we are 
spending too much of their hard earned dollars?
  What does that amendment do? It places a limit, a number, a ceiling, 
if you will, on the number of staffers that can travel on international 
conferences. The number that we place on here, the limit that we place, 
is 50 staff members. I am not saying that staff are not important. All 
we have to do is look around us and recognize the significance that 
staff plays in the role of the House of Representatives and right here 
on the floor as well, but we are just saying that, when it comes to 
going over to other international conferences, there should be some 
reasonable limit to numbers that go there.
  In the other House, the Senate has held hearings on this, and Senator 
Coburn from Oklahoma has actually pointed out egregious examples of 
over 100 or more staffers attending various conferences and literally 
close to millions of dollars for those respective conferences. If I 
wanted to take the time, I could go through a litany of such egregious 
examples.
  But I will be brief and just simply say that, to rein in the 
spending, to put some appropriate, reasonable standards on this, we are 
going to try to do the same on this legislation as we have in the past 
and say that all agencies of the Federal Government should be 
responsible in the number of staff they send.

[[Page 12993]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.
  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. Nadler:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. For ``Office on Violence Against Women--violence 
     against women prevention and prosecution programs'' for the 
     Jessica Gonzales Victims Assistants program, as authorized by 
     section 101(b)(3) 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 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--General Administration--salaries and 
     expenses'' is hereby reduced by, $5,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I want to make it clear, I am just reading this revised 
amendment. This should increase the Jessica Gonzales program. It should 
put money into that by $5 million and reduce by $5 million the general 
administration salaries and expenses. I want to make clear that that is 
the intent of the amendment.
  The Nadler-Capps amendment will increase the funding for the Jessica 
Gonzales Victim Assistance Program by $5 million. The offset is from 
the Department of Justice general administration account.
  The Jessica Gonzales program places special victim assistants to act 
as liaisons between local law enforcement and victims of domestic 
violence in order to improve the enforcement of protection orders.
  The current system has undermined the effectiveness of protective 
orders. Last year, the Supreme Court decided the case of Jessica 
Gonzales, who had obtained an order of protection against her violent 
husband. Despite Ms. Gonzales' numerous pleas to the police to arrest 
her husband for violating the order, even providing the police with 
information on his whereabouts, the police failed to do so. Mr. 
Gonzales then murdered their three children. When Ms. Gonzales sued the 
police for their failure to protect her and the children by enforcing 
the protective order, the Supreme Court ruled the police did not have 
the mandatory duty to enforce the order by making an arrest. The 
Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistance Program restores some of the 
effectiveness of restraining orders that the Supreme Court destroyed 
with this ruling.
  This is the first opportunity to fund this program which was 
authorized last year in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.
  The Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistance Program will help enforce 
restraining orders and protect women who are victims of domestic 
violence. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the Nadler-Capps 
amendment to provide it with more adequate funding.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), the cosponsor 
of the amendment.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, and I also thank the 
chairman very much for his acceptance of this amendment already.
  But I want our colleagues to know how much we all appreciate the fact 
that there was a tremendous bipartisan victory this past year with the 
reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. In VAWA 2005, we 
were able not only to keep in place the successful programs of the past 
11 years but also to initiate new programs to serve victims of domestic 
violence, sexual assault and stalking.
  One such program is the Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistance Program, 
which improves our local law enforcement agencies' effectiveness in 
complying with restraining orders.
  Now that we have taken the initiative and instituted this program, we 
must also now take that next step and properly fund this program. That 
is why I thank the chairman very much.
  Nearly one in three women experiences at least one physical assault 
during her adulthood, assaults by a partner, but far too many of these 
cases go unreported, often because victims are skeptical about 
receiving adequate protection against their attackers. Not 
surprisingly, nearly half of all victims who obtain restraining orders 
are abused again.
  What kind of message does that send about our Nation's ability to 
protect victims of domestic violence? This newly authorized program to 
address the shortfalls of restraining order enforcement is named after, 
as my colleague has said, Jessica Gonzales who, as many of you may 
remember, was ignored when she informed police that her estranged 
husband had violated his restraining order and kidnapped their three 
children. Ms. Gonzales' three children were murdered that night by her 
husband, even though the police had been informed about Mr. Gonzales' 
whereabouts with the children. We must vow not to let this happen 
again.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can 
properly fund the Jessica Gonzales Victim Assistance Program. We owe 
victims enforced protection against their attackers, and we must ensure 
that the next time a woman is attacked, she knows that reporting a 
crime and obtaining a restraining order are not fruitless gestures.
  I thank the chairman, and I thank my colleague.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. 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. Garrett of New Jersey:
       Page 110, after line 8, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. (a) Annual Report Required.--Not later than 90 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
     annually thereafter, the President shall submit to Congress a 
     report listing all assessed and voluntary contributions of 
     the United States Government for the preceding fiscal year to 
     the United Nations and United Nations affiliated agencies and 
     related bodies.
       (b) Elements.--Each report under subsection (a) shall set 
     forth, for the fiscal year covered by such report, the 
     following:
       (1) The total amount of all assessed and voluntary 
     contributions of the United States Government to the United 
     Nations and United Nations affiliated agencies and related 
     bodies.
       (2) The approximate percentage of United States Government 
     contributions to each United Nations affiliated agency or 
     body in such fiscal year when compared with all contributions 
     to such agency or body from any source in such fiscal year.
       (3) For each such contribution--
       (A) the amount of such contribution;
       (B) a description of such contribution (including whether 
     assessed or voluntary);
       (C) the department or agency of the United States 
     Government responsible for such contribution;

[[Page 12994]]

       (D) the purpose of such contribution; and
       (E) the United Nations or United Nations affiliated agency 
     or related body receiving such contribution.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 2006, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I come to the floor tonight to address the issue of funding for the 
U.N. We have heard some discussion about it already, whether we are 
spending too little, not enough; whether we should not be making 
cutbacks in the various funding for the U.N.
  The real question is, how can we make any of those decisions if we do 
not know the total amount of money that we are spending for the U.N. 
and its programs and its services?
  Each year, the United States spends literally billions of dollars to 
fund the United Nations and its work. We fund the U.N.'s work year 
after year, regardless of how it is used or misused, and certainly, 
with the countless instances of waste, fraud and abuse, scandals and 
corruption over the last several years that we have talked about on 
this floor in the past, we can at the very least question the body's 
ability to police itself, at the very most call for that money as being 
misused.
  At this time, the United States Government does not have a method for 
knowing the total amount of money we send to the U.N. While we can 
tally what is paid in dues, what we can contribute to various 
peacekeeping operations, additional funding is spent on voluntary 
programs and other support; there is no collective number for it. There 
is no comprehensive and public report of all the different ways that we 
fund U.N. operations with U.S. tax dollars.

                              {time}  2045

  So the amendment that I bring to the floor today calls for such a 
comprehensive accounting of all those dollars. Not for a cutting, not 
for increasing, just an accounting so we know what is being spent.
  A similar amendment was made on various legislation on the Senate 
side.
  Reform at the United Nations, that is that this Congress has 
encouraged in the past, has been complicated, as I have indicated 
earlier this evening, by the fact that the majority of the nations in 
the U.N. General Assembly oppose even the most modest forms of reform 
put forth by this House or even by the General Secretary. For instance, 
almost 5 years after the events of September 11, the U.N. has not yet 
even today agreed on a definition of terrorism. As I spoke earlier, 
they have also not agreed on a definition of genocide, even though that 
continues to go on to this day.
  How can the U.N. expect to contribute to the fight against genocide 
or continue to fight against terrorism, one of the greatest threats to 
peace in the world today, if it can't even decide how to define it? Yet 
while the majority of the nations at the U.N. stand in the way of 
progress, they only fund 10 percent of the U.N.'s budget.
  So it is up to the United States to lead for the U.N. That has worked 
in the past. In 1979, the Camp-Moynihan amendment successfully limited 
the U.N.'s support of terrorist organizations simply by the threat of 
withholding funds. And when the U.N. budget was ballooning in the 
1980s, our use of financial leverage helped to bring about a compromise 
in 1986. And in 1992, Congress again had to withhold funds in order to 
see that an inspector general would be appointed to expose and fix 
mismanagement.
  You see, Mr. Chairman, reform is possible at the U.N., but only if 
the United States is willing to lead. And for us to be able to lead, we 
must be fully aware of just how big a stick we carry; that is, how much 
we are funding. We must be fully aware of how much U.S. tax dollars 
goes from this House to the U.N.
  So on behalf of the citizens that we represent at home who demand 
that we call for accountability in the U.S. Government, we should be 
doing the same from the U.N. We must have an accounting for those 
dollars spent.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment 
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation 
in an appropriation bill and therefore 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 changing existing law. The 
amendment imposes additional duties.
  I ask for a ruling of the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's 
citing the point of order; and I am in agreement that the point of 
order appropriately falls within this amendment that I bring before the 
House tonight.
  It is, of course, a frustration for us when we are dealing with 
spending of dollars that we do not know exactly how much of the total 
dollars we are spending for a particular purpose, especially when that 
purpose is the U.N. and especially with their dismal record of the 
past.
  With that said, Mr. Chairman, at this point I seek unanimous consent 
to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. 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. Nadler:
       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 issue a national security letter to a health 
     insurance company under any of the provisions of law amended 
     by section 505 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by 
     Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and 
     Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits any funds from being used to 
issue National Security Letters to health insurance companies to obtain 
people's private and personal medical records.
  Currently, under section 505, any FBI field office director can 
demand your personal medical records without a warrant or any judicial 
approval and the insurance company is legally required to give it to 
them and is legally prohibited or gagged from telling you or anyone 
else about the order.
  Last year, almost 10,000 unreviewed National Security Letters were 
issued by the FBI without showing any connection between the records 
sought and any suspected foreign terrorist. Post PATRIOT Act 
reauthorization, I remain very concerned, because National Security 
Letters are still issued without court approval simply on the letter's 
assertion that the request is relevant to a national security 
investigation, without any showing of a connection to a suspected 
terrorist.
  The right to challenge the gag order is not real, since the 
government's mere assertion that lifting the gag order would pose a 
threat to national security must be treated by the court as conclusive, 
with no evidence necessary as to the truth of that assertion.
  Government officials already have access to so much of our personal 
information, such as credit reports, library

[[Page 12995]]

user, and telephone communications. Do we want the government to have 
such unchecked access to personal and private information as revealed 
by our medical history: psychiatric profiles, lab studies, and 
diagnostic tests like CAT scans and MRIs?
  If somehow your medical records are necessary in fact to a terrorist 
investigation, the government should be required to explain to a judge 
why they are needed, as is provided in section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, 
rather than simply allowing an FBI field agent to demand those records 
in secret.
  The FBI already has far-reaching compulsory powers to obtain 
documents when it is investigating terrorism under both its criminal 
and intelligence authority. The FBI can obtain a search warrant if 
there is judicial finding of probable cause that a crime has or will be 
committed. The FBI can use Grand Jury subpoenas; and, in terrorism 
cases, the FBI has sweeping authority to obtain all the records, 
including medical records, under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. But it 
has to go to a judge.
  Given these existing search powers, there is no reason to authorize 
the FBI to issue unchecked National Security Letters demanding medical 
records without any showing of anything to a judge.
  Mr. Chairman, if you have visited a doctor's office or a hospital in 
the last few months, you may have seen a notice telling you that your 
medical records may be turned over to the government for law 
enforcement or intelligence purposes. We can all agree that giving the 
FBI access to our most intimate private information is too great an 
intrusion on our privacy to leave unlimited and unsupervised.
  There may very well be reasonable legitimate reasons for the FBI to 
need this information in terrorist investigations. Section 215 of the 
PATRIOT Act provides for them to get that information if they simply go 
to a judge and tell them why they need it. The NSLs, which this 
amendment would stop, or would say you can't spend money on, skips the 
necessity of even going to a judge in private, in secret, and saying 
why they need that.
  Let them use section 215. We had almost a majority on this floor to 
eliminate section 215, but at least that requires a showing to a judge. 
The National Security Letters allows any FBI field office director to 
get these most private records without any showing to a judge. That is 
wrong, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  We are talking about terrorism. Every time the gentleman gets up, he 
paints something that really is inaccurate; and I think the gentleman 
from California will explain what you said. There have been changes in 
the PATRIOT Act.
  The threat of terrorism and espionage is real. Thirty people from my 
district died in the attack on the World Trade Center. Two of my 
children live up in your congressional district. And if you read the 
article the other day about gas in the subways, you sort of make these 
statements, and you act like the Justice Department and the FBI is 
going to go after somebody's medical records. They are trying to stop 
terrorism. They are trying to stop what took place on 9/11 from taking 
place again.
  We have a letter from the Justice Department. ``National Security 
Letters are extremely valuable to investigations of international 
terrorism.'' Not your MRIs, but international terrorism and espionage, 
al Qaeda.
  This Congress stood by and did nothing while Osama bin Laden lived in 
Sudan from 1991 to 1996. I was the author of the National Commission on 
Terrorism, which came out in the year 2000. In 2000, Nancy Pelosi 
supported me in the committee when we got the funding for it. On the 
cover of the Bremer Commission report that came out in the year 2000, 
there is a picture of the World Trade Center on fire, and this body did 
nothing. It stood by and it watched, and the previous administration 
did nothing. And now there are people that have died because they have 
done nothing.
  This is a bad amendment. The PATRIOT Act has been authorized by the 
Judiciary Committee. Mr. Lungren will tell you the changes that have 
been made. There have been protections put in it.
  My goodness, do we want to tie the FBI's hands when they are trying 
to catch bin Laden and people like that? This is a bad amendment. We 
went through it on the authorizing act.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear what Mr. Lungren has 
to say before I use the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York reserves his time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia has the right to close.
  Mr. WOLF. How much time do I have?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Let us be clear what this would do. The Nadler amendment would 
prohibit the FBI from using these NSLs to obtain any financial records 
or health records from health insurance companies even if those records 
are indisputably relevant to an international terrorism or espionage 
investigation.
  Indeed, the FBI would be prohibited from using the NSL to obtain 
financial records of a known terrorist from a health insurance company, 
no matter how much evidence the FBI possessed of the target's 
involvement with terrorism. It would not just prevent the FBI from 
obtaining medical records.
  Currently, the FBI can obtain health insurance records through the 
use of administrative subpoenas without the approval of a judge to 
investigate not terrorism but health care fraud offenses. So if the FBI 
is allowed to use administrative subpoenas to obtain these records to 
investigate health care fraud by dirty doctors, then it should be 
allowed to use these NSLs, which are similar to administrative 
subpoenas, to obtain these same records in international terrorism 
investigations which may involve dirty bombs.
  This is basically the same amendment Mr. Nadler offered to last 
year's appropriation bill that was defeated on this floor. The only 
thing that has changed since that time is not the language of his 
amendment but in fact the enactment of the reauthorization of the USA 
PATRIOT Act which contains several new protections to prevent abuse of 
this authority.
  However, even without the new protections, there is no evidence of 
the abuse of these letters. Nonetheless, in March of this year, the 
President signed the bill; and it adds these protections which were not 
present last year when we debated this same amendment:
  Clarification that recipients may disclose that they have received an 
NSL to an attorney or others necessary to comply with the NSL.
  Secondly, explicit language that a recipient may challenge an NSL in 
court.
  Third, explicit language that a recipient of an NSL may challenge the 
prohibition on publicly disclosing that he or she has received an NSL.
  Next, for the first time, language requiring public reporting on the 
use of NSL authorities.
  Next, requirement for additional classified reporting to Congress on 
the use of NSL authorities so we can exercise oversight in a more 
effective way.
  And, finally, requirement that the Inspector General conduct two 
audits of the Justice Department's use of NSLs.
  Last year, we debated this same amendment, same issue, similar 
appropriation bill. The only difference is we have added protections 
since that time by the reenactment of the PATRIOT Act and the signature 
of the President.

[[Page 12996]]

  So if you voted against it last year, if you thought we should defeat 
it last year, you have more than sufficient reason to defeat it this 
year.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. I thank the gentleman.
  Right now, everybody has access to your medical records. Obviously, I 
would like to support more privacy. But, frankly, your insurance 
company has a right to your medical records, all the data processing 
companies have a right to your medical records, and all the financial 
institutions that are collocated with the insurance companies have your 
financial records.
  The Health Care Information and Privacy Act in this country has no 
teeth. Some nurse or doctor can sell your medical records and not be 
liable civilly or criminally. Someone can sell your records to a 
tabloid, and you have no right to sue the tabloid. They can obtain it 
under illegal and false pretenses. No recourse whatsoever.
  This notion of privacy is really bunk. We have no privacy in terms of 
medical records. And I would ask the American people, please call your 
representative and demand medical privacy from our HIPAA laws.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members to address their remarks 
to the Chair and not to a viewing audience.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I respect everything that the gentleman from Virginia 
said. 9/11 happened in my district. Terrorism is terrible. We are 
waging a war against it, and we have to wage that war against it, and 
we have to protect ourselves. The question is intelligent protection.
  The FBI should not have the right to get our medical records without 
going to a court. That is what this question is about. Should they have 
the right to get these records simply on an assertion or a letter that 
nobody even has to look at, that it is simply relevant to an 
investigation, without going to court?
  Yes, certain protections were put into the bill. Those protections 
are insubstantial. For example, you can challenge the gag order. Yeah, 
but if the government says that lifting the gag order would harm 
national security, that assertion must be taken as dispositive. The 
court can't say, really? The court can't say, what evidence?

                              {time}  2100

  For all practical purposes, they have an absolute right to these 
records without showing them to a court. I am not saying they should 
not get the records. My amendment doesn't say they shouldn't get the 
records. What it says is a general principle, one that we should always 
adhere to, if they think they need the records for a terrorist 
investigation, go to a court, go to a FISA court, go to a secret court. 
Use section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
  But we shouldn't allow the FBI to have access to private records 
without some showing in court of necessity of probable cause or 
something. That is why this amendment should pass.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, just one last point. We 
have no medical privacy in this country now. The health care and 
privacy act is nonexistent. It has no teeth in it. Your medical records 
can be found out from anybody anywhere.
  They pass through a million different institutions as they get 
processed through transaction companies, insurance companies, financial 
companies. It is absolutely bogus.
  We haven't even passed the genetic nondiscrimination act here in this 
place, which means, if you have genetic disposition to a particular 
illness, you are not protected. There is no privacy in our medical 
records. Let us just understand that from the get-go.
  The American people are outraged by not having privacy, they have to 
get to their Members of Congress and request that we do more to 
strengthen the HIPAA law, the healthcare information and privacy act.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I agree with the gentleman from Rhode Island on the medical records' 
safety and privacy. I think the gentleman makes a valid point, but that 
is really not what we are talking about tonight. We are dealing with 
the FBI dealing with terrorism.
  As I mentioned, a newly released book by a Pulitzer Prize winning 
author states that al Qaeda came within 45 days of attacking the New 
York subway system with lethal gas. We never completely know why they 
didn't move ahead, but within 45 days. If a National Security Letter 
would stop something like this, and they are still out there. Al Qaeda 
is still out there. They are still committed.
  There is a book by Mary Habeck, Knowing the Enemy. They are still out 
there and committed to coming. So if a National Security Letter could 
stop what took place on 9/11 at the World Trade Center or at the 
Pentagon over in that area or in the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the 
USS Cole or the Marine barracks or places like that, we certainly would 
want to stop that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. Let us be clear what we are talking about here. We are not 
talking about, generally speaking, about the question of the privacy of 
medical records. We are asking whether NSLs are an appropriate means 
with which to obtain information from health insurance companies as 
they are utilized or a similar process, that is administrative 
subpoenas that are not obtained by a court, are utilized to look at 
health care fraud.
  One of the things that we got out of the 9/11 Commission was the fact 
that we had failed to not only connect dots but failed to adapt our 
criminal justice investigative procedures in the face of this new 
threat, which is terrorism. Some people would say, well, why would 
health records be relevant to such a case?
  Well, in the instance of anthrax, for instance, it would be relevant 
if someone had sought medical attention that would, in fact, basically 
inoculate them if they came into contact with anthrax. It would be of 
some assistance if a group of people involved, that we had suspicion 
were involved with a terrorist group, were inoculated for smallpox. I 
mean, these are those sorts of things that help us connect the dots.
  Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Yes.
  Mr. WOLF. I appreciate what the gentleman said. Members should know 
in our bill our committee established in the Justice Department an 
Office of Privacy and Civil Liberty for the very reason that Mr. 
Serrano used to raise, and rightly, to protect to make sure something 
did not happen.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentleman will recall, 
the Judiciary Committee has been very aggressive in oversight of 
Justice Department actions with respect to the PATRIOT Act. Several of 
the changes made in the law that I referred to before give us a greater 
handle on that because it requires more reporting to the Congress on 
what has been done with respect to NSLs in this regard.
  So as I said, the biggest difference between our consideration of the 
gentleman's amendment last year and this year is there are more 
protections built in to the use of NSLs by the Justice Department than 
there were before. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I submit the letter that I referenced 
earlier.

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                    Washington, DC, June 28, 2006.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, the Departments of State, 
         Justice, and Commerce and Related Agencies, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We have been advised that Congressman 
     Nadler may offer an

[[Page 12997]]

     amendment to the pending Justice Appropriations bill that 
     would restrict the use of National Security Letters 
     (``NSLs'') relating to medical records. Congressman Nadler 
     offered a very similar amendment last year. That amendment 
     was defeated. We remain opposed to any such amendment.
       NSLs are similar to subpoenas and may be used by the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to obtain from 
     specified companies information relevant to authorized 
     investigations of international terrorism and espionage. It 
     is unwise to create carveouts from the scope of these 
     important investigative tools, particularly since there has 
     been no allegation of abuse regarding medical information, 
     the subject of the proposed carveout. NSLs are generally used 
     to obtain: (1) billing and transactional records maintained 
     by telephone companies and Internet service providers; (2) 
     credit reports and other consumer information maintained by 
     consumer reporting agencies; and (3) financial information 
     maintained by financial institutions. It would be an 
     exceedingly rare circumstance in which an NSL issued to one 
     of these institutions would capture medical records.
       Moreover, the Congress addressed in a full and considered 
     manner the concerns of critics of the use of NSLs when it 
     passed the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act 
     earlier this year. That bill included numerous changes to all 
     the NSL statutes to clarify and improve the laws' privacy 
     protections. Congress also mandated a comprehensive audit by 
     the Department's Inspector General on the use and 
     effectiveness of NSLs. The findings of that review are 
     expected to be available early next year.
       It is also interesting to note that Congress has already 
     provided the FBI the authority to obtain health insurance 
     records through the use of administrative subpoenas (without 
     the approval of a judge) when investigating criminal health 
     care fraud. NSLs and administrative subpoenas are very 
     similar except for some of the additional civil liberty 
     protections added to the NSL statutes during the debate to 
     reauthorize the USA PATRIOT Act. It would be odd if the 
     Congress were to make a different policy determination when, 
     rather than a health care fraud matter, the investigation 
     involved international terrorism.
       NSLs are extremely valuable to investigations of 
     international terrorism and espionage. Information obtained 
     through NSLs has significantly advanced numerous sensitive 
     terrorism and espionage investigations and has assisted the 
     FBI in discovering links to previously unknown terrorist 
     operatives. We see no justification for artificially 
     restricting the reach of those investigative tools.
       Thank you for this opportunity to express our concerns. The 
     Office of Management and Budget has advised us that from the 
     perspective of the Administration's program, there is no 
     objection to this letter.
           Sincerely,
                                             William E. Moschella,
                                       Assistant Attorney General.

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. 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 New York will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Mica

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

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Mica:
       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 the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 
     10a et seq.).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a Buy America amendment. I usually don't offer these. I 
believe in free and open competition. But I am pleased that the 
committee is going to entertain this amendment. Just for the record, I 
want to enter into the record why I am here and why I think this is 
necessary.
  For the record, the Department of Commerce has awarded for nearly two 
decades a contract which promotes United States products and goods 
overseas in European trade fairs to a Dutch firm. Now, this has gone on 
for some two decades.
  Several years ago, I was contacted by a U.S. firm that was interested 
in competing back in 2004. They contacted me and said they wanted to 
compete, and there were problems in entering.
  NOAA handles the contracting and solicitation for, again, for this 
civilian business and awards the contract. They issued a solicitation.
  When I was contacted, this firm said, all we want to do is compete. 
This Dutch firm has had this for two decades. They made some moves 
toward considering others, but then they gave the contract to the 
European Dutch firm and excluded the U.S. They just continued the 
contract.
  I told the American firm, well, maybe next year, we will try it 
again, a little late, see if you can't get fair competition. Then they 
opened it again this past year, and in fact, they put out a request for 
proposal. The American firm was allowed to compete, and then once this 
process and submissions had started, they ended the competition; they 
changed the rules. They changed the rules to favor the European firm, 
the Dutch firm, which has had the contract for 20 years.
  Now, I think all that should be fair is that an American firm also 
gets the opportunity, and this is to put on an exposition of United 
States goods sponsored by the Department of Commerce and the U.S. 
taxpayers. All I want is a fair shot for Americans to compete in 
putting on exhibitions and compete in a fair and open manner. That is 
the purpose of this, and I want that as part of the record.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. We accept the amendment.
  Mr. MICA. Thank you. Again, I am pleased, I appreciate the 
cooperation and want to make certain that hopefully this amendment 
corrects an unfair situation, unfair competition.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  I yield to the gentleman from Ohio for a colloquy with the chairman.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman, Mr. Wolf, for his 
leadership in helping to keep our NASA centers healthy in the long 
term, a concern that I share and that requires extremely difficult 
decisions under tight funding caps.
  At the same time, I am concerned with the bedrock of NASA's success, 
its world class workforce. The 2005 NASA Authorization Bill enacted a 
moratorium on involuntary reductions in force until March of 2007.
  In addition, the act required 11.5 months between the submission of a 
complete workforce plan and the end of a ban on RIFs. However, NASA has 
thus far been unable to determine their existing skills mix and future 
skills mix demand. Any hasty action would cause NASA to lose 
irreplaceable intellectual capacity and institutional memory and would 
harm its recruiting capabilities.
  Any workforce reshaping should therefore only be implemented after 
clearly establishing the agency's current and future workforce needs 
and after exhausting all cost-effective voluntary means to maintain 
critical skills and to fill any gaps. This is especially true given 
that so much Constellation work on the horizon relies heavily on Apollo 
era and shuttle era design elements.
  Mr. WOLF. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. I share the gentleman's concerns about NASA's high quality 
workforce, and I expect NASA to develop and move forward with a long-
term strategy to replenish the skills of its aging workforce while also 
maintaining key institutional memory. I urge NASA to address and 
correct any

[[Page 12998]]

imbalances through an aggressive campaign of retraining, work transfer 
across centers, judicious buyouts and carefully managed recruitment, 
all with a minimum of disruption to the workforce. The people really 
have to be treated fairly, fair in the sense that everyone will say it 
is fair.
  I expect that NASA will respect the moratorium on reductions in force 
in the 2005 NASA Reauthorization Act and will not engage in any 
reduction in force until they have met the workforce planning 
requirements in that act and provide it sufficient time for 
congressional oversight. So I would be happy to continue to work with 
the gentlemen on these issues as the gentleman moves forward in 
conference.
  Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the gentleman for his commitment and 
thank him for the outstanding work that he has done in the past in 
helping us on these matters.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman and, thank you Mr. Mollohan.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. 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. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to support programs that target segments of the 
     Muslim and Arab communities for national security 
     investigations.

  Mr. WOLF. I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 2006, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I intend to ultimately 
withdraw this amendment, but I thank the chairman for allowing me to 
rise to discuss, I think, a very important element of our foreign 
policy.
  First of all, I will like to acknowledge the U.S. Global Leadership 
Campaign that brought to my attention, after meeting with former 
Secretary Powell and former Secretary Albright, the very poor state of 
foreign aid in terms of dollars. Previously, we had some $35.1 billion, 
and now $32.28 billion.
  Obviously, working under the constraints of the budget amendment 
passed by this administration and this Congress certainly misdirected 
or at least caused confusion among the population because they believe 
we spend too much on foreign aid; whereas it really shows it is only 
about 1.2 percent.
  I say that because my amendment specifically talks about eliminating 
funds for supporting programs that target segments of the Muslim and 
Arab American communities for national security investigations.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I 
am not standing here in complete ignorance of the war on terror and of 
the importance of securing the homeland and ensuring that all of our 
law enforcement agencies are able to conduct the investigations 
necessary to secure the homeland.

                              {time}  2115

  In fact, I am a strong proponent, as a member of the Subcommittee on 
Intelligence of that Homeland Security Committee, of increasing 
intelligence, if you will, backed up by civil liberties and other 
necessary protections.
  But it is well known that after 9/11 the Muslim community and the 
Arab community in America have been racially profiled. In fact, 
recently, at an Arab American Economic Summit just held in Houston this 
week, some of the diplomats, dignitaries, individuals with the 
appropriate paper, if you will, ambassadors that were traveling from 
the District of Columbia to Houston were, in fact, detained by our 
local airports and other authorities. And one would say that an ounce 
of prevention is worth a pound of cure, if you will, and I have 
probably made that particular phrase up, but I do understand the 
cautiousness.
  But what we are doing is we are discouraging the legitimate travel 
for business, cultural exchange, diplomacy and education. We are 
distracting focus and attention from the guilty to the innocent, and we 
are diverting scarce Federal law enforcement resources by utilizing 
them in a targeting fashion.
  I hope that we will have an opportunity in this Congress to focus on 
the issues of intelligence so that we can target individuals who are 
truly here to harm us.
  But I also hope that we can establish the fact that racial profiling 
for your last name, for your religious faith, is clearly un-American 
and that what we should be doing is encouraging travel from the Mideast 
of those who are here for cultural reasons, those who come for business 
and, yes, the many, many students who have been discouraged from coming 
to the United States because of the tough requirements on visas 
directing and their family sending them to European countries, as much 
for not being able to get visas as being fearful for their young people 
to be here, that they might be racially profiled.
  This is a concern that I believe is necessary to express to this 
body, and I hope as the various initiatives of this particular 
appropriations through Justice, through the State Department, really 
become concerned with the unfair targeting of the Muslim American and 
Arab American community.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. Wolf, I intend to withdraw this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. That is what I was led to believe. I still reserve the 
point of order.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I accept the unfortunate aspect of 
legislating on an appropriations bill. But I do believe it is an 
important enough issue that I hope, as it is placed in the Record, we 
will know that it is important as we proceed with the appropriation.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sodrel

  Mr. SODREL. 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. Sodrel:
         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 the purpose of enforcing the final judgement 
     of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of 
     Indiana issued in Hinrichs v. Bosma.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. SODREL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today as a means to protect the 
rights of State legislatures and the speech, conscience and 
independence of State legislators from unelected and unaccountable 
judges serving for life. While my amendment is only half the solution, 
it is a step in the right direction which I hope this body will adopt 
until a broader solution can be enacted.
  A Federal court in Indiana has imposed itself on the independence of 
State legislators. A Federal district court judge, David Hamilton, in 
the case of Hinrichs v. Bosma, has made a ruling to limit religious 
speech within the Indiana State Legislature and to impose this 
restriction on the legislators themselves. This decision threatens 
freedom of speech and imperils the separation of powers in the U.S. 
Constitution. If Federal courts can regulate any speech of the members 
of a legislative body, it follows that those courts can regulate all 
speech.
  Our neighboring State, Kentucky, adopted what is known as the 
Kentucky Resolutions on November 10,

[[Page 12999]]

1798, when our republic was in its infancy. These resolutions were 
adopted as a protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by 
Congress. This historic document protesting violations of the first 
amendment states in part, and I quote, ``Another and more special 
provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, 
which expressly declares that Congress shall make no law respecting the 
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 
abridging the freedom of speech or of the press: Thereby guarding in 
the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion or 
speech and of the press; insomuch, that whatever violated either, 
throws down the sanctuary which covers the others.'' End quote.
  These words are not my own. They come from the pen of Thomas 
Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and our third 
president, who wrote the Kentucky Resolution. They were adopted by the 
Kentucky Legislature and are a matter of historical record. Jefferson 
understood these rights were, and are, inseparable. A Federal judge is 
not above the law. A judge cannot amend the Constitution, nor should a 
judge be permitted to ignore the context of a constitutional right.
  Mr. Chairman, the Indiana Legislature did not make any law. They 
didn't enact any statute. They didn't even pass a resolution. The 
legislature was only carrying out a 188-year tradition by beginning 
each session with a prayer just like the U.S. House of Representatives. 
Many other legislative bodies throughout the Nation practice this same 
tradition. But Judge Hamilton ruled the Indiana Legislature must not 
make any reference to Jesus Christ or to the Christian religion. In 
addition, the judge specified he would review the speech of the 
legislators to ensure that they also did not make reference to 
Christianity or Jesus Christ as Lord. The judge did not make any 
reference to other religions for any similar restrictions.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit the use of funds in this 
bill from being used to enforce Judge Hamilton's erroneous decision and 
send a message that Congress is serious about judges legislating from 
the bench. The Indiana State Legislature is appealing the Judge's 
decision in this case, but I believe Congress must exercise its right 
to protect the independence of State legislatures from overzealous 
judges.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 4776 to limit the 
review of Federal courts over the content of speech in State 
legislatures. My amendment does not encompass all of H.R. 4776, but it 
does enough to send a signal to the judiciary that Congress will not 
tolerate legislating from the bench. Congress cannot permit the court 
system to rewrite our Constitution.
  I have heard the argument that some were offended at hearing a 
Christian prayer, and that was the reason for the lawsuit. Mr. 
Chairman, I have searched the U.S. Constitution, and I have found no 
mention of the right that protects any citizen from being offended. 
Members of this body, in this Chamber, say things that offend me. But 
as the patriot Patrick Henry once said, ``I do not agree with what you 
say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.''
  Mr. Chairman, some may question why this amendment is necessary. I 
would counter by saying what can be more necessary than upholding the 
U.S. Constitution? We all took an oath to do so. If Congress cannot 
correct the court when it has strayed from the letter and the intent of 
the U.S. Constitution, who can? If we don't, who will?
  Right now, Indiana legislators must huddle in the back of the 
chamber, hidden from public view, to pray.
  The courts are now going beyond interpreting laws and have begun 
inserting themselves in the legislative process. The U.S. Constitution 
prohibits the legislative branch from restricting the free exercise of 
religion. Why should the judicial branch be an exception?
  Judge Hamilton's court is presuming to dictate what State legislators 
may or may not say and decide how they should represent their 
constituents. It violates the principles of separation of legislative 
and judicial powers and separate sovereignty between State and Federal 
power.
  As Jefferson wrote 208 years ago, they are guarded in the same 
sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion or speech 
and of the press. To fail to uphold any of these puts them all at risk.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to stand up for freedom 
of speech and the autonomy of the State legislators.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment can be very simply summed up simply by 
reading the one sentence of it. None of the funds made available in 
this Act may be used for the purpose of enforcing the final judgment of 
the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Indiana issued 
in Hinrichs v. Bosma.
  I listened to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana as he told us 
why he disagrees with this, the judgment of the court, of the Federal 
court of Indiana and why he thinks the court is wrong. He is entitled 
to his opinion. But let the litigant appeal the decision. That is why 
we have courts.
  The Soviet Union under Stalin in 1936 adopted a constitution. That 
constitution had a bill of rights, freedom of speech, freedom of 
association, freedom of the press, freedom of religious and anti-
religious propaganda, as they quaintly put it. The problem, of course, 
was that if you tried to assert the rights they shot you instead of 
letting you go to court.
  No rights are worth anything. There is a maxim in the law, there is 
no right without a remedy. No right is worth anything if you can't 
enforce that right. The way we enforce rights in this country is in 
courts. We tried it a different way once. We had a civil war.
  Either Mao is right, that power comes out of the barrel of a gun, or 
we do it the way we do in this country. We obey court orders.
  When a court says something unpopular, you shall not have Jim Crow 
segregated schools in the South, we obey the law. The President sends 
in the National Guard in Little Rock in 1957 if he has to. No matter 
how unpopular the court's decision is.
  And here we have an amendment that says, because we disagree with a 
given decision of a local court, a Federal court in Indiana, no funds 
will be expended to enforce that decision. That way lies tyranny, Mr. 
Chairman.
  If the gentleman from Indiana doesn't like the opinion, it should be 
appealed. And if he still doesn't like it, if he doesn't like the final 
judgments, let him bring an amendment to the Federal Constitution to 
this body. We can amend the Constitution.
  But to say that when a court has decided on a matter of rights, the 
court has decided that something or other, I am not sure what this case 
was about, but something or other, some action that someone was taking 
violated some plaintiff's civil rights, that we should say that no 
funds will be expended to obey the court order to protect the civil 
rights of whoever the plaintiff was that the court found that somebody 
was violating; that some agency of government was violating someone's 
rights. The Court said that that is the case and, therefore, they 
should stop it; and we should say, no, no, no? No funds should be used 
to enforce the order of the court because the victim of the 
discrimination or the violation of civil rights is unpopular, unpopular 
with our constituents or unpopular on this floor?
  The whole point of religious liberty is that it is not subject to a 
popularity contest. Minority religions have the right to be protected. 
Your liberty is protected because you are an American, because we value 
liberty, not because you can win a vote on the floor of the House or 
the Virginia Legislature or the Indiana Legislature.

[[Page 13000]]

  It is absolutely destructive of the structure of our society, the 
structure of our government and of our guarantees of liberty to say, 
with regard to any court order, I am not going to defend this court 
order because I don't know much about it. But to say we will not allow 
the expenditure of the funds to enforce a court order, that is not our 
judgment.
  If you want to destroy the Constitution, destroy the Constitution, 
destroy the Bill of Rights, vote for this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana's time has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. I will take the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I will simply say again, it is extremely subversive of 
liberty, of civil rights, of civil liberties to vote for this bill. I 
cannot recall a worse bill. To say that we won't enforce a court order 
because we don't agree with the court, change the judges. You have got 
the President. Amend the Constitution if you think it is that bad. But 
don't say that we are going to usurp the function of the courts and let 
somebody who went to court, exercised his American right to go to 
court, won in court, and we are going to shaft him and say your rights 
are violated. The court found your rights are violated, but we, because 
you are unpopular, we won't let the court enforce your rights. We will 
take the money away. For shame.
  Vote against this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SODREL. 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 Indiana will be 
postponed.

                              {time}  2130


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Baird

  Mr. BAIRD. 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. Baird:
       Page 110, after line 8, insert the following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to file a motion under section 3730(b)(3) of title 
     31, United States Code, for an extension of time of more than 
     6 months, or to file more than one motion under such section 
     in any one case.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment is about something that we talk about a lot in this 
body, and that is reducing waste, fraud and abuse and the waste of U.S. 
taxpayer dollars. People are concerned about this in the Katrina area. 
They are concerned about it quite a bit in Iraq as well.
  What this amendment would do is ensure that contractors are held 
accountable for any fraudulent claims they may make against the U.S. 
Government and the American taxpayers. The most pressing need for the 
amendment is in Iraq, where the Department of Defense reports spending 
$6 billion a month, a substantial portion of which currently goes to 
contractors.
  Under present law, whistle blowers may sue contractors suspected of 
defrauding the government. The administration is then granted 60 days 
to decide if they will join the case or not. However, the 
administration can also continually request extensions and thereby 
delay making a decision, which keeps the cases sealed and unable to 
proceed through the courts, thereby effectively allowing any fraudulent 
practices to go uninterrupted and unpunished.
  Since the cases are sealed, we can only estimate how many are 
actually pending in the value of the contracts. But one estimate that 
is well informed suggests that at least 50 cases are currently awaiting 
action.
  The American taxpayers deserve their day in court. If contractors are 
being paid for services which they did not perform or when they did not 
fulfill contracted objectives, those dollars must be recovered on 
behalf of the American taxpayers.
  My amendment would limit the Justice Department to one extension of 6 
months. This mirrors a provision of the Stop Fraud in Iraq Act, H.R. 
5290, which I introduced along with my colleague, Congresswoman Lofgren 
of California. Once the 6-month period lapses, the administration would 
have to decide to either join the case or to let it proceed without 
administration participation. One way or another, the cases must be 
brought before a court and resolved.
  Again, this is about ensuring the taxpayer dollars are managed 
better, and for too long we have seen these cases delayed.
  I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the Baird-Lofgren amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I am inclined to accept the amendment, but before doing so, I yield 
to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to 
address this issue. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, we do have 
concerns about our jurisdiction over this particular subject matter. 
But it is certainly true that there are whistle blower cases where 
multiple requests for extensions by the Department of Justice 
unnecessarily delay a final resolution of the case in the courts. But 
this amendment in its rigidity is not an appropriate solution, and I am 
concerned about this.
  The courts currently make the decision as to whether an extension 
should be provided to the government in these cases. The government 
cannot singularly decide to stall the case, and the use of the False 
Claims Act has proven to be one of the most effective tools we have to 
go after fraud against the government, especially large-scale fraud.
  But in those cases where a whistle blower has brought large acts of 
fraud to the attention of the government, the fraud is spread 
throughout a large enterprise. And in those cases, there may be a very 
real need to request multiple extensions in order to establish a viable 
prosecution on behalf of the government and therefore maximize the 
chances of recovery. In those cases, multiple extensions are to the 
benefit of both the government and the whistle blower.
  I point out some issues that have to be dealt with by the Department 
of Justice in these cases, and that would be, first of all, that if the 
government has a tip, they will have a 5-year statute of limitations to 
bring a criminal charge, a 6-year statute of limitations to bring a 
civil charge. And when you look at all the things that a case has to 
do, first we should keep in mind, each case is different, and they 
cannot all fit in necessarily to a 6-month extension clause, but they 
might be stretched out across that. They might be less time than that. 
The whistle blower often agrees to those extensions, but it is the 
judge that has to decide.
  And then, think in terms of the work that must be done by the 
Department of Justice. First of all, they have got to interview the 
whistle blower and document evidence and establish an investigative 
team and then to consider whether to conduct a criminal investigation 
and coordinate that with the agency. They may need also to issue 
subpoenas for documents, interview relevant witnesses and even perhaps 
defer a decision in case to case and also perhaps also include a grand 
jury. All of these things are things that have to be considered into 
this amendment that is offered by Mr. Baird.
  So I would suggest also that, of these kinds of whistle blower cases, 
a list of some of the very high dollar cases that took extensions 
beyond what the limitation of this amendment would be, for example, 
these are the things that would not have happened if we had been 
limited to a 6-month extension:

[[Page 13001]]

HCA, $1.7 billion claim; Serono, $700 million claim; GlaxoSmithKline, 
$140 million claim; TAP Pharmaceuticals, $875 million; Astra Zeneca, 
$354 million; and I hesitate to say this, King Pharmaceuticals, $124 
million; Advanced PCS, $137 million; Schering-Plough, $345 million.
  You get the understanding. That is about half of my list that I 
present here. I know there is a lot more discussion to take up. But all 
extensions must be approved by the judge, and I think it is worthy of 
deliberation.
  I appreciate the gentleman for bringing the amendment, and I am 
hopeful that we can find a resolution that is constructive to the 
justice we all seek and the efficiency that we seek within the judicial 
branch of government and the Department of Justice.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Renzi

  Mr. RENZI. 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. Renzi:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by increasing the amount made available under title I 
     for ``community oriented policing services'' and reducing the 
     amount made available under title IV for ``International 
     organizations--contributions to international 
     organizations'', by $5,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the chairman for working with me on this amendment. My 
amendment increases the funding for tribal law enforcement through the 
COPS program by $5 million, while decreasing the funding for the United 
Nations.
  I appreciate your help on this.
  I represent the largest land mass of poverty in America. And many of 
my colleagues also represent areas in America as shown on the 2000 
census that are poverty ridden. Some of you represent areas that have 
more concentrations of poverty than I do, but I represent an area the 
size of West Virginia that is the largest land mass of poverty in 
America.
  You want to see children malnutritioned with extended bellies? You do 
not need to go to Africa. You can go to Kaibito in the Navajo Nation. 
You want to see children who have not seen a doctor in 30 days, whose 
jaws are so swollen shut, so infected with pus because they haven't 
seen an oral surgeon in 30 days, you can go to San Carlos Reservation. 
The map proves it and shows it.
  And you lay on top of this poverty the fact that there is a 
lawlessness that has come back. The days of the Wild West are back, and 
they exist on tribal lands. They have no police officers, no equipment. 
They do not have the tools to bring back the rule of law. On the Navajo 
Nation, the size of West Virginia, there is one police officer per 
4,000 residents. Do you know what the rest of us have in America? We 
get one police officer for every 800 residents in America.
  I am really sorry to interrupt your conversation and bother you all 
back there. Not real funny.
  The people of the San Carlos Reservation, 1.8 million acres, they 
have five police officers at any time patrolling the San Carlos, 13,000 
residents, 20,000 offenses reported last year. Do you know that 25 
percent of their babies are born testing positive to meth? Fifty 
percent of the babies born in the San Carlos test positive to drugs or 
alcohol. The gangs have taken over. It is a lawlessness.
  If you are a felon in Los Angeles, do you know where you run to hide? 
Do you know a safe haven in America? The Navajo Nation. Safe haven. Do 
not tell me about terrorist safe havens. I got you a safe haven in 
America right here in our backyard. All of us share this 
responsibility.
  Now, I realize this bill and the parameters of the bill and the fact 
that we needed to cut and eliminate pork and earmarks and Members' 
spending, and this bill is reduced $3 million from last year for tribal 
law enforcement. My amendment simply says, give back a little bit, one 
first step towards helping tribal law enforcement, those police agents 
out there in tough areas in the Wild West trying to pull back a whole 
generation of Native American youth who are losing their heritage, who 
are losing their culture, who have become so addicted that no one can 
even help pull them back. This is a first step.
  I ask my colleagues, please, to help me and join with me. I beg on 
behalf of the Native Americans for $5 million from the U.N. Before you 
spend it overseas, let us spend it at home. I urge my colleagues to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  I will certainly accept it, and I think the gentleman makes a very 
powerful case. I had an amendment several years ago which was defeated 
on this floor which would have set up a national commission to really 
go in and look at the conditions on the reservations. I used to work 
for former Congressman Jon Kyl, the father of now Senator Jon Kyl, who 
had really a great burden for many of the Indians, particularly in that 
area in Arizona. And it is a disgrace. And I really believe, not to 
make this too controversial, but I think this whole issue of gambling 
on reservations has almost made people say, well, now, they can have a 
gambling casino, so we are not going to put any money in.
  Many of these reservations are in areas that are very difficult to 
access, very difficult to get there. Some are in very barren areas, and 
others are in very cold areas, so people aren't going to go there. So 
listening to the gentleman, at an appropriate time, I think maybe next 
year, I am going to offer this thing again. I think it got tied up in 
the whole gambling issue, which I think is corrupting this Nation, and 
unfortunately, this Congress and this administration have been too 
silent on the issue.
  But the gentleman makes a very powerful case. So what I think I may 
do when we come up next year at the appropriate time is offer an 
amendment to set up a commission that doesn't get involved with the 
gambling issues but looks at crime. I read the New York Times series 
about 2 or 3 months ago, back in February, about some of the 
reservations where organized crime was coming in and the meth problem. 
And I want to see if we can put together some bold new way to really 
help the first Americans, the Native Americans.
  So I accept the amendment. We will work hard to keep it in 
conference, too, not just to kind of get out of your hair, to accept 
it, but to really kind of keep it. And I think listening to you 
sensitizes me to next year offer this amendment to create this Blue 
Ribbon Panel of people who really care about the conditions on 
reservations and see what we can do to really make it concrete.
  But I do accept the amendment.
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Just to compliment the gentleman on his argument, I am very 
supportive of his amendment. I support the chairman's comments. And I 
invite the gentleman to testify before our subcommittee next year. He 
is obviously well versed on the issue, and the committee and the 
Congress need to be more sensitive to the concerns that the gentleman 
raises.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the

[[Page 13002]]

gentleman for his passion in advocating on behalf of Native Americans. 
I salute him entirely in his efforts to represent his district but also 
all of Native American country.
  Growing up, I had a picture in my house of my Uncle Robert Kennedy 
out in Pine Ridge Reservation, and the pictures were of like a 
developing country that we would never think was here in our own 
country. And your description today of the conditions are no different 
than the descriptions that occurred 40 years ago when people were 
thinking what a tragedy it is, the way we are treating our Native 
Americans. And what is even more of a tragedy is that, over all of 
these years, we have done nothing to improve the conditions of Native 
Americans in this country who have absolutely been decimated in so many 
ways because the United States has failed to fulfill its very basic 
trust responsibility to our first Americans.
  I cannot thank the gentleman enough for his passion and his advocacy, 
and I think he has done an admirable job laying out the statistics for 
the American people. I think if the American people only knew how bad 
these situations were, their conscience would be raised and we would be 
about trying to solve the problems that the gentleman talked about in 
his speech.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all of you for helping me on 
this. It is something that is so big, it is something that is so 
severe, it is going to need all of our help.
  Patrick, you have come out and you have seen San Carlos. Your family 
has visited there. There is a school named after your uncle there, and 
that schoolyard is filled with gang leaders right now. So I need your 
help, and I need the ranking member's help and all of those who weighed 
in on this issue, and I am grateful for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you also for your understanding on 
this. This money doesn't go to Arizona or for me. It is for all of us. 
It is for the gentlelady from South Dakota. It is for the gentlemen 
from New Mexico and Arizona, everyone who represents our first 
Americans, who are watching them become addicted. They are watching the 
gangs take over. They are watching their whole culture be destroyed, be 
wiped out. Much like in the 1800s when they were wiped out by alcohol 
and smallpox, the same thing is occurring with methamphetamines. They 
are more susceptible to it.
  I also want to want to say I also appreciate the view on the gaming 
issue. The Hopis and the Navajo don't engage in gaming. It is against 
their spiritual foundations. So there are no extra revenues to pull in, 
and I recognize the social ills tied to that.
  But these are safe havens for drug dealers and for felons. When you 
have five police officers on the San Carlos Reservation, 13,000 people, 
there is lawlessness, there is no rule of law, and the gangs are 
running the show and the rats have taken over the ship. And I need help 
on this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.
  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. 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 may 
     be used in contravention of section 3109 of title 18, United 
     States Code.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed 
will each 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, I am introducing this amendment today with my good 
friend and colleague, Ron Paul. It is a bipartisan amendment.
  This amendment simply states that none of the funds in this Act can 
be used to obtain evidence in contravention of the United States Code 
pertaining to the knock and announce policy.
  The history of the knock and announce requirement can be traced back 
to common law. The rule requires officers with a warrant to knock and 
announce their presence before entering a private residence.
  Earlier this month the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in 
Hudson v. Michigan that evidence can still be obtained even if the 
officer or officers violated the knock and announce policy.
  In that case, Justice Breyer gave a passionate dissent. Among his 
dissenting objections were these. He said, ``As a result of this 
decision, the Court destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply 
with the Constitution's knock and announce requirement, and the Court 
does so without significant support in precedent. At least I can find 
no such support in the many fourth amendment cases the Court has 
decided in the near century since it first set forth the exclusionary 
principle in Weeks v. The United States back in 1914.''
  This ruling goes against the precedents set by the Supreme Court most 
recently in Wilson v. Arkansas, 1995. The court held that the fourth 
amendment's reasonable search and seizure clause requires police 
officers to knock and announce their presence before entering a private 
residence.
  Just a couple of years ago, in United States v. Banks, 2003, the 
court held that officers must wait at least 15 to 20 seconds before 
breaking a door down, again reaffirming the knock and announce rule. 
This ruling by this activist Supreme Court will create a slippery slope 
unless we stop it.
  Justice Breyer also mentioned in his dissenting opinion the slippery 
slope and in mentioning it stated that if a warrant specifies that you 
can search the home on Monday, can police officers arrive on Tuesday?
  We have a very serious issue before us, and that is a Supreme Court 
which has taken it upon itself to enact new law, in contrary not just 
to existing law, but in contrary to the Constitution of the United 
States, and this particular decision against the knock and announce 
policy goes markedly against the fourth amendment to the Constitution.
  It is something against which this Congress must stand up. We cannot 
have a Supreme Court which continues to infringe upon the rights and 
privileges of American citizens, a Supreme Court which continues to 
insist on violating the privacy rights of American citizens which are 
protected in the fourth amendment to the Constitution. That is why I am 
offering this amendment this evening.
  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 yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, you are hearing history tonight. A member of the House 
Appropriations Committee is offering an amendment to repeal, overturn, 
a Supreme Court decision. I think that is unbelievable. At first, when 
I asked what the Hinchey amendment was, then I said, the Hudson case, 
was that the case 2 weeks ago on June 15? And they said it is.
  The gentleman's amendment would overrule a Supreme Court decision 
through a funding limitation on an appropriations bill. If this ever 
passed, I think it would be just horrible.

[[Page 13003]]

  This is not an appropriate way. There is much more I can say. I will 
just end, the Justice Department sent a letter up here, and we will 
submit it for the record, that says, ``The department also believes 
that it is inappropriate to hamstring law enforcement efforts that are 
permissible under the Constitution. If the Constitution does not 
require the application of the exclusionary rule to knock and announce 
searches that are subsequently deemed by a judge to have been conducted 
in an unreasonable manner, then Congress ought not force Federal law 
enforcement agents to play by rules not constitutionally required, 
especially when there is no way procedurally to comply with the 
amendment.''
  We ought not on the floor of the House at 10 minutes before 10 
overrule Supreme Court decisions, no matter what you think of the 
decision. I don't think this is the way to go.
  If the gentleman wants to offer a constitutional amendment, go 
through the Judiciary Committee. But with 5 minutes on this side, 5 
minutes on that side, 10 minutes, to overrule the Supreme Court of the 
United States I think would be a mistake.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to debate the Hinchey amendment, but I 
do want to make one observation: We have just been told by my good 
friend from Virginia that we should not overturn a Supreme Court 
decision. I don't disagree with that. But just a few minutes ago this 
House considered an amendment overturning another court decision or 
insisting that no money be allowed to enforce that decision, and a few 
weeks ago you had this House vote to deny funds to enforce another 
court decision on eminent domain.
  Now, I happen to disagree with that court decision on eminent domain. 
Demagogues, when they attack me on that, will forget that fact. But I 
would just say it is interesting to me to see the selectivity with 
which we produce sudden concern about vacating court decisions.
  I don't think this institution has any business trying to, by law, 
deny funds for the enforcement of any court decision, even if I 
disagree with those court decisions, because I respect the processes of 
law defined by the Constitution.
  But if we are going to attack this amendment, then I would suggest we 
go back and take a look at the other amendments that this House has 
whooped through without a modicum of thought about what it means if 
politicians start arbitrarily refusing to support funding for any court 
decision. That crosses the line.
  I attended a meeting at the Supreme Court, a luncheon called by the 
Supreme Court, where the previous majority leader, Mr. DeLay, informed 
Justice Scalia and Justice O'Connor, roughly this: You need to 
understand we are coming after you, and we are going, we are coming 
after you with your jurisdiction, and you need to listen to us because 
we are the only ones connected with public opinion. That is what Mr. 
DeLay said to Justice Scalia and Justice O'Connor.
  So although I greatly respect the gentleman from Virginia, I don't 
think we need to hear any lectures suddenly expressing concern for this 
Congress trying to withhold support for court decisions. It is a little 
late, given the track record of the majority on that score.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I would simply like to point out that this amendment differs 
fundamentally from the Sodrel amendment that we heard a few minutes 
ago. The Sodrel amendment is subject to the disparaging comments that 
the gentleman from Virginia just made, because the Sodrel amendment 
does say no funds herein appropriated shall be used to enforce the 
court decision in a certain case and says we are not going to enforce a 
court decision.
  The Hinchey amendment doesn't do that. Nor does the Hinchey 
amendment, contrary to what we heard from the distinguished chairman, 
overturn a Supreme Court decision. The Supreme Court decision in this 
case said you may do something. You may execute a search warrant 
without knocking. What this amendment says is, because we may doesn't 
mean we should.
  So what the gentleman's amendment is saying is, despite the fact that 
the Supreme Court gave us permission to do this, we will deny funding 
to do this because we don't think it is right. So the gentleman's 
amendment is not overturning an Supreme Court decision. It is saying, 
thank you for the permission; we choose not to exercise the permission 
you gave us.
  It is very different from the Sodrel amendment, which says do not 
enforce the court order. Do not spend any money enforcing the court 
order. That is subversive of the Constitution. That is subversive of a 
liberty.
  Mr. Hinchey's amendment, whether you agree with it or not, does not 
subvert the court order, does not subvert what the court said, and 
simply says, what you gave us permission to do, we choose not to do.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would point out that 
the Supreme Court said that the actions that were taken were wrong. 
That is what the Court said. They just suggested there were other 
remedies.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, let's be clear about what we are 
talking about here. This is a case where the police officers had a 
warrant, and it was a legitimate warrant, and that is not in question. 
And then, when they approached the location to serve the warrant, they 
knocked, and within about 3 seconds, and they admit this, then they 
entered to conduct the search, there was the subject of the warrant.
  And the question is, did the police officers then wait a reasonable 
time? Did they meet that reasonableness standard? And they agreed that 
they did not. But the issue really is, the warrant was there. It was a 
legitimate warrant. It was a warrant that, had it been served exactly 
according to the letter of the intent of previous case law and the 
Constitution, then that evidence would have been admissible in court, 
not excluded.
  So the court ruled that simply because the officers were abrupt in 
their entry was not a reason to exclude the evidence from the court. 
That is the case here with Hudson v. Michigan. That is the kind of 
thing that the Hinchey amendment would seek to preclude.
  Now, I do not know what the motivation is for that. I do not know why 
one would want to, because we had some maybe abrupt or rude police 
officers exclude evidence from a court, especially criminal court. I 
would think we would want to have that evidence available to the court, 
and then we would want to take a look at the kind of activities on the 
part of those officers, because there are other remedies that can be 
found.
  Those other remedies are in the civil courts, the remedies are in 
police officer enforcement, and there is also a particular Federal 
statute that allows for that relief. So I would submit then, Mr. 
Chairman, that there is plenty of relief here to resolve this, and the 
Hinchey amendment goes the wrong way.
  Furthermore, by the time, it would be impossible for Justice to 
comply with this amendment, because by the time the court ruled that 
they had not complied with the Hinchey language, they would have 
already served the warrant, already taken action on this, and already 
the funds would have been expended. So it would be impossible to comply 
with this particular amendment.
  The effect of it would be to tie the hands. If they did, they would 
have to

[[Page 13004]]

be very, very cautious about how they take care of these activities, 
and that would mean that there will be times when these criminal cases 
that would not be investigated, warrants that would not be 
appropriately served for fear that they would be in violation of this 
amendment, even though there is a not a way to avoid it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman.
  Let me simply say, without getting into the merits of the Hinchey 
amendment, I would simply suggest that if arguments are going to be 
made on that side of the aisle, that they not be based on the question 
of whether we should be vacating court decisions, and the majority has 
already tried to do that on two separate occasions
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not believe 
that was my argument, was the practicality of how we comply with the 
Hinchey amendment, and the fact that it is impossible to comply with 
the Hinchey amendment, however impractical it is.
  So I would submit that this does tend to circumvent Hudson v. 
Michigan, and I would ask for opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it clear what we are 
doing here. The knock and announce policy is enshrined in the 
Constitution, in the context of the fourth amendment. It goes back at 
least to the 13th century. It is enshrined in common law. It is held up 
by numerous Supreme Court decisions over the last 100 years, going back 
at least to 1914, and several of them in recent years, late 1990s, one 
again in 2003.
  Now, all of a sudden, we have this more activist Supreme Court coming 
to the fore and intruding itself on the law, a Supreme Court which 
believes it can make the law, not just interpret it. One of the most 
brilliant aspects of our Constitution is the separation of powers 
provision. Every law in this country can be made only by this Congress.
  Now I know some of my friends on the other side want the President to 
make the law. But if they do so, they are violating the Constitution 
again. Every law in this country, according to the Constitution, can 
only be made by this Congress. Not by the President, not by the Supreme 
Court. The Courts can only interpret the law.
  What this court has done is attempt to make the law and to intrude 
itself upon previous Supreme Court decisions and, by doing so, violate 
the fourth amendment to the Constitution and the knock and announce 
provision which has been in effect for many centuries.
  It is up to this Congress to stop that. That is why this amendment is 
being offered.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not appropriate, no matter what the gentleman 
from New York thinks, for a House Appropriations Committee to take this 
action tonight. I think it is wrong and therefore urge a defeat of the 
Hinchey amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HINCHEY. 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 New York will be 
postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Wolf

  Mr. WOLF. 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. Wolf:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

               TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 801. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by increasing the amount made available for the item 
     ``community oriented policing services'', and by reducing the 
     aggregate amount made available for ``Department of Justice, 
     General Administration, Salaries and Expenses'', by 
     $2,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, June 27, 
2006, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
  I am offering this amendment to add $2 million for prisoner reentry 
programs. I think that reentry programs help offenders to move back 
into their communities and be productive citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for 
bringing this to my attention. I think the more we can help people, and 
there is a record number of people that are being released from prisons 
at this time, the more that we can do and help them as they reenter and 
become good citizens is good.
  Mr. Chairman, so I offer that amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf.)
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 21 by Mr. Stearns of Florida.
  Amendment by Mr. Weiner of New York.
  Amendment No. 20 by Mr. Stearns of Florida.
  Amendment No. 16 by Mrs. Musgrave of Colorado.
  Amendment by Mr. Nadler of New York.
  Amendment by Mr. Sodrel of Indiana.
  Amendment by Mr. Hinchey of New York.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


           Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Stearns of Florida

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 254, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 340]

                               AYES--167

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chocola
     Coble
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Foley
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry

[[Page 13005]]


     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Otter
     Paul
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--254

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

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


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in the vote.

                              {time}  2232

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. SWEENEY, and Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CONAWAY, WELDON of Florida, TERRY, HUNTER, BACHUS, PORTER, 
SCHWARZ of Michigan, Ms. HARRIS, Messrs. ISSA, GILLMOR, and FOSSELLA 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) 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 185, 
noes 236, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 341]

                               AYES--185

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boswell
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Butterfield
     Camp (MI)
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Case
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCollum (MN)
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walden (OR)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--236

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Castle
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Keller
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern

[[Page 13006]]


     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

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


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  2236

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


                Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Stearns

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The 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 131, 
noes 288, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 342]

                               AYES--131

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--288

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     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
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Ford
     Gerlach
     Holden
     Holt
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Reynolds
     Sanders
     Sherwood


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  2242

  Mr. POMBO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 342, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


               Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

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


                             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 230, 
noes 191, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 343]

                               AYES--230

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez

[[Page 13007]]


     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Ford
     Gerlach
     Holden
     Holt
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Sherwood
  Mr. CONYERS and Mr. TOWNS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. STRICKLAND, BACA, KUHL of New York, BILBRAY, GREEN of 
Wisconsin and Mrs. KELLY changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  2249

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 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 189, 
noes 230, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 344]

                               AYES--189

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Chandler
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--230

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.

[[Page 13008]]


     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bishop (UT)
     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Ford
     Gerlach
     Holden
     Holt
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Marchant
     Sherwood


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  2253

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sodrel

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel) 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 246, 
noes 174, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 345]

                               AYES--246

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--174

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Watt
       

                             NOT VOTING--11

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


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  2258

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

[[Page 13009]]

  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 109, 
noes 310, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 346]

                               AYES--109

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Clay
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Filner
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Thompson (CA)
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--310

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Cannon
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Ford
     Gerlach
     Holden
     Holt
     Hyde
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Obey
     Sherwood
     Sullivan


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  2304

  Mr. MARKEY and Mr. BLUMENAUER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the fiscal 
year 2007 Science, State, Justice Commerce Appropriations bill. I am 
particularly pleased that Chairman. Wolf included language that directs 
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to renew agreements with local governments 
housing federal criminal aliens, as long as the facilities meet Bureau 
of Prisons' standards and a fair and reasonable price is offered.
  This provision of the bill is notably important to Big Spring, Texas 
and Garza County, Texas, both of which are located in my district, 
because these communities currently house federal criminal aliens and 
operate under an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with the BOP. 
Renewing IGA's in west Texas will ensure that the federal government 
can meet the increasing demand for the incarceration of criminal aliens 
and continue to build upon already strong relationships for the long 
term.
  This language also proves that Congress is committed to fiscal 
discipline. Big Spring and Garza County offer secure facilities to 
house dangerous individuals, while providing the American taxpayers 
some of the lowest per diem rates in the Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing I urge my colleagues to support this 
important piece of legislation.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support 
for the fiscal year 2007 Science-State-Justice Commerce appropriations 
bill. The subcommittee has taken a difficult allocation and done an 
admirable job of funding important federal programs within these 
agencies. I am particularly grateful to the subcommittee for dedicating 
funding for Houston Community College's Public Safety Institute within 
the Department of Justice's accounts.
  The Houston Community College has taken the steps to build a much-
needed Public Safety Institute in Houston, Texas. PSI will be a state-
of-the-art facility that will offer specialized training for area fire 
fighters, law enforcement, medical technicians and other first 
responders. While Houston-area first responders will be the first to 
benefit from PSI's training programs in bio-hazards, command and 
control, shipboard spills and swift water rescue, I have no doubt that 
first responders from across the state--if not the Nation--will soon be 
traveling to PSI for this high-tech training.
  Houston is home to the country's fourth largest metropolitan area and 
the Nation's second largest port in terms of foreign tonnage. We are 
also home to the world's second largest petrochemical complex and the 
world's single largest petrochemical refinery. Given the critical 
nature of these assets, the PSI's training programs will help further 
not only our local law enforcement but also our homeland security.
  Mr. Chairman, with great pride that we are working to secure federal 
funding for PSI, which will be located in our district. While no 
training scenario can fully simulate a true emergency, the offerings at 
PSI will be as close as technology will allow. First responders will 
benefit from PSI's ``skills village,'' which will house a number of 
structures that simulate a real-world training environment for 
participants. PSI will also house a 10,000 square foot burn building to 
create fire-fighting scenarios and a 10,000 square foot tower for fire 
and rescue training.
  I appreciate the subcommittee's recognition that PSI is an important 
project worthy of federal investment. The Congress can be as proud as I 
am that this funding will further

[[Page 13010]]

PSI's mission to provide comprehensive training to the firefighters and 
local law enforcement who serve as first responders to any threat the 
City of Houston, and the national security assets in our area.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the report 
accompanying H.R. 5672, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act of FY 2007, has directed funding 
under the COPS Methamphetamine Enforcement and Clean-up account for the 
Tennessee Meth Educational Program.
  Tennessee Tech University will use this funding to design and 
implement the meth educational program in keeping with President Bush's 
National Drug Control Strategy, which aims to reduce all drugs in the 
United States by 25 percent within 5 years.
  Some schools in Tennessee have begun implementing educational 
programs in public schools designed to stop meth abuse. However, in 
many cases, there have not been effective follow-up programs for 
classroom teachers, school counselors, school nurses, school 
psychologists, and administrators. And, school counselors report that 
methamphetamine abuse is an inhibiting factor in the personal and 
educational development of their students--whether or not their school 
has had a methamphetamine program. To address these issues, Tennessee 
Tech University will develop an in-service program for public middle 
and high school personnel in 15 counties (17 school districts) to: 
review the symptoms and identification of meth use; explain the hazards 
of meth abuse for children; and examine how to utilize reporting 
procedures (such as those involving the school field officers) and 
legal consultation.
  Since 1999, the number of meth labs in Tennessee has increased by 
more than 500 percent. Last year, Tennessee accounted for 75 percent of 
all meth lab seizures in the Southeast. Only three states nationwide 
had more meth lab seizures in 2005. Many of the worst effects of meth 
are felt by the children involved. Children taken from active meth labs 
are separated from adult family members and sometimes from siblings, 
and cannot even keep their toys or clothing for comfort. In addition, 
children often must be taken to the hospital to test for exposure to a 
variety of toxic substances. In 2004, Tennessee was forced to place 
more than 700 children of meth users in state custody.
  I am pleased that Tennessee Tech University will be collaborating 
with schools in Tennessee to address this critical problem, and I am 
very grateful to the Appropriations Committee for directing this 
important funding to Tennessee Tech University.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
McCaul of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, 
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 5672) making appropriations for Science, the Departments of 
State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________