[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20611-20642]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2008

  The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 562 and rule XVIII, the 
Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the 
state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 
3093.

                              {time}  1837


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3093) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for

[[Page 20612]]

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. Hastings of Florida (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier 
today, the amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe 
Lofgren) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 
48, line 3.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
this is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 19, 
noes 389, answered ``present'' 16, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 726]

                                AYES--19

     Bishop (UT)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gohmert
     King (IA)
     Lamborn
     McHenry
     Pearce
     Pitts
     Rogers (AL)
     Sali
     Sessions
     Tancredo
     Westmoreland

                               NOES--389

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--16

     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Delahunt
     Doyle
     Green, Gene
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kline (MN)
     Latham
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     Roybal-Allard
     Sensenbrenner

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Broun (GA)
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     Hill
     Hunter
     LaHood
     Marshall
     Rangel
     Royce
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1844

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida changed his vote from ``no'' to ``present.''
  Mr. GINGREY changed his vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       juvenile justice programs

       For grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and other 
     assistance authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
     Prevention Act of 1974 (``the 1974 Act''), the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (``the 1968 Act''), the 
     Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162), and other 
     juvenile justice programs, including salaries and expenses in 
     connection therewith to be transferred to and merged with the 
     appropriations for Justice Assistance, $399,900,000, to 
     remain available until expended as follows:
       (1) $725,000 for concentration of Federal efforts, as 
     authorized by section 204 of the 1974 Act;
       (2) $81,175,000 for State and local programs authorized by 
     section 221 of the 1974 Act, including training and technical 
     assistance to assist small, non-profit organizations with the 
     Federal grants process;
       (3) $53,000,000 for demonstration projects, as authorized 
     by sections 261 and 262 of the 1974 Act;
       (4) $100,000,000 for youth mentoring grants;
       (5) $70,000,000 for delinquency prevention, as authorized 
     by section 505 of the 1974 Act, of which--
       (A) $17,500,000 shall be for the Tribal Youth Program;
       (B) $25,000,000 shall be for a gang resistance education 
     and training program; and
       (C) $25,000,000 shall be for grants of $360,000 to each 
     State and $6,640,000 shall be available for discretionary 
     grants to States, for programs and activities to enforce 
     State laws prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to 
     minors or the purchase or consumption of alcoholic beverages 
     by minors, prevention and reduction of consumption of 
     alcoholic beverages by minors, and for technical assistance 
     and training;
       (6) $20,000,000 for the Secure Our Schools Act, as 
     authorized by part AA of the 1968 Act, as amended by section 
     1169 of Public Law 109-162;
       (7) $15,000,000 for programs authorized by the Victims of 
     Child Abuse Act of 1990; and
       (8) $60,000,000 for the Juvenile Accountability Block 
     Grants program as authorized by part R of the 1968 Act, as 
     amended by section 1166 of Public Law 109-162 and Guam shall 
     be considered a State:

     Provided, That not more than ten percent of each amount may 
     be used for research, evaluation, and statistics activities 
     designed to benefit the programs or activities authorized: 
     Provided further, That not more than

[[Page 20613]]

     two percent of each amount may be used for training and 
     technical assistance: Provided further, That the previous two 
     provisos shall not apply to demonstration projects, as 
     authorized by sections 261 and 262 of the 1974 Act.


                    public safety officers benefits

       For payments and expenses authorized by part L of title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796), such sums as are necessary, as authorized by 
     section 6093 of Public Law 100-690 (102 Stat. 4339-4340) 
     (including amounts for administrative costs, which amounts 
     shall be paid to the ``Justice Assistance'' account), to 
     remain available until expended; and $5,000,000 for payments 
     authorized by section 1201(b) of such Act; and $4,100,000 for 
     educational assistance, as authorized by section 1212 of such 
     Act.

               General Provisions--Department of Justice

       Sec. 201. In addition to amounts otherwise made available 
     in this title for official reception and representation 
     expenses, a total of not to exceed $60,000 from funds 
     appropriated to the Department of Justice in this title shall 
     be available to the Attorney General for official reception 
     and representation expenses.
       Sec. 202. None of the funds appropriated by this title 
     shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the 
     life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were 
     carried to term, or in the case of rape: Provided, That 
     should this prohibition be declared unconstitutional by a 
     court of competent jurisdiction, this section shall be null 
     and void.
       Sec. 203. None of the funds appropriated under this title 
     shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate 
     in any way the performance of, any abortion.
       Sec. 204. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the 
     obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to 
     provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to 
     receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided, 
     That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect 
     of section 203 intended to address the philosophical beliefs 
     of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
       Sec. 205. Not to exceed five percent of any appropriation 
     made available for the current fiscal year for the Department 
     of Justice in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than ten percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any 
     transfer pursuant to this section shall be treated as a 
     reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this Act and 
     shall not be available for obligation except in compliance 
     with the procedures set forth in that section: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds appropriated to ``Buildings 
     and Facilities, Federal Prison System'' in this or any other 
     Act may be transferred to ``Salaries and Expenses, Federal 
     Prison System'', or any other Department of Justice account, 
     unless the President certifies that such a transfer is 
     necessary to the national security interests of the United 
     States, and such authority shall not be delegated, and shall 
     be subject to section 505 of this Act.
       Sec. 206. The Attorney General is authorized to extend 
     through September 30, 2009, the Personnel Management 
     Demonstration Project transferred to the Attorney General 
     pursuant to section 1115 of the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002, Public Law 107-296 (6 U.S.C. 533) without limitation on 
     the number of employees or the positions covered.
       Sec. 207. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     Public Law 102-395 section 102(b) shall extend to the Bureau 
     of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in the conduct 
     of undercover investigative operations and shall apply 
     without fiscal year limitation with respect to any undercover 
     investigative operation initiated by the Bureau of Alcohol, 
     Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that is necessary for the 
     detection and prosecution of crimes against the United 
     States.
       Sec. 208. None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Justice in this Act may be used for the purpose 
     of transporting an individual who is a prisoner pursuant to 
     conviction for crime under State or Federal law and is 
     classified as a maximum or high security prisoner, other than 
     to a prison or other facility certified by the Federal Bureau 
     of Prisons as appropriately secure for housing such a 
     prisoner.
       Sec. 209. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used by Federal prisons to purchase cable television 
     services, to rent or purchase videocassettes, videocassette 
     recorders, or other audiovisual or electronic equipment used 
     primarily for recreational purposes.
       (b) The preceding sentence does not preclude the renting, 
     maintenance, or purchase of audiovisual or electronic 
     equipment for inmate training, religious, or educational 
     programs.
       Sec. 210. None of the funds made available under this title 
     shall be obligated or expended for SENTINEL, or for any other 
     major new or enhanced information technology program having 
     total estimated development costs in excess of $100,000,000, 
     unless the Deputy Attorney General and the investment review 
     board certify to the Committee on Appropriations that the 
     information technology program has appropriate program 
     management and contractor oversight mechanisms in place, and 
     that the program is compatible with the enterprise 
     architecture of the Department of Justice.
       Sec. 211. (a) Section 589a of title 28, United States Code, 
     is amended in subsection (b) by--
       (1) striking ``and'' in paragraph (8);
       (2) striking the period in paragraph (9) and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (3) adding the following new paragraph:
       ``(10) fines imposed under section 110(l) of title 11, 
     United States Code.''.
       (b) Section 110(l)(4)(A) of title 11, United States Code, 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) Fines imposed under this subsection in judicial 
     districts served by United States trustees shall be paid to 
     the United States trustees, who shall deposit an amount equal 
     to such fines in the United States Trustee Fund.''.
       Sec. 212. (a) Section 1930(a) of title 28, United States 
     Code, is amended in paragraph (6) by striking all that 
     follows ``whichever occurs first.'' and inserting the 
     following: ``The fee shall be $325 for each quarter in which 
     disbursements total less than $15,000; $650 for each quarter 
     in which disbursements total $15,000 or more but less than 
     $75,000; $975 for each quarter in which disbursements total 
     $75,000 or more but less than $150,000; $1,625 for each 
     quarter in which disbursements total $150,000 or more but 
     less than $225,000; $1,950 for each quarter in which 
     disbursements total $225,000 or more but less than $300,000; 
     $4,875 for each quarter in which disbursements total $300,000 
     or more but less than $1,000,000; $6,500 for each quarter in 
     which disbursements total $1,000,000 or more but less than 
     $2,000,000; $9,750 for each quarter in which disbursements 
     total $2,000,000 or more but less than $3,000,000; $10,400 
     for each quarter in which disbursements total $3,000,000 or 
     more but less than $5,000,000; $13,000 for each quarter in 
     which disbursements total $5,000,000 or more but less than 
     $15,000,000; $20,000 for each quarter in which disbursements 
     total $15,000,000 or more but less than $30,000,000; and 
     $30,000 for each quarter in which disbursements total more 
     than $30,000,000. The fee shall be payable on the last day of 
     the calendar month following the calendar quarter for which 
     the fee is owed''.
       (b) This section and the amendment made by this section 
     shall take effect January 1, 2008, or the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
       Sec. 213. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to plan for, begin, continue, finish, process, or 
     approve a public-private competition under the Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any successor 
     administrative regulation, directive, or policy for work 
     performed by employees of the Bureau of Prisons or of Federal 
     Prison Industries, Incorporated.


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Sessions

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

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Sessions:
       Strike section 213.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 213 of 
this legislation which, as drafted, would have the same anticompetitive 
effect as language already included in a number of the Democrat 
majority's other appropriations bills by preventing funds from being 
spent to conduct public-private competitions.
  In this case, it would prevent funds from being used to allow the 
private sector to compete against the government for jobs at the Bureau 
of Prisons or Federal Prison Industries, Incorporated.
  While this policy may be good for increasing dues payments to the 
public-sector union bosses, it is unquestionably bad for taxpayers and 
for Federal agencies because agencies are left with less money to spend 
on their core missions when Congress takes the opportunity to take 
competition away from them.
  In 2006, Federal agencies ``competed'' only 1.7 percent of their 
commercial workforce, which makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of 
the entire civilian workforce. This very small use of competition for 
services is expected to generate savings of $1.3 billion over the next 
10 years by closing performance gaps and improving efficiencies.
  Competitions completed since 2003 are expected to produce almost $7 
billion in savings for taxpayers over the next 10 years. This means 
that taxpayers will receive a return of about $31 for every dollar 
spent on competition, with annualized expected savings of more than $1 
billion.

[[Page 20614]]

  This provision, included by the Democrat Appropriations Committee, 
directly contradicts a number of legislative provisions recently passed 
on this issue by the House, including: The conference report for the 
1997 omnibus appropriations bill, which specifically directed the 
Bureau of Prisons to undertake a prison privatization demonstration 
project; also, the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
Improvement Act of 1997, which directed the Bureau of Prisons to 
rehabilitate D.C. inmates in private prisons; and since 2001, every 
Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill has directed the Bureau of 
Prisons to contract for prison services.
  I think the answer is clear, Mr. Chairman, that when the Democrats 
claim that these services are ``inherently governmental,'' despite 
numerous citations in the A-76 circular that these activities are 
exempt from this definition, and prevent competitive sourcing from 
taking place, that the Democrat leadership is clearly hearing from 
labor bosses that this bill represents another good opportunity to 
increase their power at the expense of taxpayers and good government.
  In this time of stretched budgets and bloated Federal spending, 
Congress should be looking to use all of its tools it can to find 
taxpayer savings and reduce the cost of services that are being 
provided by thousands of hardworking companies nationwide.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense, taxpayer-
first amendment to oppose the underlying provision to benefit public-
sector union bosses by keeping cost-saving competition available to the 
government.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision is simply a provision of fairness. It 
provides that contracting out of Federal employees in the U.S. Bureau 
of Prisons cannot be done under these A-76 guidelines and puts a 
prohibition on that.
  Now, we have accommodated in our language in our manager's amendments 
all of the concerns that we received from private industry. We have 
accommodated that. And the bill and report language were modified in 
the full committee's manager's amendment to clarify that the general 
provision does not impact the Bureau of Prisons' practice of 
contracting with State, local and private entities to meet needs for 
existing and new prison capacity.
  This language is compromise language. It protects Federal employees, 
professionals working in the Bureau of Prisons, who obviously have a 
very sensitive job and position, at the same time it accommodates the 
concerns of private industry with regard to appropriate contracting out 
by State and local and private entities.
  I urge opposition to the amendment on that basis. The bill is a good, 
balanced approach and accommodates the Federal employees who risk their 
lives every day working in correctional situations, but at the same 
time it accommodates the legitimate concerns of the private sector.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I rise to support the Sessions amendment. I 
believe in the A-76 process. I do think public and private competition 
is important. The contracts are important. The A-76 process I do think 
provides more efficiency and is definitely better for the taxpayers. So 
I support his amendment quite strongly.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to join the subcommittee 
chairman in opposition to this amendment.
  Members who believe in a balanced and fair competition where the 
taxpayers get the greatest value for the dollar should oppose this 
amendment and support the underlying bill. The underlying bill, as the 
chairman said, is a carefully crafted compromise that permits a 
rational assessment of the cost and benefits of contracting out, and 
provides for a fair appeal process where whichever side loses that 
process would have the opportunity to bring its case to another level 
and have it reexamined.
  So I think that the bill is neither pro-contracting out nor anti-
contracting-out. I think the bill strikes a fair balance, and it says 
in instances where someone decides a contract should be permitted, it 
happens; and for instances where it should not be, it does not.
  I commend the chairman for crafting a fair compromise. I join him in 
urging defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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 Texas will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
       Page 56, after line 7, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 214. The amounts otherwise provided by this title are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for ``General 
     Administration--salaries and expenses'', and increasing the 
     amount made available for ``Office on violence against 
     women--violence against women prevention and prosecution 
     programs'' (consisting of an additional $6,000,000 for grants 
     to assist children and youth exposed to violence, $6,000,000 
     for services to advocate for and respond to youth, $1,000,000 
     for the national tribal sex offender registry, and $1,000,000 
     for research relating to violence against Indian women, as 
     authorized by sections 41303, 41201, 905(b), and 904, 
     respectively, of the Violence Against Women and Department of 
     Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005), by $14,000,000.

  Mr. INSLEE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an important amendment that 
will help continue our work in Congress to break the cycle of domestic 
violence from which we still suffer. We started that work in the 
Violence Against Women Act of 2005. We now need to extend it.
  I want to recognize the chairman's strong showing of support for 
efforts against violence in this fashion by $60 million of funding. We 
appreciate that. But we do have several new programs that the Congress 
has authorized, has approved, has recognized as a valid effort that 
have not had an appropriation to date. We aim to fix that with an 
effort to provide that appropriation.
  It would direct the Department of Justice to administer grants to 
fund four priority new programs for children and Native women in order 
to break this chain, this multigenerational chain of violence.
  The amendment offered by myself and Mr. Burton would, for the first 
time, provide Federal funding to local domestic violence programs that 
provide direct intervention services to children who have witnessed 
domestic violence in their families. We know how witnessing violence 
ends up perpetuating violence down the chain of generations. We have to 
nip this in the bud.
  We have to get kids treatment early. We know this amendment will do 
it.

[[Page 20615]]

Men who have experienced violence in their families as children are 
twice as likely to become perpetrators themselves.

                              {time}  1900

  This amendment will also, for the first time, fund a competitive 
grant program for nonprofit organizations to provide community services 
to teens and young adult victims of domestic violence, sexual assault 
and stalking. We know girls and young women between age 16 and 24 have 
the highest rate of intimate partner violence. Teens need to learn at 
an early age about healthy relationships. This amendment will help 
that.
  My amendment also ensures that we can track crimes against American 
Indian and Alaska Native women through a national tribal sex offender 
registry. This is a place where we have been lacking resources in the 
tribes. One out of every three American Indian and Alaska Native women 
are victims of sexual assault on reservations.
  Currently, every State has a sexual offender registry, but crimes 
against native women are rarely entered. We need to pass this to fix 
that problem.
  So we know that this epidemic of domestic violence affects every 
State and community. We know that these VAWA programs can help break 
the cycle, and we know that we've authorized these programs, but we 
have not appropriated a dime for them. We have done this with some 
other new programs in this bill.
  We have carefully selected four programs. This has the wide support 
of groups across the country who have selected these four programs as 
the highest priorities of those programs that have been authorized but 
not appropriated.
  The Chair's done a good job with limited resources, but we hope that 
we can extend this effort and these authorized programs to nip and end 
this circle of violence.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. First of all, I want to thank Mr. Inslee for 
introducing this amendment. I'm very proud to cosponsor it with you. 
It's very needed, and the reason I know it's very needed is because the 
things you talked about I experienced as a boy. I won't be redundant 
and go into the things that you have mentioned and the reasons why this 
program is so necessary.
  But I do want you to know that I don't normally support changing 
money from one area to another like from the Department of Justice to 
these programs, but this is one of the most urgent needs in America, 
and it's been like this for the last 50 to 60 years.
  I can remember when we went to police headquarters with my mother 
after we'd been beaten and my father had beaten my mother, and the 
police sergeant said, If you don't get these kids home, I'm going to 
have you arrested for child abuse. That's the way it was in those days. 
There was no place for a woman to hide, and the children had to 
experience this.
  At 4 o'clock in the morning, when you hear your mother being beaten 
and you come down the stairs and your hair is standing straight up on 
the back of your head and your father turns and says to you, If you 
don't get back up the stairs, you're going to get some of this, kids 
should not have to endure that. They should not ever have to endure 
that. And the women who are treated like that should never have to 
endure that as well.
  It's a shame that there aren't more people talking about this because 
this is something that's an urgent, urgent need.
  Mr. Inslee's absolutely right about the chances for a child who's 
been abused like this to do the same things throughout the rest of 
their life. I was very fortunate that didn't happen, but I've known a 
lot of people who experienced that who did, and I think it's a tragic 
thing.
  We really need to find a way to get these women and kids into shelter 
and away from these abusive parents, fathers and sometimes mothers, and 
we need to help the women who are abused.
  As he just said, in the Native American community, there are women 
who are being raped and beaten, and there's really no place for them to 
turn. There's no registry so we can track these guys. That's a horrible 
thing to have to experience.
  So I just want to say to my colleagues, and as I said, I won't be 
redundant, but I was reading in our information that we use when we 
discuss these issues, I was reading that between 3.3 million and 10 
million children witness domestic violence every year. Can you imagine, 
up to 10 million kids that witness domestic violence in the home and 
elsewhere every single year? That's unforgivable. And at one time, in 1 
day, one 24-hour period, there were 18,000 children in the United 
States that received services and support because they were 
experiencing domestic violence, in one day. That's something, in my 
opinion, that's inexcusable.
  This is a very, very important piece of legislation. I would urge all 
of my colleagues to vote for this. There should not be one negative 
vote on this, not one, because there are kids and women who are 
suffering, sometimes every day. Sometimes the husband will beat the 
child and they'll turn around to the wife and say, I'll never do that 
again, and he does it the next week. Sometimes he'll beat his wife and 
he puts his arms around her, and I've seen this firsthand, he says, 
Honey, I will never do that again. And the next week she's beaten 
again, and she sometimes has no place to go and she feels like there's 
no hope.
  It's extremely important that we give these women and these kids 
hope, and that's why I say to you, Mr. Inslee, thank you very much for 
introducing this amendment. I hope it passes unanimously.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
and first of all, I want to acknowledge the compelling story of the 
gentleman from Indiana. That's truly moving. There's no two ways about 
it, and that's why we have this program, and that's why the 
subcommittee and the full committee strongly supported funding for VAWA 
and all of these grant programs, acknowledging at the same time that 
there are additional grant programs authorized under VAWA that have not 
received funding. We look forward to working on those, and this one in 
particular, as we move forward through conference.
  But let me suggest to the body that we would love to increase funding 
for programs like this, the Violence Against Women Act Programs. 
There's more compelling argument for it, particularly as described.
  Let me note, however, for the record that we have increased VAWA 
funding to $430 million. We rejected the President's proposal to shrink 
the grant program, actually to eliminate these individual grant 
programs, and to have a bloc grant program. We have continued to fund 
the various categories, and we certainly look forward to considering 
other authorized grant programs that are not currently funded.
  We funded, at $430 million, VAWA programs, a $60 million increase 
over the President's request, and $47 million over the 2007 funding 
level. That is a sizeable increase to this very worthy program, not 
that there couldn't be more. So I can't argue for one second to either 
of my colleagues against adding funding to VAWA.
  The real point is that we have significantly increased that funding 
because we share the concerns of the gentlemen who have spoken here, 
and I hope that we can all understand and agree with that.
  We are again targeting offsets in a general administration account. A 
$14 million cut to the Department of Justice general administration 
account will require layoffs. And let me just put this in perspective. 
We've already had a $30 million cut to this account. We're down from 
$104 million in Department of Justice general administration to $74 
million, and we're looking at another $14 million cut.

[[Page 20616]]

  At some point, everybody has to appreciate that there has to be some 
money in these administrative accounts to administer these programs 
that we all care about, and we have to get real about this process. 
This is obviously a very strong and passioned expression of support for 
the programs we've authorized to prevent violence against women, and 
we're all working in that venue. The committee did it by increasing the 
funding by $60 million over the President's request, almost $50 million 
over last year. You're doing it here today by adding another $14 
million. And we can't argue with the merit of that sentiment, but we 
can express concern and try to bring some reality to the offset 
suggested here.
  We are cutting Department of Justice general administration accounts 
below the level in which they can effectively operate and administer 
the very programs which we are increasing.
  So, reluctantly, I oppose the amendment. At the same time, I do look 
forward to working with the gentlemen, no matter what the outcome of 
the amendment, as the process moves forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. 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 Washington will be 
postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Lipinski

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lipinski:
       Page 56, after line 7, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 214. 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 title for ``General Administration--salaries and 
     expenses'' is hereby reduced by, $1,000,000.

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment which 
would provide $1 million 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 law enforcement and 
public safety officers who have been killed or seriously injured in the 
line of duty.
  There are currently 17,917 names engraved on the walls of the 
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, DC, including 
928 from my home State of Illinois. But many communities also want to 
honor their law enforcement heroes with local memorials or permanent 
tributes. The Law Enforcement Tribute Act Program provides support to 
States and localities to help them do this. Without this support, many 
communities would not be financially able to provide these worthy 
tributes.
  The Law Enforcement Tribute Act Program was authorized in fiscal year 
2002 at $3 million per year, but no funding has been appropriated since 
2003.
  Last year, this Chamber approved a similar amendment by voice vote 
when I offered it with Representatives Adam Schiff and Tom Davis. 
Unfortunately, that amendment, like the appropriations bill it was 
included in, never became law. Today, we have an opportunity to once 
again approve funding that will help communities honor all of those 
local heroes who have given so much to protect us.
  This amendment has the strong support of law enforcement groups all 
over the country, including the National Association of Police 
Organizations.
  Mr. Chairman, law enforcement and public safety officers dedicate 
their career 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 men and women.
  I urge my colleagues today to support this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, let me commend the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for bringing this matter before the body again 
this year.
  The point is being made that this particular act is not being funded 
and it should be. It's extremely meritorious. The sacrifice, and the 
dedication, the commitment of our law enforcement people throughout the 
country need to be recognized, and this is the reason we passed the 
legislation.
  As we move this bill forward to conference, I hope that we can work 
with the gentleman and assure that there is funding on this provision, 
and we will commit to the gentleman to work with him in that regard.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, with that assurance, with the agreement 
that you will work, and I know that you see the great value in the 
program, to work in the conference on providing funding for this, I 
will withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                           TITLE III--SCIENCE

                Office of Science and Technology Policy

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy, in carrying out the purposes of the 
     National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and 
     Priorities Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6601-6671), hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, and services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, not to exceed $2,500 for official reception and 
     representation expenses, and rental of conference rooms in 
     the District of Columbia, $5,515,000.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration


                                science

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of science research and development 
     activities, including research, development, operations, 
     support, and services; maintenance; construction of 
     facilities including repair, rehabilitation, revitalization, 
     and modification of facilities, construction of new 
     facilities and additions to existing facilities, facility 
     planning and design, and restoration, and acquisition or 
     condemnation of real property, as authorized by law; 
     environmental compliance and restoration; space flight, 
     spacecraft control, and communications activities; program 
     management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms 
     or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and 
     5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel expenses; 
     purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed 
     $14,000 for official reception and representation expenses; 
     and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of 
     mission and administrative aircraft, $5,696,100,000, of which 
     not less than $278,000,000 shall be for the Hubble Space 
     Telescope, not less than $545,000,000 shall be for the James 
     Webb Space Telescope, not less than $90,000,000 shall be for 
     the Global Precipitation Measurement mission, not less than 
     $625,700,000 shall be for the Mars Exploration Program, and 
     not less than $71,600,000 shall be for the Space 
     Interferometry Mission, to remain available until September 
     30, 2009.


                              aeronautics

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of aeronautics research and development 
     activities, including research, development, operations, 
     support, and services; maintenance; construction of 
     facilities including repair, rehabilitation, revitalization, 
     and modification of facilities, construction of new 
     facilities and additions to existing facilities, facility 
     planning and design, and restoration, and acquisition or 
     condemnation of real property, as authorized by law; 
     environmental compliance and restoration; space flight, 
     spacecraft control, and communications activities; program 
     management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms 
     or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and 
     5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel expenses; 
     purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed 
     $14,000 for official reception and representation expenses; 
     and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of 
     mission and administrative aircraft, $700,000,000 to remain 
     available until September 30, 2009.


                              exploration

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of exploration research and development 
     activities, including research, development, operations, 
     support, and services; maintenance;

[[Page 20617]]

     construction of facilities including repair, rehabilitation, 
     revitalization, and modification of facilities, construction 
     of new facilities and additions to existing facilities, 
     facility planning and design, and restoration, and 
     acquisition or condemnation of real property, as authorized 
     by law; environmental compliance and restoration; space 
     flight, spacecraft control, and communications activities; 
     program management, personnel and related costs, including 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 
     5901 and 5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel 
     expenses; purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not 
     to exceed $14,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and 
     operation of mission and administrative aircraft, 
     $3,923,800,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009: 
     Provided, That none of the funds under this heading shall be 
     used for any research, development, or demonstration 
     activities related exclusively to the human exploration of 
     Mars.


                               education

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in 
     carrying out aerospace and aeronautical education, including 
     personnel and related costs, uniforms or allowances therefor, 
     as authorized by sections 5901 and 5902 of title 5, United 
     States Code; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles; not to exceed $4,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses; and purchase, lease, charter, 
     maintenance, and operation of mission and administrative 
     aircraft, $220,300,000 to remain available until September 
     30, 2009.

  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I want ask Chairman Mollohan to enter into 
a colloquy with me for just a minute.
  I want to thank the chairman for his efforts on behalf of NASA. As 
the chairman knows, the Johnson Space Center is the crown jewel of our 
Nation's space program and resides in my congressional district. The 
hard work of many bright minds down there has yielded tremendous 
accomplishments and results over the years.
  Of course, it's important to be fiscally responsible. I am glad that 
the chairman knows it's just as important to continue funding our 
Nation's top science projects, including NASA.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentleman from Texas for his tireless 
efforts on behalf of NASA. He has been working, I know, diligently in 
that vineyard all year long. I know, personally, because he has been 
contacting me and the committee in order to advance the best interests 
of NASA, to personally facilitate important meetings between the NASA 
Administrator, and I know the chairman of our full committee Mr. Obey, 
and several of our colleagues throughout the year.
  These meetings and my talks with the gentleman from Texas have made 
it clear how important NASA funding is to the gentleman, significantly 
contributing to NASA's ability to meet all of its mission commitments.
  The gentleman is to be commended for his commitment and his hard work 
on behalf of NASA and on behalf of NASA's employees. I will continue to 
work on the House floor and in conference to maintain funding levels as 
reported out of the subcommittee.
  I sincerely appreciate the gentleman's interest and hard work.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Well, I appreciate the chairman's kind words on our 
combined efforts. I am thankful for his hard work and attention to this 
important matter.
  NASA is doing so many important things right now, including our work 
on the international space station, continued shuttle flights, and our 
transition to the next-generation crew exploration vehicle, advanced 
scientific experiments and many other projects, both large and small, 
that we can't afford to fall behind on these projects, and the various 
programs, program transitions that NASA is trying to make.
  I will continue to work with you and all of our colleagues on the 
Appropriations Committee to help maintain these funding levels as well.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. As the gentleman knows, our bill funds NASA in excess 
of the President's request. We intend to work very hard between now and 
conference and through the signing ceremony to ensure that funding is 
maintained. The gentleman is a champion for NASA here in the House. I 
know he is working hard for that part of NASA that's back in his 
district, and we look forward to his support as we move forward.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you for entering into the colloquy. I look forward 
to working with you.


        Amendment Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

  Amendment offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas:
       Page 59, line 21, insert ``, of which not less the 
     $70,700,000 shall be for the Minority University Research and 
     Education Programs,'' after the dollar amount.

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support 
of my amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2008.
  My amendment is focused on the education activities at NASA, the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Specifically, the 
amendment designates $70.7 million of NASA's $220.3 million for 
education appropriations for the minority workforce preparation.
  This program has been in action before. It was a good program, but 
because of the cuts that NASA did suffer, it was defunded actually, as 
they rearranged the funding. I thank the committee for the increase 
that they did make and commend their recognition of the importance of 
education funding for NASA.
  All of us know that this is the focus of education, now, trying to 
make sure we have workforce available so that we can maintain the 
competitive edge.
  NASA had proposed to spend about $40 million, or 27 percent, of its 
education budget on minority university research and education 
programs, commonly called the Hispanic-Serving Institutions, as well as 
the Historically Black Institutions.
  So the program includes Partnership Awards for Integration of 
Research, the Space Science Collaboration, the Math Science Teacher and 
Curriculum Enhancement Program, the Undergraduate Scholars program, 
Network Resource and Training Sites, Model Institutes for Excellence 
and the Earth Science Collaborations program.
  I think that since only 2 percent of our Nation's engineers are 
African American and Hispanic, we really do need to encourage them to 
be in this part of the workforce. It's critically important to support 
these Federal programs.
  I urge adoption, although I would like to have a colloquy with the 
chairman.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I thank the gentlelady. I think this amendment is one 
more expression of a number one concern about the attention that 
education is getting in our various science accounts. We have attempted 
very diligently, pointedly, to address that by increasing funding in 
education accounts across the bill. This account, the NASA account, 
first of all, we broke it out as a separate account and then increased 
it by $66.6 million for a total of $220 million.
  The fact that the gentlelady is reaching out to NASA, NASA should be 
listening. Universities, education, K-12, they want NASA. They realize 
how important, and the gentlelady realizes how important, NASA is to 
inspiring youth and also getting resources on programs and funding 
them. That's the gentlelady's purpose behind this.
  I hope that the gentlelady will allow us to work with her to achieve 
her purposes as this bill moves forward within the funding allocations 
that we have received. I want her to know that I have heard her 
interest, and we intend to be responsive to her as we move forward. I 
commend her for her leadership in this area.
  We will be as responsive as possible, and I appreciate the 
opportunity to do so.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to withdraw this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.

[[Page 20618]]

  The Clerk read as follows:


                     cross-agency support programs

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of science, aeronautics and exploration 
     research and development activities, including research, 
     development, operations, support, and services; maintenance; 
     construction of facilities including repair, rehabilitation, 
     revitalization, and modification of facilities, construction 
     of new facilities and additions to existing facilities, 
     facility planning and design, and restoration, and 
     acquisition or condemnation of real property, as authorized 
     by law; environmental compliance and restoration; space 
     flight, spacecraft control, and communications activities; 
     program management; personnel and related costs, including 
     uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 
     5901 and 5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel 
     expenses; purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not 
     to exceed $10,000 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and 
     operation of mission and administrative aircraft, 
     $356,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.

  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would 
like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SUTTON. I really appreciate having this opportunity to talk with 
you, and I commend your work on putting this very strong legislation 
together that includes important increases for science and technology 
programs, as well as law enforcement, among many other things.
  But I want to discuss with you just for a moment my concerns for 
funding and oversight in this bill for the United States Trade 
Representative. Now, many of my colleagues have been pretty vocal, 
since the beginning of this Congress, in expressing our concerns with 
our current trade policy and its harmful effects on our families and 
communities. A large part of this is what I see as a lack of 
responsibility by the USTR in promoting exports to other nations and 
protecting American workers and businesses against unfair trade 
practices against other nations.
  I was going to offer a number of amendments here today dealing with 
increasing USTR funding, specifically for oversight and enforcement of 
our trade laws, but I appreciate the increase in funding in the bill 
for the ITC, but I believe so much more needs to be done. Instead of 
fixing the many problems we have with our current policies, whether 
it's our current record trade deficit or the loss of millions of 
manufacturing jobs, the USTR has, instead, focused efforts on enacting 
more flawed trade agreements.
  It seems as if, instead of working to make our trade agreements 
better, the administration and the USTR have focused on joining with 
private interests and using USTR funding to lobby Congress. I believe 
we must rein this in, what I see as an improper and excessive lobbying 
by USTR of Congress.
  While I was hoping to offer an amendment on that here today as well, 
I hope that this Congress will take a closer look at their activities 
in the future. I strongly believe that we have a responsibility to 
stand up and tell the USTR that they must start working for American 
businesses and workers, rather than continue current policies that cost 
jobs here at home and have decimated our manufacturing base.
  While I would have hoped that we could have done more on this bill to 
move USTR in that direction to be more responsive to the responsibility 
to the American people and to the workers in my district, rather than 
foreign governments and large corporations, I am happy to be here and 
am supportive of the bill.
  I appreciate the opportunity to share this with you and look forward 
to working with you in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentlelady for 
bringing this issue to our attention. I want her to know that the House 
knows she knows something about basic industry in America. She knows 
something about the challenges of transitioning economies, and she 
knows something about the importance of USTR trying to protect the very 
best interests of American citizens and American workers working in all 
sectors of the economy. From my perspective, I am particularly 
concerned about those workers in basic industry, in extraction-related 
industries in America.
  A lot of us have concerns about the USTR and the Trade 
Representative's actual commitment to representing the very best 
interests of those sectors of our economy. As we transition into an 
increasingly international economic community, we have to be cognizant 
of the impacts of a trade policy that is precipitous to the point of 
creating real chaos and tremendous hardship, particularly in those 
sectors of the economy that I represent and that I know the gentlelady 
is particularly sensitive to.
  So we need to provide oversight of the USTR as we encourage them to 
enforce our trade laws and to be aggressive advocates, advocates for 
our best interests as they approach our trading partners and trade 
negotiations. They should be looking at issues to balance and level the 
playing field, such as insisting that trade agreements include 
environmental laws that we have correctly imposed upon our industry and 
our manufacturing processes.
  Incorporating those regulations into the manufacturing process is 
expensive. Our competitors around the world, many of them, particularly 
in the developing countries, don't have those costs. Where we have 
incorporated health and safety regulations in the workplace, 
statutorily imposed, that has cost money.
  The USTR needs to be sensitive to that. The administration needs to 
be sensitive to that. It needs to incorporate those kinds of public 
interest concerns as they negotiate trade agreements.
  Why? Why? Because we have done it, and we are their competitors. We 
are a country with a higher standard of living, and if we can't level 
the playing field with regard to regulatory activity, then we will 
never be able to begin to be competitive with our competitors from 
developing nations.
  Let me again compliment the gentlelady for being focused on this very 
early in her career, being a champion for the working people, and for 
the best interests of our trade policy generally in all sectors of the 
economy, and for bringing this to our attention in this bill.
  I can assure her that we will be sensitive in large part because of 
the concerns that she expresses here today. Thank you very much, Ms. 
Sutton, for bringing that to our attention.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, a few hundred miles above us the 
astronauts of Expedition 15 work around the clock on board the 
international space station. Their efforts have just been boosted by 
delivery of a huge new power element from the space shuttle Atlantis 
crew. The Atlantis astronauts, working with station crew mates, brought 
the orbiting base ever closer to completion and a whole new era of 
living and working in space.
  The international space station is a remarkable achievement of global 
cooperation now entering its most critical period. Over the next 3 
years, more than a dozen flights of the space shuttles Atlantis, 
Discovery, and Endeavor will complete assembly that began in 1998. The 
completed station will be home to a crew of six astronauts and 
generation-spanning research that will reach into the lives of every 
American family. Yes, completion and operation of the international 
space station is that important to America's future.
  I am fortunate to represent one of the most enduring and important 
NASA facilities, the Johnson Space Center in Houston, and have had the 
honor over my five terms in Congress to work with dedicated and amazing 
people at the Johnson Space Center.

[[Page 20619]]

Their passion and commitment to space exploration led me to introduce 
the Space Exploration Act of 2002. I introduced the Space Exploration 
Act as a challenge to this country and the leaders in Congress and the 
White House to offer a vision and concrete goals for the human space 
flight program after the international space station. Many here on this 
floor joined me in that call to action, to invest in a space 
exploration vital for the future of this country.
  In 2004, President Bush announced a similar plan, the Vision for 
Space Exploration. The President's vision outlined a sustained and 
affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and 
beyond. I fully supported the President in pushing for an expanded 
mission for NASA. But in the years that have followed, this Nation has 
seen rhetoric not supported by action. The administration's vision for 
space and subsequent authorized funding limits have consistently been 
ignored, and the President's yearly budget does not fund a robust 
vision for NASA's future. As a result, we now see a widening gap in the 
period of time between the retirement of the space shuttle in 2010 and 
the next generation Crew Exploration Vehicle and Crew Launch Vehicle.
  This gap will impede access to the station for our astronauts in the 
years immediately following the shuttle's retirement. During that 
period, before the new Orion and Ares space vehicles are operational, 
NASA and America will be totally reliant upon Russia for access to the 
space station by our astronauts and to carry cargo into space. We will 
be forced to spend more money than could ever be spent to accelerate 
arrival of our new space vehicles. This year alone, the administration 
worsened that gap by making its budget request some $1.4 billion below 
the congressionally authorized level.
  Adding to the strain, millions of dollars have been shifted from the 
station and shuttle accounts to pay for repairs made necessary by 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita which damaged NASA facilities in New 
Orleans, the Mississippi gulf coast, and Florida.
  NASA now faces the stark reality that the timeline for next-
generation human space exploration is becoming increasingly hard to 
meet. We as a Congress must do more to ensure viability of NASA space 
exploration programs. And I stand here not to criticize the past 
efforts of the President or previous Congresses, but to call on leaders 
of both parties to help us meet and even exceed the funding levels 
required to continue all the important projects in NASA's orbit. As 
this bill goes to conference, I believe we can find additional 
resources for NASA to reduce the widening gap between the shuttle and 
the Orion and Ares programs.
  Mr. Chairman, now is not the time to trim our sails into space. I 
join with the heroes of the space program, past and present, our 
Nation's industry leaders, and other forward-looking supporters to urge 
our colleagues to fund NASA fully into the coming years at the amount 
authorized by Congress. In today's global competition, there is no 
substitute for keeping America first in outer space.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                            space operations

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the 
     conduct and support of space operations research and 
     development activities, including research, development, 
     operations, support, and services; maintenance; construction 
     of facilities including repair, rehabilitation, 
     revitalization, and modification of facilities, construction 
     of new facilities and additions to existing facilities, 
     facility planning and design, and restoration, and 
     acquisition or condemnation of real property, as authorized 
     by law; environmental compliance and restoration; space 
     flight, spacecraft control, and communications activities 
     including operations, production, and services; program 
     management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms 
     or allowances therefor, as authorized by sections 5901 and 
     5902 of title 5, United States Code; travel expenses; 
     purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed 
     $14,000 for official reception and representation expenses; 
     and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of 
     mission and administrative aircraft, $6,691,700,000 to remain 
     available until September 30, 2009.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978, 
     $34,600,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Biggert

  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. This amendment appropriately comes toward the end of 
the bill, and we have not read to that section yet.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I understood that. I am going to withdraw the amendment 
and ask unanimous consent to present it at this time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. (a) Of the amounts made available for ``STATE AND 
     LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE'' for the Edward Byrne 
     Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, $15,000,000 shall 
     be available for the Internet Crimes Against Children Task 
     Force program, as authorized by title IV of the Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     5771 et seq.).
       (b) Of the amounts made available for ``JUSTICE 
     ASSISTANCE'', $15,000,000 shall be available for the Internet 
     Crimes Against Children Task Force program, as authorized by 
     title IV of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5771 et seq.).

  Mrs. BIGGERT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia reserves a point of 
order.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank Chairman Mollohan for all of his work on this 
bill, and I appreciate your commitment to all the missing children's 
programs. It is very important. And I know that you are equally 
disturbed by the prevalence of Internet crimes against our children. 
And the numbers certainly don't lie.
  According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's 
CyberTip Line, the number of reports relating to the online enticement 
of children for sexual acts increased by 139 percent between 2005 and 
2006. Over the same period, there was a 194 percent increase in the 
number of reports related to unsolicited obscene material sent to a 
child on the Internet.
  Certainly more can and must be done. And this problem is not 
regional; it is not isolated to big cities or rural communities. This 
is a real national problem that will not go away unless we can expand 
our capabilities of our law enforcement, which is exactly what my 
amendment will do by increasing the funding for the Internet Crime 
Against Children Task Force.
  The Internet Crime Against Children Task Force, or ICAC, plays a very 
critical role in protecting our children on the Internet. The ICAC Task 
Force's mission is clear: to help State and local government 
enforcement agencies develop an effective response to cyber-enticement 
and child pornography cases. This help involves forensic and 
investigative support training and technical assistance, victims 
services, and community education.
  The amendment would carve out $15 million out of the Justice 
Assistance account's Missing Children Program for the Internet Crime 
Against Children Task Force. It would also carve out $15 million out of 
the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program for the ICAC 
Task Force. Both accounts were used in fiscal year 2007 to fund the 
Internet Crime Against Children Task Force at $26 million.
  And I certainly understand the problems that having to do with this 
amendment, so I am certainly willing to withdraw my amendment if the 
chairman and ranking member are willing to work toward an increase in 
funding for the Internet Crime Against Children Task Force in 
conference.

[[Page 20620]]

  I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate the gentlelady yielding.
  The gentlelady is really at the forefront of this issue. She is co-
chair of the 131 Member strong Congressional Missing and Exploited 
Children Caucus. She is to be commended for that. She has worked with 
me, she has worked with Mr. Frelinghuysen, she has worked with the 
committee. To some extent she can declare success because she is 
tenacious in getting additional funding for Missing Children's 
programs. She has been successful in increasing funding 100 percent, 
you could argue, since the President asked for no funding here.
  But we would like to point out that in response to her and the 
caucus's expressions of concern to the committee, we have funded the 
Missing Children's program account to the tune of $61.4 million, which 
is $14 million above the 2007 enacted funding level. That is in large 
part because of her efforts, and we do appreciate it. She should 
declare success, and she should be proud of that. She is, as I say, 
tenacious. And speaking for myself, and Mr. Frelinghuysen who I know 
shares this interest, we look forward to working with her as we move 
forward. She is representing this caucus here today, and we look 
forward to trying to even increase this amount of money as we go to 
conference.
  I want to thank her for her efforts and for helping the committee as 
we have marked up our bill and funded this account.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Reclaiming my time, I would thank the gentleman for his 
kind words. And I bring this up to just enforce the importance of 
missing children, the caucus and the task force, tonight, because every 
problem is increasing so much, as I said earlier. The problems that we 
used to have, we are seeing many more problems with the use of the 
Internet, with just what is happening to children in this day and age. 
And the more that we can do to prevent online enticement, to prevent 
children being sexually assaulted, all of the tragedies that are 
happening right now. So I appreciate that.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentlelady makes her point. And out of the Office 
of Justice programs, we funded the Missing Children account higher than 
any other programs. So she can take credit for a great success, and we 
appreciate her help.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1945

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


                       Administrative Provisions

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Notwithstanding the limitation on the duration of 
     availability of funds appropriated for ``Science'', 
     ``Aeronautics'', ``Exploration'', ``Cross-Agency Support 
     Programs'', or ``Space Operations'' under this title, when 
     any activity has been initiated by the incurrence of 
     obligations for construction of facilities or environmental 
     compliance and restoration activities as authorized by law, 
     such amount available for such activity shall remain 
     available until expended. This provision does not apply to 
     the amounts appropriated for institutional minor 
     revitalization and minor construction of facilities, and 
     institutional facility planning and design.
       Funds for announced prizes otherwise authorized shall 
     remain available, without fiscal year limitation, until the 
     prize is claimed or the offer is withdrawn. Funding shall not 
     be made available for Centennial Challenges unless 
     authorized.
       Funding made available under the headings ``Science'', 
     ``Aeronautics'', ``Exploration'', ``Education'', ``Cross-
     Agency Support Programs'', and ``Space Operations'' for the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be 
     governed by the terms and conditions specified in the report 
     accompanying this Act.
       The unexpired balances of prior appropriations to the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration for activities 
     for which funds are provided under this Act may be 
     transferred to the new accounts established for the 
     appropriation that provides such activity under this Act. 
     Balances so transferred may be merged with funds in the newly 
     established accounts and thereafter may be accounted for as 
     one fund under the same terms and conditions.
       Not to exceed five percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration in this Act may be 
     transferred between such appropriations, but no such 
     appropriation, except as otherwise specifically provided, 
     shall be increased by more than ten percent by any such 
     transfers. Any transfer pursuant to this provision shall be 
     treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this 
     Act and shall not be available for obligation except in 
     compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds shall 
     be used to implement any Reduction in Force or other 
     involuntary separations (except for cause) by the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration prior to September 30, 
     2008.
       The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration shall prepare a strategy for minimizing job 
     losses when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     transitions from the Space Shuttle to a successor human-rated 
     space transport vehicle. This strategy shall include: (1) 
     specific initiatives that the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration has undertaken, or plans to undertake, to 
     maximize the utilization of existing civil service and 
     contractor workforces at each of the affected Centers; (2) 
     efforts to equitably distribute tasks and workload between 
     the Centers to mitigate the brunt of job losses being borne 
     by only certain Centers; (3) new workload, tasks, 
     initiatives, and missions being secured for the affected 
     Centers; and (4) overall projections of future civil service 
     and contractor workforce levels at the affected Centers. The 
     Administrator shall transmit this strategy to Congress not 
     later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 
     The Administrator shall update and transmit to Congress this 
     strategy not less than every six months thereafter until the 
     successor human-rated space transport vehicle is fully 
     operational.

                      National Science Foundation


                    research and related activities

       For necessary expenses in carrying out the National Science 
     Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), and Public Law 
     86-209, relating to the National Medal of Science (42 U.S.C. 
     1880-1881); services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; 
     maintenance and operation of aircraft and purchase of flight 
     services for research support; acquisition of aircraft; and 
     authorized travel; $5,139,690,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2009, of which not to exceed $510,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for polar research and 
     operations support, and for reimbursement to other Federal 
     agencies for operational and science support and logistical 
     and other related activities for the United States Antarctic 
     program: Provided, That receipts for scientific support 
     services and materials furnished by the National Research 
     Centers and other National Science Foundation supported 
     research facilities may be credited to this appropriation.


          major research equipment and facilities construction

       For necessary expenses for the acquisition, construction, 
     commissioning, and upgrading of major research equipment, 
     facilities, and other such capital assets pursuant to the 
     National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861-
     1875), including authorized travel, $244,740,000, to remain 
     available until expended.


                     education and human resources

       For necessary expenses in carrying out science and 
     engineering education and human resources programs and 
     activities pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 
     1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861-1875), including services as authorized 
     by 5 U.S.C. 3109, authorized travel, and rental of conference 
     rooms in the District of Columbia, $822,600,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2009.


                 agency operations and award management

       For agency operations and award management necessary in 
     carrying out the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 
     U.S.C. 1861-1875); services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed $9,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; uniforms or 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; 
     rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia; and 
     reimbursement of the General Services Administration for 
     security guard services; $285,590,000: Provided, That 
     contracts may be entered into under this heading in fiscal 
     year 2008 for maintenance and operation of facilities, and 
     for other services, to be provided during the next fiscal 
     year.


                  office of the national science board

       For necessary expenses (including payment of salaries, 
     authorized travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, the 
     rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia, and 
     the employment of experts and consultants under section 3109 
     of title 5, United States Code) involved in carrying out 
     section 4 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 
     U.S.C. 1863) and Public Law 86-209 (42 U.S.C. 1880-1881), 
     $4,030,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009: 
     Provided, That not more than $9,000 shall be available for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

[[Page 20621]]




                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     as authorized by the Inspector General Act of 1978, 
     $12,350,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.

                       TITLE IV--RELATED AGENCIES

                       Commission on Civil Rights


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Commission on Civil Rights, 
     including hire of passenger motor vehicles, $9,000,000: 
     Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph shall be used to employ in excess of four full-time 
     individuals under Schedule C of the Excepted Service 
     exclusive of one special assistant for each Commissioner: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated in this 
     paragraph shall be used to reimburse Commissioners for more 
     than 75 billable days, with the exception of the chairperson, 
     who is permitted 125 billable days.

                Equal Employment Opportunity Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission as authorized by title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 
     the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Americans with Disabilities 
     Act of 1990, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, including 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b); 
     nonmonetary awards to private citizens; and not to exceed 
     $28,000,000 for payments to State and local enforcement 
     agencies for authorized services to the Commission, 
     $332,748,000: Provided, That the Commission is authorized to 
     make available for official reception and representation 
     expenses not to exceed $2,500 from available funds: Provided 
     further, That no funds made available under this heading may 
     be used to outsource operations of the National Contact 
     Center.

                     International Trade Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the International Trade 
     Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed 
     $2,500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $68,400,000, to remain available until expended.

                       Legal Services Corporation


               payment to the legal services corporation

       For payment to the Legal Services Corporation to carry out 
     the purposes of the Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, 
     $377,000,000, of which $355,134,000 is for basic field 
     programs and required independent audits; $3,041,000 is for 
     the Office of Inspector General, of which such amounts as may 
     be necessary may be used to conduct additional audits of 
     recipients; $13,825,000 is for management and administration; 
     $4,000,000 is for client self-help and information 
     technology; and $1,000,000 is for loan repayment assistance.


          Administrative Provision--Legal Services Corporation

       None of the funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal 
     Services Corporation shall be expended for any purpose 
     prohibited or limited by, or contrary to any of the 
     provisions of, sections 501 through 506 of Public Law 105-
     119, and all funds appropriated in this Act to the Legal 
     Services Corporation shall be subject to the same terms and 
     conditions set forth in such sections, except that all 
     references in sections 502 and 503 to 1997 and 1998 shall be 
     deemed to refer instead to 2007 and 2008, respectively.

                        Marine Mammal Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Marine Mammal Commission as 
     authorized by title II of Public Law 92-522, $3,000,000.

           National Veterans Business Development Corporation


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Veterans Business 
     Development Corporation established under section 33 of the 
     Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 657c), $2,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

            Office of the United States Trade Representative


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States 
     Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $48,407,000, of which $1,000,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $124,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses: Provided further, That negotiations 
     of the United States at the World Trade Organization shall be 
     conducted consistent with the trade negotiating objectives of 
     the United States contained in section 2102 of the Bipartisan 
     Trade Promotion Authority Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3802).

                        State Justice Institute


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the State Justice Institute, as 
     authorized by the State Justice Institute Authorization Act 
     of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10701 et seq.), $4,640,000: Provided, That 
     not to exceed $2,500 shall be available for official 
     reception and representation expenses.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS


                     (including transfer of funds)

       Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not 
     authorized by the Congress.
       Sec. 502. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current 
     fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 503. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, shall be limited to those 
     contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public 
     record and available for public inspection, except where 
     otherwise provided under existing law, or under existing 
     Executive order issued pursuant to existing law.
       Sec. 504. If any provision of this Act or the application 
     of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be 
     held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of 
     each provision to persons or circumstances other than those 
     as to which it is held invalid shall not be affected thereby.
       Sec. 505. (a) None of the funds provided under this Act, or 
     provided under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies 
     funded by this Act that remain available for obligation or 
     expenditure in fiscal year 2008, or provided from any 
     accounts in the Treasury of the United States derived by the 
     collection of fees available to the agencies funded by this 
     Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure through 
     a reprogramming of funds that: (1) creates new programs; (2) 
     eliminates a program, project, or activity; (3) increases 
     funds or personnel by any means for any project or activity 
     for which funds have been denied or restricted; (4) relocates 
     an office or employees; (5) reorganizes offices, programs or 
     activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions 
     or activities presently performed by Federal employees; 
     unless the Committee on Appropriations is notified 15 days in 
     advance of such reprogramming of funds.
       (b) None of the funds provided under this Act, or provided 
     under previous appropriations Acts to the agencies funded by 
     this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure 
     in fiscal year 2008, or provided from any accounts in the 
     Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of 
     fees available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure for activities, 
     programs, or projects through a reprogramming of funds in 
     excess of $500,000 or ten percent, whichever is less, that: 
     (1) augments existing programs, projects, or activities; (2) 
     reduces by ten percent funding for any existing program, 
     project, or activity, or numbers of personnel by ten percent 
     as approved by Congress; or (3) results from any general 
     savings, including savings from a reduction in personnel, 
     which would result in a change in existing programs, 
     activities, or projects as approved by Congress; unless the 
     Committee on Appropriations is notified 15 days in advance of 
     such reprogramming of funds.
       Sec. 506. Hereafter, none of the funds made available in 
     this Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce any 
     guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
     covering harassment based on religion, when it is made known 
     to the Federal entity or official to which such funds are 
     made available that such guidelines do not differ in any 
     respect from the proposed guidelines published by the 
     Commission on October 1, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 51266).
       Sec. 507. If it has been finally determined by a court or 
     Federal agency that any person intentionally affixed a label 
     bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any inscription 
     with the same meaning, to any product sold in or shipped to 
     the United States that is not made in the United States, the 
     person shall be ineligible to receive any contract or 
     subcontract made with funds made available in this Act, 
     pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and ineligibility 
     procedures described in sections 9.400 through 9.409 of title 
     48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 508. The Departments of Commerce and Justice, the 
     National Science Foundation, and the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration, shall provide to the Committee on 
     Appropriations a quarterly accounting of the cumulative 
     balances of any unobligated funds that were received by such 
     agency during any previous fiscal year.
       Sec. 509. Any costs incurred by a department or agency 
     funded under this Act resulting from personnel actions taken 
     in response to funding reductions included in this Act shall 
     be absorbed within the total budgetary resources available to 
     such department or agency: Provided, That the authority to 
     transfer funds between appropriations accounts as may be 
     necessary to carry out this section is provided in addition 
     to authorities included elsewhere in this Act: Provided 
     further, That use of funds to carry out this section shall be 
     treated as a reprogramming of funds under section 505 of this 
     Act and shall

[[Page 20622]]

     not be available for obligation or expenditure except in 
     compliance with the procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 510. None of the funds provided by this Act shall be 
     available to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
     products, or to seek the reduction or removal by any foreign 
     country of restrictions on the marketing of tobacco or 
     tobacco products, except for restrictions which are not 
     applied equally to all tobacco or tobacco products of the 
     same type.
       Sec. 511. None of the funds appropriated pursuant to this 
     Act or any other provision of law may be used for--
       (1) the implementation of any tax or fee in connection with 
     the implementation of section 922(t) of title 18, United 
     States Code; and
       (2) any system to implement section 922(t) of title 18, 
     United States Code, that does not require and result in the 
     destruction of any identifying information submitted by or on 
     behalf of any person who has been determined not to be 
     prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm no more 
     than 24 hours after the system advises a Federal firearms 
     licensee that possession or receipt of a firearm by the 
     prospective transferee would not violate subsection (g) or 
     (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or State 
     law.
       Sec.  512. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel of the 
     Department of Justice to obligate more than $625,000,000 
     during fiscal year 2008 from the fund established by section 
     1402 of chapter XIV of title II of Public Law 98-473 (42 
     U.S.C. 10601).


                      Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe

  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Poe:
       Page 75, line 24, strike ``$625,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$635,000,000''.
       Page 76, line 2, insert ``, and the amount otherwise 
     provided under this Act for Department of Commerce, 
     Departmental Management, Salaries and Expenses is reduced by 
     $10,000,000'' after ``(42 U.S.C. 10601)''.

  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk briefly on the Poe-Costa-Moore 
amendment. As stated in the amendment, this is a bipartisan amendment. 
And I want to thank the gentleman from California and the gentleman 
from Kansas for their support for crime victims under this amendment 
and the VOCA fund.
  The VOCA fund was established under the Reagan administration. It's a 
novel concept where criminals who are convicted of crime pay fees into 
a fund that goes to victims of crime. It's kind of like criminals pay 
the rent on the courthouse, as they should. And so this fund has been 
established to supply victims and victims services throughout the 
country necessary funds for those victims and those projects.
  At this present time, the fund is up to $1.3 billion. But this year 
the fund is capped at $625 million for victims services and victims 
throughout the United States.
  This amendment is asking that 10 million more dollars be applied to 
this fund because of two reasons: Unfortunately, there are more crime 
victims in the United States than there ever have been. And also, by 
necessity, there are more programs that are victims services than ever 
have been in the United States.
  Over 4,400 different programs and agencies receive funding under the 
VOCA fund. Over 3 million victims receive funds from this fund every 
year. And this covers the gamut, from sexual assault victims to child 
victims, to robbery victims and victims and families of homicide.
  These funds are needed for these families. But they're also needed 
for domestic violence shelters. They're needed for child assessment 
centers. Those are centers throughout the United States that take 
sexually exploited children and help them through the process; not only 
the medical process, not only the psychological process, but the 
criminal justice system as well.
  There are 26 organizations that support an additional $10 million for 
this crime victims fund, because it is necessary to help victims 
throughout the United States. So under this amendment, we're asking for 
10 million additional dollars taken from human resources that would be 
applied to crime victims organizations throughout the United States and 
money for crime victims. This money, as I stated, is necessary. 
Unfortunately, it is necessary to help victims.
  As chairman of the Crime Victims Caucus, and my cochair Mr. Costa, 
and other Members like Mr. Moore from Kansas, we all support this 
additional funding for crime victims. Take it and place it where it is 
necessary.
  It is a novel concept to allow people who violate the law to 
contribute to a constant fund, and we want that to continue, but this 
year there needs to be 10 million additional dollars contributed to 
that fund so that numerous organizations that provide specifically 
victims services that funding has been cut in the past will be allowed 
to continue those victims services in the United States.

    List of Organizations Who Support the Poe-Costa-Moore Amendment

       American Probation and Parole Association; American Society 
     of Victimology; Break the Cycle; Jewish Women International; 
     Justice Solutions; Legal Momentum; Mothers Against Drunk 
     Driving; National Alliance to End Sexual Violence; National 
     Association of Crime Victim Compensation Boards; National 
     Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators; National 
     Center for Victims of Crime; National Children's Alliance; 
     and National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.
       National Congress of American Indians; National Criminal 
     Justice Association; National Grange; National Judicial 
     College; National Network to End Domestic Violence; National 
     Organization for Victim Assistance; National Organization of 
     Parents of Murdered Children, Inc.; Pennsylvania Coalition 
     Against Rape; Rape Abuse & Incest National Network; Sacred 
     Circle, National Resource Center to End Violence Against 
     Native Women; Security On Campus, Inc.; Stop Family Violence; 
     and YWCA USA.

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment, again, not 
because of the intended purpose of the gentleman trying to do good here 
and getting additional resources into the crime victims fund. That's 
worthy.
  It's being authorized at $625 million, this amendment would raise it 
to $635 million. And you might ask, if there are additional resources, 
why don't we disperse all of them?
  Well, that's because that fund has to be managed to ensure that 
there's a source of funds that will remain available for the program 
despite the inconsistent levels of the criminal fees that are deposited 
there annually. So part of that is trying to manage the account to 
assure stability year in and year out so that funds will be available 
for victims to be paid out according to the authority.
  I would like to point out that the gentleman's offset draws from an 
account that has been drawn from in the past, and it is the offset is 
in Commerce. We started out at $58.6 million at the beginning of the 
day. We've had a $25 million cut, a $10 million cut. This cut would 
take us down to $23 million, if my math is right. But if my math is not 
precisely right, my point should be taken that we've gone from $58.6 
million down to approximately $23 million in this S&E account. That's a 
60 percent reduction. There is going to be nobody left to administer 
these programs. And that's why we have to think very carefully.
  And actually, folks coming here and offering amendments go through 
the same difficult exercise that the subcommittee and the full 
committee have gone through. How do you apportion funds when I would 
argue, the allocation is not adequate to fund all the worthy projects 
and to fund all of the people who need to administer the worthy 
projects in this bill?
  A 60 percent cut the gentleman's amendment would effect in this S&E 
account, it simply cannot stand. So for that reason, I must oppose the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment 
because I believe we should respect state authority in regards to 
medical marijuana.
  Like my constituents, I believe that doctors should be permitted to 
prescribe marijuana for patients suffering from cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, 
spastic disorders, and other devastating diseases.
  The people that I represent from Marin and Sonoma counties have made 
it clear that they want doctors to be permitted to prescribe marijuana 
for their patients suffering from debilitating diseases, and I believe 
that the Federal Government must not stand in the way.

[[Page 20623]]

  I support this amendment because it would stop the Justice Department 
from punishing those who are abiding by their state's law. Please join 
me in supporting this important amendment so that those who suffer from 
debilitating diseases can continue to get relief without the fear of 
federal interference.
  The Federal Government should get its priorities straight--and stop 
going after fully licensed physicians and their patients instead of the 
real criminals.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Poe-Costa-
Moore amendment to the CJS Appropriations Act. The Victims of Crime Act 
(VOCA) Fund was created by Congress in 1984 to provide Federal support 
to Federal, State, tribal and local programs that assist victims of 
crime. And this fund is derived entirely from fines and penalties paid 
by offenders at the Federal level, not taxpayer revenues.
  VOCA funds several important national programs, such as the 
Children's Justice Act, Victim Notification System, and the U.S. 
Attorney's office. It also funds Victim Compensation Grants that 
provide funds to states to reimburse victims for out-of-pocket 
expenses, primarily medical costs and lost wages. Finally, Victim 
Assistance Grants to states are also funded through VOCA. These grants 
go to States which support direct victim assistance services. It is 
estimated that 4,400 agencies depend on continued VOCA Victim 
Assistance Grant funding to serve 3.8 million victims a year.
  Congress began setting a cap in the appropriations process on the 
amount dispersed to States annually from the Fund in order to ensure 
stable funding for victim service providers in the field. Both the 
House and the Senate CJS subcommittees have included a $625 million cap 
for FY 2008. This would be the fifth year in a row without an increase 
in the total VOCA cap.
  Due to increasing claims, VOCA Compensation Grants rose $22.3 million 
in FY07 and are expected to rise by at least $5.6 million in FY08. The 
Poe-Costa Amendment will increase the VOCA cap by $10 million in FY 
2008 to help prevent cuts to VOCA Victim Assistance Grants.
  Crime victims are our sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, 
parents and neighbors who are struggling to survive in the aftermath of 
crime. They deserve services, and our support to help them cope. I urge 
all of my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. POE. 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 Texas will be postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 513. None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Justice in this Act may be used to discriminate 
     against or denigrate the religious or moral beliefs of 
     students who participate in programs for which financial 
     assistance is provided from those funds, or of the parents or 
     legal guardians of such students.
       Sec. 514. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government, except pursuant to a 
     transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act 
     or any other appropriations Act.
       Sec. 515. Any funds provided in this Act used to implement 
     E-Government Initiatives shall be subject to the procedures 
     set forth in section 505 of this Act.
       Sec. 516. (a) Tracing studies conducted by the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are released 
     without adequate disclaimers regarding the limitations of the 
     data.
       (b) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 
     shall include in all such data releases, language similar to 
     the following that would make clear that trace data cannot be 
     used to draw broad conclusions about firearms-related crime:
       (1) Firearm traces are designed to assist law enforcement 
     authorities in conducting investigations by tracking the sale 
     and possession of specific firearms. Law enforcement agencies 
     may request firearms traces for any reason, and those reasons 
     are not necessarily reported to the Federal Government. Not 
     all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms 
     traced are used in crime.
       (2) Firearms selected for tracing are not chosen for 
     purposes of determining which types, makes, or models of 
     firearms are used for illicit purposes. The firearms selected 
     do not constitute a random sample and should not be 
     considered representative of the larger universe of all 
     firearms used by criminals, or any subset of that universe. 
     Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and 
     sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily 
     represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general 
     are acquired for use in crime.
       Sec. 517. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act may be used to issue patents on 
     claims directed to or encompassing a human organism.
       Sec. 518. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be used in any way whatsoever to support or justify the 
     use of torture by any official or contract employee of the 
     United States Government.
       Sec. 519. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     treaty, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act or any other Act may be expended or 
     obligated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States to pay administrative expenses or to compensate 
     an officer or employee of the United States in connection 
     with requiring an export license for the export to Canada of 
     components, parts, accessories or attachments for firearms 
     listed in Category I, section 121.1 of title 22, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (International Trafficking in Arms 
     Regulations (ITAR), part 121, as it existed on April 1, 2005) 
     with a total value not exceeding $500 wholesale in any 
     transaction, provided that the conditions of subsection (b) 
     of this section are met by the exporting party for such 
     articles.
       (b) The foregoing exemption from obtaining an export 
     license--
       (1) does not exempt an exporter from filing any Shipper's 
     Export Declaration or notification letter required by law, or 
     from being otherwise eligible under the laws of the United 
     States to possess, ship, transport, or export the articles 
     enumerated in subsection (a); and
       (2) does not permit the export without a license of--
       (A) fully automatic firearms and components and parts for 
     such firearms, other than for end use by the Federal 
     Government, or a Provincial or Municipal Government of 
     Canada;
       (B) barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames) or complete 
     breech mechanisms for any firearm listed in Category I, other 
     than for end use by the Federal Government, or a Provincial 
     or Municipal Government of Canada; or
       (C) articles for export from Canada to another foreign 
     destination.
       (c) In accordance with this section, the District Directors 
     of Customs and postmasters shall permit the permanent or 
     temporary export without a license of any unclassified 
     articles specified in subsection (a) to Canada for end use in 
     Canada or return to the United States, or temporary import of 
     Canadian-origin items from Canada for end use in the United 
     States or return to Canada for a Canadian citizen.
       (d) The President may require export licenses under this 
     section on a temporary basis if the President determines, 
     upon publication first in the Federal Register, that the 
     Government of Canada has implemented or maintained inadequate 
     import controls for the articles specified in subsection (a), 
     such that a significant diversion of such articles has and 
     continues to take place for use in international terrorism or 
     in the escalation of a conflict in another nation. The 
     President shall terminate the requirements of a license when 
     reasons for the temporary requirements have ceased.
       Sec. 520. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States 
     receiving appropriated funds under this Act or any other Act 
     shall obligate or expend in any way such funds to pay 
     administrative expenses or the compensation of any officer or 
     employee of the United States to deny any application 
     submitted pursuant to section 38(b)(1) of the Arms Control 
     Export Act (22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(1)(B)) and qualified pursuant 
     to 27 C.F.R. 478.112 or 478.113, for a permit to import 
     United States origin ``curios or relics'' firearms, parts, or 
     ammunition.
       Sec. 521. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to include in any new bilateral or multilateral trade 
     agreement the text of--
       (1) paragraph 2 of article 16.7 of the United States-
     Singapore Free Trade Agreement;
       (2) paragraph 4 of article 17.9 of the United States-
     Australia Free Trade Agreement; or
       (3) paragraph 4 of article 15.9 of the United States-
     Morocco Free Trade Agreement.
       Sec. 522. Section 313(a) of the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2459f(a)) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph 
     (2).
       Sec. 523. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to authorize or issue a national security letter in 
     contravention of any of the following laws authorizing the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation to issue national security 
     letters: The Right to Financial Privacy Act; The Electronic 
     Communications Privacy Act; The Fair Credit Reporting Act; 
     The National Security Act of 1947; and the laws amended by 
     these Acts.
       Sec. 524. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement the revision to Office of Management and 
     Budget Circular A-76 made on May 29, 2003.

[[Page 20624]]

       Sec. 525. Section 101(k) of the Emergency Steel Loan 
     Guarantee Act of 1999 (15 U.S.C. 1841 note) is amended by 
     striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2009''.
       Sec. 526. Section 605 of the Harmful Algal Bloom and 
     Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 1451 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``$25,500,000 for fiscal year 2008'' and inserting 
     ``$30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010'';
       (2) in each of paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (6) by 
     striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2010''; and
       (3) in paragraph (5) by striking ``fiscal year 2008'' and 
     inserting ``each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010''.
       Sec. 527. Effective January 13, 2007, section 303A of the 
     Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1853a) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``association'' in subsection 
     (c)(4)(A)(iii) and inserting ``association, among willing 
     parties'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2) of subsection (i);
       (3) by striking ``(1) In general.--'' in subsection (i) and 
     resetting paragraph (1) as a full measure paragraph following 
     ``(i) Transition Rules.--''; and
       (4) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of 
     subsection (i)(1) (before its amendment by paragraph (3)) as 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively and resetting them 
     as indented paragraphs 2 ems from the left margin.
       Sec. 528. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract with an entity that does not 
     participate in the basic pilot program described in section 
     403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Reichert

  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Reichert:
       Page 83, after line 6, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 529. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for 
     ``Departmental Management--salaries and expenses'', and by 
     increasing the amount made available for ``Office on Violence 
     Against Women--violence against women prevention and 
     prosecution programs'' for the court training and 
     improvements program authorized by section 105 of the 
     Violence Against Women and Department of Justice 
     Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162), by 
     $5,000,000.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, as a former sheriff of King County in 
Seattle, Washington, and a member of the Congressional Victims' Rights 
Caucus, I am proud to offer this amendment along with my colleague from 
Connecticut, Congressman Murphy, to provide $5 million to fully fund 
the Court Training and Improvements Program, offset from the Department 
of Commerce departmental management salaries and expenses account.
  The Court Training and Improvements Program enhances our courts' 
ability to keep victims of domestic and sexual abuse safe and to hold 
offenders accountable. It was authorized early last year as a part of 
the Violence Against Women Act but has not yet been funded. Mr. 
Chairman, this program must be funded.
  I spent 33 years of my life working in law enforcement, and during 
that time I walked into many unpredictable domestic violence 
situations. Responding to a domestic violence call is one of the most 
dangerous calls a police officer can go to. Domestic violence cases 
have their own unique challenges, and we in law enforcement have had to 
learn specific strategies for how to deal with those situations. People 
are physically and mentally harmed and homes are torn apart. I have 
seen how domestic and sexual abuse not only affects spouses but the 
children, the families, and the lives of the entire community. Safe 
homes and families are the root of a safe society.
  Statistics show that every year almost 1 million incidents of 
violence occur against current and former spouses, boyfriends, girl 
friends, and each year nearly 10 million children are exposed to 
domestic violence. We need to implement and fund every tool at our 
disposal to combat this terrible problem.
  One of the key ways to reduce the impact of domestic violence is to 
ensure that our justice system has the tools to deal with these cases. 
Too often lives hang in the balance as judges and court personnel make 
decisions without an understanding of the dynamics of abuse and 
violence in relationships. Judges themselves have repeatedly cited a 
need and a desire for specialized knowledge and judicial education 
regarding sex offenders and victims.
  The desperate need for trained judges and court personnel was 
recently brought to light in the tragic case of Yvette Cade. On the 
morning of October 10, 2005, Yvette was doused with gasoline and set on 
fire by her estranged husband while at work here in the suburbs of 
Washington, D.C. At the time of the attack, she had a protection order 
out against him, but a judge had dismissed her protection order 3 weeks 
before, saying she didn't need it. This judge had likened victims of 
domestic violence to buses that come along all the time. Cade's husband 
was recently sent to prison for attempted murder.
  Better-trained judges are essential if we are to keep victims and 
children alive and hold abusers and rapists accountable for their 
behavior. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to improve our 
courts, protect the victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, 
prevent future crimes, and ensure that perpetrators are appropriately 
punished.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
amendment. First I would like to thank Chairman Mollohan.
  This bill is a vast improvement on previous efforts to fund domestic 
violence efforts. It goes a very long way. And we rise today with my 
colleague Mr. Reichert to simply ask that we fund yet one more 
important program that has been authorized.
  As a child, Mr. Chairman, I remember sitting at home with a baby-
sitter while my mother went off to volunteer in a domestic violence 
shelter, and that memory still stays with me today. Victims of domestic 
violence require and are entitled to special assistance when dealing 
with their trauma. However, judges and court personnel need specialized 
training to deal with these victims in a way that both preserves 
justice and addresses the severe trauma associated with these crimes.
  Some States have already put programs in place to deal with the 
special needs of these domestic violence victims. My home State of 
Connecticut is amongst those that has been pioneering these types of 
programs. In the biggest city in my district, Waterbury, we have a 
program through which law enforcement personnel, prosecutors, family 
services organizations, probation officers, and domestic violence 
advocates all review cases together in an effort to reveal more 
information about the perpetrator to ensure that victims are protected 
from further abuse. What makes the Waterbury operation so outstanding 
is the vertical case management model that should serve as an example 
to the rest of the country, a model that could be funded under the 
proposed appropriation in this amendment.
  Congressman Reichert and I are offering this amendment today so that 
States can have a partner in the Federal Government. Our amendment will 
fund the Court Improvements Program to train judges and court personnel 
to better identify and resolve the complex issues involved in domestic 
violence cases.
  Congress has a responsibility to recognize the unique and horrific 
nature of domestic violence crimes, and we have done that in the 
underlying appropriation bill today with a new investment in domestic 
violence programs. Our amendment today simply seeks to fund yet one 
more innovative program to make sure that courts, prosecutors, domestic 
violence advocates, and the victims themselves all have the resources 
necessary to navigate what can be sometimes a very complex system.

[[Page 20625]]

  I urge adoption.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of 
order?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman withdraws his point of order and is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  If I might, for the Department of Commerce here, the S&E account is 
now down to $18 million if the last two amendments are adopted and you 
add it to the offsets that were affected by the amendments that have 
already passed. The Department of Commerce S&E account, they are just 
going to have to shut down their office again. I would just encourage 
Members, when they offer these amendments, to get serious about the 
offsets. And, my goodness, I don't know what would have happened to 
President Bush's budget if we had not increased it, because his S&E 
account would have been really decimated in increasing the Violence 
Against Women account. We increased VAWA by $60 million over the 
President's request, $47 million over 2007.
  I understand that our colleagues who are offering these amendments 
are absolutely in the forefront of protecting women. As we oppose these 
amendments, at the same time we embrace your cause and that that is why 
we have worked so hard in effecting these funding increases above the 
President's request. If we had a larger allocation, we would put more 
money on these accounts.
  Having said all that, and because the offset is so draconian to the 
Department of Commerce, I will continue to oppose amendments with these 
negative offsets. If we aren't able to restore the salaries and 
administrative accounts to the extent these amendments are successful, 
the Department of Commerce would have to shut down. That is how, as I 
have used the word before, cavalier we are being about these offsets.
  Mr. Chairman, while I certainly support the cause and the purposes of 
the programs these amendments are increasing funding for, I have to 
oppose them because of the offsets and because we don't have enough 
resources to go around, a point which is demonstrated by the offsets 
that these amendments are having to resort to.
  I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. REICHERT. 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 Washington will be 
postponed.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         TITLE VI--RESCISSIONS

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available to the Department of 
     Commerce from prior year appropriations, $41,848,000 are 
     rescinded: Provided, That within 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this section the Secretary of Commerce shall 
     submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives a report specifying the amount of each 
     rescission made pursuant to this section.

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available to the Department of 
     Justice from prior year appropriations, $86,000,000 are 
     rescinded: Provided, That within 30 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this section the Attorney General shall 
     submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate a report specifying the amount 
     of each rescission made pursuant to this section.

                         General Administration


                          working capital fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $41,000,000 are rescinded.


                           detention trustee

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available from prior year 
     appropriations under this heading, $135,000,000 are 
     rescinded.

                            Legal Activities


                         assets forfeiture fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $240,000,000 are rescinded.

                       Office of Justice Programs


                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated recoveries from prior year 
     appropriations available under this heading, $87,500,000 are 
     rescinded.


                  community oriented policing services

                             (rescissions)

       Of the unobligated recoveries from prior year 
     appropriations available under this heading for purposes 
     other than program management and administration, $87,500,000 
     are rescinded.
       Of the unobligated funds previously appropriated from the 
     Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund under this heading, 
     $10,278,000 are rescinded.

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration


                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration from prior year 
     appropriations, $69,832,000 are rescinded: Provided, That 
     within 30 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     section the Administrator shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report 
     specifying the amount of each rescission made pursuant to 
     this section.

                      National Science Foundation


                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available to the National 
     Science Foundation from prior year appropriations, 
     $24,000,000 are rescinded: Provided, That within 30 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this section the Director 
     shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the House 
     of Representatives a report specifying the amount of each 
     rescission made pursuant to this section.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Lampson

  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Lampson:
       Page 85, after line 24, insert the following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for business-class or first-class airline travel by 
     employees of the Department of Commerce in contravention of 
     sections 301-10.122 through 301.10-124 of title 41, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.

  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, as we consider today's appropriations 
bill, we are all mindful of how harmful wasteful government spending is 
to hardworking American families. In fact, just this morning I was 
joined by the majority leader and some of my Blue Dog Coalition 
colleagues to highlight many of the smart, fiscally responsible 
initiatives our new majority is pursuing in Congress this year. 
American citizens expect the Congress to be good stewards of taxpayer 
dollars, and when we allow deceptive fiscal practices to continue in 
our government, we set a bad example for our Nation and create a 
reckless blueprint for future spending.
  That is why I have introduced this amendment to today's bill, which 
will clarify guidelines for premium travel by Department of Commerce 
employees. The Department's Inspector General March 2007 report showed 
that these guidelines are not being followed or controlled properly. In 
fact, the report has a specific section entitled ``The Department Needs 
to Tighten Controls, Update Guidance for Premium-Class Travel,'' and 
includes very glaring findings, notably numerous instances in which the 
Department failed to authorize or approve properly premium-class 
travel. The report concludes that the two primary reasons for these 
oversights are outdated policy and poorly implemented internal 
controls.
  Thankfully, Mr. Chairman, there is a simple solution here that can 
save the taxpayers their hard-earned dollars and continue good 
government practices, and it is embodied in my amendment. This 
amendment offers a direct method of guidance by referencing the Code of 
Federal Regulations 301-10.122 to 10.124 to withhold funds for such 
premium travel for Department of Commerce employees. A similar 
amendment applying to Department of State employees was passed by voice 
vote last year

[[Page 20626]]

when the House considered the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations 
bill.
  As we continue to tackle large instances of taxpayer dollar waste and 
abuse, let's not overlook the small steps that we can take that will 
help lead the way for good government practices.
  I thank my colleagues for their attention to this quick and simple 
way to practice better fiscal responsibility. I ask for support for my 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment.
  I yield to the ranking member.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the 
amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Boswell

  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boswell:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for the 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--General Administration--salaries and 
     expenses'', by increasing the amount made available for 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Office of Justice Programs--
     community oriented policing services'', and by increasing the 
     amount made available for paragraph (5) of the last proviso 
     under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Office of Justice 
     Programs--community oriented policing services'' by 
     ``$1,000,000'', ``$1,000,000'', and ``$1,000,000'', 
     respectively.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey reserves a point of 
order.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I've just conferred with the Chair of the 
subcommittee, and he has asked me to offer it and withdraw it, and we 
will work on it before we go to conference. So out of my respect for 
him and the ranking member, of course I will do that.
  I would just like to say this: In the last 2 years, we have done a 
little bit more than this for this good cause, and it's something 
that's helping law enforcement out across the country. And it's not big 
bucks, it's pretty small. But then again, you've got to work with where 
you're at. But it does increase law enforcement agencies' access to 
records on persons who pose a risk to local communities. I can assure 
you that the law enforcement agencies need this access, as we think 
about the things that happen to our children and older folks and so on, 
to be able to access that good information.
  So with my appreciation, Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent 
to withdraw, with looking forward to working on this at a later point.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOSWELL. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. The committee has heard the gentleman. In years past 
the gentleman has been very concerned. He has asked for increases to 
the Criminal Records Upgrade Program grants, and the committee has been 
very receptive to that. Indeed, the committee this year has increased 
funding for this program by $2.1 million over 2007, which in part was 
an effort to be responsive to the gentleman's consistently expressed 
concerns about this, and genuine concerns, about this account.
  If the gentleman has looked at this carefully, we respect his 
expertise in this area, and we would be interested in visiting with him 
as we move this to conference and understanding more clearly the 
justification for an additional increase.
  And because of who the gentleman is, I have no doubt that his reasons 
are valid. And so we look forward to working with him to find a better 
offset and to be responsive to his needs, if at all possible, as we 
move to and through conference.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Well, I know your sincerity, and I know the ranking 
member's sincerity in this area. You have worked very hard on it. And I 
accept that, with appreciation.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, I just want to emphasize that in response to your 
efforts, we've increased it this year above last year, so we've already 
been successful.
  Mr. BOSWELL. We will have some interesting discussion, and I look 
forward to it. Thank you for letting me have this moment.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Gingrey

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia reserves a point of 
order.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Gingrey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used by the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
     Firearms and Explosives to pay the compensation of employees 
     of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to 
     test and examine firearms without written and published 
     testing standards.

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 
and Explosives, BATFE, has been in operation without substantial 
changes since the days of prohibition, bootlegging and gang violence in 
the 1920s and 1930s.
  Last year the House Judiciary Committee considered legislation that 
would have introduced real reform to BATFE, updating the agency for the 
21st century, although time ran out before Congress could get anything 
accomplished.
  One issue of reform I remain particularly concerned about is how 
BATFE actually tests firearms submitted by law-abiding firearm 
designers and manufacturers seeking approval to put their product on 
the market.
  Mr. Chairman, without written and uniform standards, gun 
manufacturers are left guessing about which agent will inspect the 
firearm this week, whether or not they will be able to ship a product 
out to potential customers, and whether or not BATFE agents might even 
prosecute someone because of a shipping mistake or a firearm 
malfunction. So I have introduced legislation called the Fairness in 
Firearms Testing Act to address this problem, and it requires BATFE, 
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to actually 
videotape firearms tests for the purpose of general oversight, and 
encourage the agency to adopt these testing standards. However, the 
amendment I'm offering today would cut right to the point by 
withholding funds to BATFE if they do not write and publish these 
testing standards.
  More specifically, this amendment creates a level playing field for 
all United States firearm manufacturers who depend on getting a firearm 
patented and on the market as soon as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, without written procedures, BATFE has literally a free 
rein to mistreat manufacturers, change their mind after the fact, and 
leave both manufacturers and customers at a legal and financial 
disadvantage. In fact, BATFE regulations are so inconsistent that some 
manufacturers have been threatened with prosecution after receiving 
written approval for their products from other BATFE personnel.
  Since 2002, 85 percent of American firearm manufacturers have been 
forced to close their doors. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. Since 
2002, 85

[[Page 20627]]

percent of American firearm manufacturers have been forced to close 
their doors. There are only 373 licensed firearm inventors and 
manufacturers left in America. Moreover, with the increase in number of 
imported firearms purchased by civilians and law enforcement alike, our 
Nation is at a strategic defensive disadvantage.
  Mr. Chairman, I realize that the chairman has reserved a point of 
order, and he will explain that, I'm sure, momentarily, but it's my 
understanding that if I do agree to withdraw this amendment, that the 
chairman and the committee will work with me to help bring reforms to 
the BATFE, including these written standards, to help United States 
firearm manufacturers. I would be happy to yield to the chairman and to 
engage in a colloquy with him regarding that. Otherwise, in the absence 
of an agreement, then certainly I want to go forward with my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. We would, at that point, talk about the point of order 
a little more.
  We want to be responsive to the gentleman. I have not gotten deeply 
into his concerns, so I'm not sure exactly where he's coming from on 
this. But I can commit to him that we're willing to talk about it, 
we're willing to understand more clearly what his concerns are and in 
good faith work with him. And if there is an accommodation, we 
certainly want to make it in good faith. But I certainly cannot 
telegraph or represent to the gentleman an outcome; I can only promise 
him the process to work with him in good faith on this issue.
  Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand exactly 
what the chairman is saying. I'm not necessarily expecting any hard and 
fast promises on his behalf.
  And I didn't mean, Mr. Chairman, for the amendment to catch the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee by surprise in 
any way, not to be blind-sided or coming up at the last minute. We've 
had the amendment, we filed the amendment. In fact, I had, Mr. 
Chairman, introduced legislation pertaining specifically to this effect 
last year in the 109th Congress, so this amendment basically is a 
follow-up to that legislation.
  I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia, the distinguished 
chairman. I appreciate your spirit of cooperation. And I know there are 
some concerns about the amendment, I appreciate that. But I welcome 
your support on this matter, and I look forward to working with you. 
Let's discuss it and make sure you understand exactly where I'm coming 
from in regard to the amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense, and I 
hope I can convince you of the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Sali

  Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. Of the funds appropriated in this Act for ``state 
     and local law enforcement assistance'', $2,000,000 shall be 
     available to provide grants to develop, expand, and 
     strengthen victim service programs for victims of 
     trafficking, as authorized by section 107(b) of the 
     Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 
     7105(b)).

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia reserves a point of 
order.
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, our great country was founded on the 
recognition of the most basic rights of mankind, that all persons are 
created equal and endowed by their Creator, with the rights of life, 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet for decades this conviction 
wasn't perfectly realized because of the blight of slavery, which we 
fought a civil war to end.
  Tragically, this is not just a long-past episode in human history. 
Human trafficking, frequently referred to as modern-day slavery, is an 
ugly reality not only in the developing world, but also in the United 
States. Our country is the destination of thousands of people 
trafficked for purposes of sexual and labor exploitation.
  Between October 2000 and March 2007, the U.S. Department of Health 
and Human Services had certified nearly 1,200 victims of human 
trafficking. As Americans, we must defend the dignity of human life.
  With my amendment, I propose to designate $2 million of the monies 
appropriated in this bill for the formation of a task force to combat 
this barbaric trade coming across our borders in the States of 
Washington, Idaho and Montana. This task force would join 42 other such 
task forces nationwide in serving as a cooperative effort between State 
and local governments, NGOs and compassionate citizens all working 
together.
  The northern border of our country is a point of entry for this 
horrific practice. In 2004, it was estimated there were between 1,500 
and 22,000 people trafficked through Canada to the United States, 
numbers that some observers believe significantly understate the 
problem.
  Currently, however, there are no human trafficking task forces along 
most of the northern borders of Washington, Idaho and Montana, yet 
these same States cover more than half of the northern land border of 
the United States, hundreds of miles of which are extremely rural and 
rugged, being patrolled only by officers on horseback or even on foot, 
if patrolled at all. Given the rural nature of these northern borders, 
opportunities for human trafficking continue, with few resources 
available to the many rural communities along the same border.
  By my amendment, I seek to make $2 million in the DOJ budget 
available in grant funds to establish the Tristate Task force to 
provide training and resources to rural communities in Washington, 
Idaho and Montana to combat human trafficking. This important task 
force will work to coordinate local efforts to combat modern-day 
slavery.
  This measure goes to the heart of equality, dignity and worth of 
every person. I ask my colleagues to join me today in the defense of 
these essential American values and support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  The gentleman raises an interesting concern. We have just been handed 
this amendment. We would be pleased to work with the gentleman as we 
move forward.

                              {time}  2030

  In response to his withdrawing the amendment, we are going to have to 
insist on our point of order if we don't proceed in that fashion. I 
hope the gentleman will allow us to work with him.
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would agree to 
work with the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the 
     States of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, 
     Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, 
     and Washington, to prevent such States from implementing 
     their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, 
     possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I am introducing an amendment that is 
designed to protect States' rights and to provide people across our 
country in these 12 States that have passed laws authorizing the use of 
marijuana for

[[Page 20628]]

medicinal purposes to have access to that medical use.
  It is a very simple, very serious proposal. The Constitution of the 
United States is very clear. It authorizes States' rights in every 
other area that is not specifically designated to the Federal 
Government. One of those main areas is health care. The States have the 
authority to take care of their own people and to make sure that they 
have access to the best possible health care.
  The amendment is supported by a number of other important 
organizations across the country, in addition to organizations in those 
12 States of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, 
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington that 
have passed laws authorizing the medicinal use of this product. Two of 
those States have passed it through their legislatures. The other 10 
have passed it by means of referendum. In other words, the people 
themselves have passed this in referendum.
  This is an amendment that really should be adopted. It doesn't do 
anything to stimulate any violations of the law. It just says those 
States ought to be able to determine how to take care of their own 
people. There are a variety of ways in which that can be done to make 
sure that they get proper attention.
  I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding and also for his leadership and for continuing to beat the 
drum on this very, very important issue.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about allowing State governments to 
provide relief for a small, very important group of people who are 
suffering from chronic pain or terminal illness. This amendment does 
not encourage or make legal the recreational use of marijuana. Eleven 
States, including my home State of California, have legalized medical 
marijuana, with clear guidelines for doctors' approval before usage.
  For example, a constituent from Oakland, Angel Raich, has been 
diagnosed with more than 10 serious medical conditions, including an 
inoperable brain tumor. Ms. Raich and others who use medical marijuana 
are simply trying to relieve their crushing pain while following the 
guidelines and laws that their doctors and the States have already 
established. Taxpayer dollars shouldn't be spent on sending seriously 
or terminally ill patients to jail. Their doctors, not Congress, should 
decide which drugs will work best.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment 
and ensure that patients' rights are upheld. This is the right thing to 
do. This is the compassionate thing to do. This is about health care.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New York again for 
once again offering this amendment.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to make it 
clear that there are many dozens of organizations that are focused on 
health care and constitutional rights across the country; not just in 
those 12 States, but in a lot of other places, as well, who have 
endorsed this idea and support this amendment.
  They include the American Nurses Association, the American Public 
Health Association, and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Medical 
societies all across this country have endorsed this amendment because 
they know it is in the best interests of people suffering from diseases 
such as AIDS, cancer, glaucoma and others that can be relieved of pain 
and suffering and be of assistance in recovering from the debilitating 
aspects of these diseases.
  It simply makes good common sense for us to authorize this amendment. 
I hope that the majority of the Members in this House of 
Representatives will now take this opportunity to support good health 
care for Americans and also support this basic provision of the 
Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, not only does this amendment hurt law enforcement's 
efforts to combat drug trafficking, but it sends the wrong message. 
Marijuana is the most widely abused drug in the United States. 
According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, which is under the 
jurisdiction of our committee, more young people are now in treatment 
for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or for all other illegal 
drugs combined.
  This amendment does not address the problem of marijuana abuse and 
possibly makes it worse by sending the message to young people that 
there can be health benefits from smoking marijuana.
  Our committee received a letter last week from John Walters, director 
of the Office of National Drug Control Policy opposing the gentleman's 
amendment. He warns of the potential public health impacts of 
encouraging the unfounded belief that smoking marijuana is a safe and 
effective medicine, contrary to prevailing expert opinion.
  Last year, our own FDA stated: ``Smoked cannabis has no acceptable 
medical use in treatment in the United States,'' and that no animal or 
human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana for general 
medical use. Furthermore, the FDA has not approved smoked marijuana for 
any condition or disease indication.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from New York have 3 additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York is 
recognized for 3 additional minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that the people 
who are opposed to this amendment, including the gentleman who just 
spoke, apparently do not understand what we are doing here.
  This amendment does not affect States, other than those that have 
passed laws with respect to medical marijuana, only those 12 States. 
This amendment would not require or encourage other States to adopt 
medical marijuana laws. This amendment would not stop law enforcement 
officials from prosecuting the illegal use of marijuana. This amendment 
does not encourage drug use in children. Teen use of marijuana has 
declined in States that have passed medical marijuana laws, and in some 
of those States it has declined dramatically.
  The purpose of this amendment is to allow these States to give relief 
to people suffering from horrific diseases without fearing Federal 
intervention or prosecution. At stake in this debate is who should be 
deciding what is best for patients: Should it be the patients 
themselves, the doctors, or should it be arbitrarily somebody in the 
Federal Government?
  Support this amendment and support States' rights and compassion. 
Doctors in these 12 States know what is best for their patients. The 
Federal Government should not stand in their way.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I had a dear friend named Oral James 
Mitchell, Jr. Oral James Mitchell, Jr., was a Navy SEAL. He fought in 
Vietnam. Oral James Mitchell, Jr., got pancreatic cancer. He lived in 
Bethesda, Maryland, a 210-pound strapping man that you would want on 
your side in a fight, and I have had on my side in a fight, and this 
country had on its side in a fight in the Vietnam War.
  When he had pancreatic cancer, he smoked marijuana. And his 88-year-
old Irish Catholic mother said to me, ``Thank God for the marijuana. It 
is the only thing that makes Oral smile or eat.''
  I watched that man go down to 115 pounds and die. And Mrs. Mitchell 
was correct. As he was dying of pancreatic

[[Page 20629]]

cancer, if he was in a State that made it legal, States' rights say 
they should have some authority, and Brandeis said States are the 
laboratories of democracy. And as laboratories of democracy, we ought 
to experiment and find out if it works and if it is good for people who 
are dying, if it gives them some relief. If it is glaucoma, if it is 
cancer, whatever the illness, they should have that relief.
  I would ask that we not have the Federal Government and DEA infringe 
on the laws of the States that have had changes in their laws, 
oftentimes through referenda of their people, and we allow those States 
to be the laboratories of democracy and not interfere with people who 
are dying, people who might have given their lives for this country, 
but who are dying and get some respite and some relief.
  So I ask you to pass this and allow States to have rights and people 
to have some relief in their dying days.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  I just want to say a few words about marijuana. First of all, it does 
cause cancer. I have seen it. I have seen people with lung cancer, no 
risk other than they were chronic marijuana smokers.
  Additionally, the last time we were debating this bill, I called one 
of my former colleagues in my medical practice who is an oncologist, I 
had three oncologists, and I asked him for the latest information on 
cannabis, or THC. He again informed me this is available in pill form. 
You can actually get it in pill form. Additionally, it is not a very 
good antiemetic and not a good appetite stimulator. There are about 18 
different products legally available that doctors can prescribe.
  By and large, most of the people who want to use this want to get 
high and there are consequences to letting this move forward.
  Saying that this State and this State allows this, we need to 
remember something: States govern where you practice medicine. If I 
want to practice medicine here, I have got to get a license in the 
District of Columbia. If I want to open a satellite office, I have got 
to get a license in Maryland or Virginia. But the Federal Government 
regulates prescribing, for obvious reasons. If the patient comes in to 
see me here and lives in Virginia, they are going to go over to a 
pharmacy there. So the Federal Government has always regulated this.
  There are significant consequences to making this product widely 
available, and that is what this amendment will do. This is a very, 
very bad amendment. Marijuana has been implicated in railroad 
accidents. It has been implicated in car accidents. It is documented to 
have an adverse effect on memory.
  Jeepers, we have people dying in this country from the effects of 
cigarettes. We have people dying in this country from the effects of 
alcohol. We have people in this body wanting to ban cigarettes and ban 
smoking. And now we are going to take action to allow another dangerous 
substance on the market? And there is an agenda of the people who are 
behind these kinds of amendments.

                              {time}  2045

  They want to legalize marijuana, and they want to make another 
dangerous product available to our society. I think that this is a bad 
direction for us to go in. This a bad amendment and a dangerous 
amendment. I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, which would prohibit any funds made 
available in this act to be used to prevent implementation of legally 
passed State laws in those 12 States that have authorized the use of 
marijuana for medical purposes.
  The Founding Fathers wanted criminal law to be the domain of local 
and State governments. Sick and infirm people who live in the 12 States 
that have been granted by the voters in these States the legal right to 
use marijuana to alleviate their suffering if a doctor agrees, we 
should not make them targets of prosecution. If the voters in a State 
have so voted, and a doctor agrees, it is a travesty for the Federal 
Government to waste scarce Federal resources to harass sick people, 
elderly cancer patients and frail, multiple sclerosis sufferers and 
prevent them from getting the relief their personal doctors have 
recommended.
  We have heard here hysterical talk about how voting for this 
amendment will somehow prevent the Federal Government from being able 
to go after narcotics traffickers. That is nonsense. The DEA would 
still have the power to arrest anyone selling marijuana for 
recreational use, as well as anyone selling cocaine or any other drugs. 
After all, although related to opium, yes, and even heroin, morphine is 
already used legally in hospitals throughout the United States. That 
does not mean that we are going to open up the whole country to heroin 
because we allow hospitals to use morphine.
  Whether morphine or marijuana, the fact is that Federal resources 
could be better used and shouldn't be wasted on arresting sick people 
or their doctors. Those Federal resources, if this amendment passes, 
can be redirected away from these people, but to major drug traffickers 
or crime syndicates. That makes a lot more sense than trying to stop 
somebody or arrest somebody who has a doctor's prescription because 
they are suffering from cancer treatment. It makes more sense to focus 
on the drug dealers, for Pete's sake.
  Here in the House there is a wide coalition of Republicans and 
Democrats, conservatives and liberals, and this number has grown year 
by year, who want to promote State autonomy on this issue. This is what 
the Founding Fathers wanted. Criminal matters should be left up to the 
States.
  A vote ``yes'' on Hinchey-Rohrabacher is a vote to respect the intent 
of our Founding Fathers and respect the rights of our people at the 
State level to make the criminal law under which they and their 
families will live. It reinforces rules surrounding the patient-doctor 
relationship, and it is in contrast to emotional posturing and Federal 
power grabs and bureaucratic arrogance, which is really at the heart of 
the opposition.
  This is a vote for good government. This is a good vote for honest 
compassion. The legal, humanitarian and practical thing to do is to 
vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Let me just note this. I have had personal experiences on this, and I 
certainly respect Dr. Weldon and his opinion. And I have asked him for 
his opinion many times for problems of my own. But I lost my mother, 
and I recently lost my brother, to cancer. I will tell you in both 
cases there was a loss of appetite and just a pessimism that came over 
my mother and my brother both. If marijuana would have helped them, and 
if a doctor would have prescribed it for them, it would have been a 
horrible thing to think that Federal agents would come in and try to 
interfere with that so they would not be able to get marijuana, if that 
is what their doctor felt would have helped them.
  That is what we are deciding today: Is that a right use of resources, 
number one, to go in and interfere with this doctor-patient 
relationship? They already use morphine in hospitals. That doesn't 
interfere with people trying to get control of the sale of heroin on 
our streets. No, this will not interfere with that. But what this will 
do is prevent a terrible waste of Federal resources.
  And let us note again, if people are sick, and a doctor says yes, 
this would be a good treatment, I don't think our Founding Fathers, who 
wanted the State governments to make these criminal laws, but I don't 
even think that they would have wanted the State governments to 
interfere in such a relationship.
  Our Founding Fathers believed in individual freedom, and they 
believed in

[[Page 20630]]

limited government. Where else but in the doctor-patient relationship 
should we have a limit on the government coming in and making things 
criminal matters? I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Hinchey-
Rohrabacher 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. Poe

  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may be 
     used to enforce--
       (1) the judgment of the United States District Court for 
     the Western District of Texas in the case of United States v. 
     Ignacio Ramos, Et Al. (No. EP:05-CR-856-KC) decided March 8, 
     2006; and
       (2) the sentences imposed by the United States District 
     Court for the Western District of Texas in the case of United 
     States v. Ignacio Ramos, Et Al. (No. EP:05-CR-856-KC) on 
     October 19, 2006.

  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in my previous life before coming to Congress, I was a 
prosecutor in Texas for a long time. Then I was a criminal court judge. 
Justice is one thing that we should always find in our country, but we 
don't always find it in our courts, unfortunately.
  This case that has now become very famous throughout the United 
States happens to deal with two border agents doing their job. They 
come in contact with a drug dealer on the violent Texas-Mexico border. 
The drug dealer bring in a million dollars' worth of drugs in a van. He 
abandons the drugs and the van, takes off, tries to run back to Mexico, 
gets in a confrontation with our border agents. Shots are fired. He is 
shot in the buttocks and disappears into Mexico.
  Our Federal Government brings the drug dealer back to the United 
States and grants him immunity from prosecution of a million dollars' 
worth of drugs in order to prosecute the border agents who were doing 
their job. He was given that immunity and testified against the two 
border agents. They were convicted and sent to a Federal penitentiary 
for 11 and 12 years. And for the most part of their sentence, which 
started in January, they have been in solitary confinement, what we 
reserve normally for the hardest and meanest and most violent criminals 
in our society.
  It turns out that this drug dealer was not just a mule bringing in 
drugs to get a little money for his sick mother back in Mexico, but 
while he was waiting to testify, given immunity, he goes back to Mexico 
and brings in another load of drugs worth about $800,000.
  Our Federal prosecutors knew about that second load of drugs, but 
they insisted that the jury not know about that second load of drugs, 
and the jury never heard about that second load of drugs.
  It is relentless prosecution in this case that is chilling the effect 
of our border agents on the border to do their job, which is to enforce 
the rule of law, to arrest drug dealers. Our Federal Government had the 
choice to prosecute two border agents that violated policy, or a drug 
dealer bringing in a million dollars' worth of drugs.
  Now, you would think that public policy would say we would go after 
drug dealers. But no, our Federal prosecutors went after the border 
agents. We still don't know why they were so relentless in that 
prosecution, but they were. So tonight, while we are here, we have two 
border agents serving time in the penitentiary.
  This amendment simply tries to right a wrong. It requires that no 
funds be used to incarcerate either one of these two border agents, 
Ramos and Compean, any further, and that they can be released from 
custody.
  Almost everyone agrees that the punishment is way out of line. Even 
the prosecutor said that once. Last week the Senate held hearings on 
the prosecution of this case in a bipartisan manner and said that these 
sentences were way out of line. And so this amendment will simply allow 
no Federal funds to be used to incarcerate these two border agents.
  Hopefully the House will continue to have hearings on why these two 
agents and other border agents have been prosecuted by the Western 
District of Texas while ignoring other violations of the law by drug 
dealers.
  I hope that my fellow colleagues on both sides of the aisle would 
agree to support this amendment and to allow the release of these two 
individuals, and not allow any Federal funds to be used to incarcerate 
two men who were simply doing their job for the rest of us on the 
violent Texas border.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, every American is born with an innate 
sense of fairness and what is right and wrong. This case, more than any 
other, has struck a chord among Americans as being fundamentally unjust 
and flat wrong; that two law enforcement officers who swore an oath to 
protect this Nation, who were out on that violent Texas-Mexico border 
to protect this Nation against criminals and terrorists, every American 
understands the case where the two Border Patrol agents doing their job 
are thrown in prison for 11 and 12 years, and the drug smuggler goes 
free with a visa to pass back and forth as often as he wants. And the 
drug smuggler sues us, the taxpayers, for millions of dollars. Every 
American gets that.
  I have never seen a level of outrage among my constituents and really 
across the country on any issue as there has been on this issue of 
freeing Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean.
  It is patently unfair these two men, whatever you may say about the 
circumstances of the case, if they improperly picked up shell casings, 
they did not report the shooting, it is an administrative violation. At 
most you fire them from their job. But to be sentenced to 10 to 12 
years in prison, these two law enforcement officers, to be sentenced to 
prison for 10 to 12 years is an outrage. It is just, it is unfair. The 
drug smuggler to this day is free.
  As Judge Poe said, the drug smuggler ran another load of dope into 
the United States, and the DEA knew about it during the trial of this 
case. This guy ran more drugs into the United States, and the 
prosecutor ordered the DEA not to arrest him and let him go free.
  Every American understands this case. People may not have understood 
the Nigerian oil barge transfer and the Enron case; everybody gets this 
one. And the Congress, I am very proud to stand here tonight with many, 
many other Members of Congress who have asked the President first to 
pardon these two officers. And now that they are in prison and have 
suffered so much and have lost everything, many of my colleagues, who 
you will hear speak, have joined together in writing a letter and 
asking the President, and we reiterate that call tonight, Mr. Chairman, 
asking the President to commute the sentences of two Border Patrol 
agents, Ramos and Compean, for the same reason that he commuted the 
case of Scooter Libby.
  In the case of Scooter Libby, the President said the sentence did not 
fit the crime. Certainly that is true here. If they picked up shell 
casings and didn't report the shooting, you don't go to prison for 10 
and 11 years. In the case of Scooter Libby, the President said Scooter 
Libby had already suffered enough. Clearly these two Border Patrol 
agents have already suffered enough. They have lost everything. Their 
lives have been destroyed. They have been thrown in prison. It is just 
simply wrong for their incarceration to continue another day.
  For whatever reason, the White House is turning a deaf ear on the 
call

[[Page 20631]]

of the American people, the overwhelming outrage of the American people 
to have these two men released from prison. So what other choice do we 
have, Mr. Chairman, as Members of Congress, but to cut off the funding 
to the Bureau of Prisons to incarcerate them? We cannot as Members of 
Congress send a stronger signal to the White House and to the American 
people how committed we are to protecting this border and standing 
behind our law enforcement agents, and letting the Border Patrol agents 
know that we are proud of them and support the work that they are doing 
for the sake of our children and for the sake of our constituents. We 
understand clearly that we will never win the war on terror until we 
have truly protected our borders.

                              {time}  2100

  The border today is unprotected and wide open. If you cross in 
Arizona, you won't even be arrested the first 15 times you cross over. 
You're going to be put right back across the border.
  If you cross in Brownsville, an agent told us on a trip just a couple 
of weeks ago, Brownsville will only arrest an illegal alien if they 
come up and knock on the window of the vehicle.
  But yet, right next door in Del Rio, thank God Del Rio is arresting 
everybody. In Del Rio, using existing law and existing resources, 
Federal Judge Alia Ludlum, Border Patrol Sector Chief Randy Hill are 
arresting every single illegal alien crossing the border in Del Rio. 
They have zero tolerance for illegal aliens crossing in Del Rio. The 
local community loves it because it keeps the streets safe, the schools 
safe, the business community thriving. The illegal crossings have 
plummeted, burglaries have plummeted, and the result in Del Rio is 
peace and quiet. Yet, right next door in Brownsville there's chaos.
  So, we all of us have a stake as Americans. In winning the war on 
terror, you've got to secure the border. No better way to secure the 
border than enforce existing law, and the best way to make sure that 
our agents out there in the field know that they're going to have the 
support of the American people is for the President to step up and 
commute the sentences of these two border patrol agents.
  Until that happens, it is up to us here in Congress to do all that we 
can to send a message to every border patrol agent that we're doing 
everything within our power, officers of the law, to support you, to 
tell you we're proud of you. You are in front lines of the war on 
terror on the border, just as our soldiers are in Iraq.
  I urge the Members of the House to support Mr. Poe's amendment so we 
can stop the funding of the incarceration of these two agents and send 
as strong as possible a message to the White House and, frankly, also 
to every law enforcement agent in the field that we're proud of you and 
that we want you to protect our border.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Well, with Mr. Culberson speaking on this issue with 
such knowledge, he's a member of our subcommittee and I respect his 
knowledge of border issues so much that I approach this debate with 
fear and trembling. I know that he is passionate about this issue as he 
has talked with me about it before, in addition with the other border 
issues that I'm totally serious he is nigh an expert on.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition to this 
amendment for a number of reasons, but principally, let's get our jobs 
straight here. We're article I. We're the legislature. We pass the 
laws. We appropriate the dollars, and then the executive branch, of 
course they administer, and it goes on and on.
  But the executive branch is article III, and the executive branch 
takes these criminal cases and they process them. I heard some really 
excellent defense summary arguments here before juries in support of 
this amendment. I cannot imagine a body less capable, less appropriate 
to adjudicate the issues surrounding the incarceration, conviction, 
prosecuting of the cases against these two gentlemen than the United 
States House of Representatives.
  First of all, it is a very serious issue, and if we were to act as a 
jury, we ought to be sitting here. And look around and we're not, not 
very many of us.
  But secondly, it's not at all the appropriate forum. So we really 
shouldn't even be taking this up. This is a limitation amendment on an 
expenditure of funds to incarcerate two individuals who have been 
processed, due process arguably, and have had a very unfavorable result 
so far as they are concerned. This issue ought to be resolved in the 
courts surely, or if the President of the United States wanted to take 
it up, he has the power that we don't have, to my knowledge. He has a 
pardoning power. We don't have that here, but in effect, we are 
attempting to act as if we did here with these two amendments.
  So I don't even begin to speak to the merits of the cases, and some 
folks have spoken to the merits of the cases here. I don't have the 
facts to argue the case, but I do know this is a particularly 
inappropriate forum and a particularly inappropriate and imperfect 
process by which to address these gentlemen's grievances.
  So I rise in opposition to the amendment. I trust the body will 
recognize the merit of the arguments that I'm making, because I think 
they're sound, and will likewise oppose these amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, in fact, this is not a unique situation, 
unique to the extent that the House has not acted before in a criminal 
case of this nature, but in fact, the House has acted in the past to 
intervene in cases where we have determined that the outcome was 
something we did not agree with. We've done it. We've stripped courts 
of certain abilities to actually hear cases.
  In the past, we've actually passed legislation to change or overturn 
cases. One was, of course, the case of the Ten Commandments. Another 
one was, I believe, Congressman Bernie Sanders at the time passed a 
bill to overturn a case with regard to pension funds. So it is not 
unique that we would be doing this.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TANCREDO. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, my only point is that we have the power 
to define jurisdictions for the courts. It's in the Constitution. We 
don't have power to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of two 
individuals.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Reclaiming my time, it is again not the position that 
we are taking here that we are, in fact, changing the decision of the 
court in regard to their guilt or innocence. We are saying that the 
punishment handed down is far in excess of what it is they may have 
done wrong, and that is something I think that we have the absolute 
ability and right to do here.
  These two gentlemen have served now 190 days, 180 days, something, 
already in prison, and for what? I mean, the most significant thing 
that we can actually determine, even according to some of the 
discussions that have been held and some of the statements that have 
been made by the prosecuting attorney, they're sorry. They made 
mistakes in terms of maybe using the type of prosecution that would 
require this kind of penalty. They have even said this may have been 
the wrong thing to do. Members of the jury have indicated that if they 
had seen all of the information now provided to them they would not 
have voted this way.
  So it isn't an issue of the facts of the case so much as it is 
whether or not we believe these people have actually spent enough time 
in jail, have they been punished according to the crime. And I would 
suggest to the gentleman that if you look at this case carefully, 
certainly that is the case.

[[Page 20632]]

  The person that brought this stuff through, the individual that 
actually was the drug dealer, he is walking free. I have visited Mr. 
Ramos in prison after he was severely beaten in his cell. They attacked 
him in his cell, of course, because they found out he was a Federal 
agent, and I went down there and visited him. You cannot imagine how, 
in a way, heartbreaking it is to see this guy in the orange jumpsuit, 
in shackles, and knowing that he is being deprived of the comfort of 
his own family, as is Mr. Compean, and here's a drug dealer that's 
going free in the meantime. It is absolutely incredible. This is a 
travesty.
  We have begged the President to please become involved with this, 
please pardon, please commute. He has chosen not to. This is the only 
option we have open to us, and that is why we are doing what we're 
doing tonight.
  And yes, to some extent, I understand that it is not a common 
practice here, but I think the situation is not an ordinary situation 
where we have two people who have sworn to defend and protect this 
country. They are in jail. They have served enough time; that's what we 
are saying. They have served enough time.
  Please adopt the Poe-Tancredo-Hunter amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TANCREDO. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I commend the sentiments of the gentleman 
who's bringing forth this amendment. I don't for a second do anything 
but think that that's laudable, and I make no judgment about the merits 
of this case. As the gentleman describes the merits in the favor of 
these gentlemen, they're powerful. I mean, it sounds like the equities 
are running all in their favor. I make no comment on that at all 
because I don't know the facts. And I have read about it, and it does 
make one sympathetic based upon the facts as you cited.
  But I don't make any judgments about that. I just oppose it because I 
don't think this is the right forum. The President, of course, would be 
an appropriate forum, but that's the only basis of my concern about the 
amendment. So I commend the gentleman for bringing the issue to the 
House.
  Mr. TANCREDO. I thank the gentleman. If there were another way to do 
this, I assure you we would look at it. We have tried everything 
imaginable to get these two people to actually get justice, and the 
justice would be to set them free. And that is what I suggest we do 
with this amendment, and I certainly would urge this body to adopt the 
Poe-Hunter-Tancredo amendment.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I didn't come here to speak on this issue. 
I've certainly, I think like most Members of Congress, been following 
the sensation that television and others have made of this issue. But 
in the debate, I just wanted to share a couple of things that I've 
observed as a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland 
Security and as Member of Congress who spent several days traveling all 
along the border with the Border Patrol.
  It was very interesting because I ran into a lot of people that had 
been detained. I speak Spanish and was able to interview many of the 
people that were detained, and we don't really get into the day-to-day 
administration of the detention, release and so on. What was very 
interesting and kind of surprising to me, because this case has been 
argued in the media and certainly here on the floor, I was a little bit 
shocked by the last speaker who indicated that this is not a matter of 
facts. It is a matter of facts, and I think that we don't always deal 
with the facts.
  I would point out that the drug dealer, the person that was shot in 
this case, was released. Did you know that the U.S. Attorney's office 
does not prosecute anybody who brings less than $5,000 worth of drugs 
across the border, less than $5,000? A lot of those marijuana packs 
that the smugglers carry are determined to be less than $5,000, and so 
nobody who is essentially a mule is arrested, arrested but not 
detained.
  We also, when we detain people, we give them the option, Do you 
understand you're now arrested? You have the right to a trial by jury 
as anybody in this country would have a right to unless you waive it. 
And 99.9 percent of everybody waives that and, therefore, gets released 
to their country of origin.
  So this catch-and-release is not unusual. In fact, it's the norm, and 
the fact that this gentleman wasn't prosecuted for his drug record is 
of other facts.
  What really struck me, and I'm just sharing, this is anecdotal 
information, but I think this amendment and the Congress bringing this 
up, in my opinion, is an abuse of power. Why? Because if, indeed, and I 
don't know the sentencing of these border patrolmen, but I know that 
there is a process if these sentences are extreme, you can appeal 
those. We have a sentencing commission, and the courts certainly review 
that. And so I think there is a remedy within our justice system to 
appeal where the sentences are too harsh.
  But here's the thing that's most interesting to me. I didn't find one 
single member of the Border Patrol that supported these two people that 
had been arrested, who had been convicted by trial of law. So, on this 
floor, you're making them out as national heroes. They were convicted 
in a court of law in the United States for wrongdoing, and I think 
that, as the chairman has indicated, that it is not wise for the 
Congress to second-guess and make this a sensational case.
  I've visited high school friends who were convicted of drug issues in 
prison, and I sympathize with everything that people say about these 
gentlemen, about their families and about the situation of being 
incarcerated. But I'm also concerned as a Member of Congress that we 
ought not to override the jurisprudence system that we've established 
in this country, and that I do think that the remedies in law lie in a 
court of law, and therefore, this amendment is not appropriate.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me explain why this case is different 
from all the rest. This is an extraordinary case. It's a case which, 
even if you accept the drug dealer's word and all of his testimony as 
fact, finds results in not only the Members who have sponsored this 
amendment, Mr. Poe, Mr. Tancredo, myself, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. 
Culberson and many others, that list should be extended to about 1 
million ordinary Americans who now know the basic facts of this case, 
having been laid out in hearings in the other body and soon to be laid 
out in hearings here, because these gentlemen have been given murder 
verdicts. They have been given time in excess of the average convicted 
murderer in the United States.

                              {time}  2115

  That's what makes this case so extraordinary, along with the facts 
that attend the way evidence was kept from the jury.
  Let me just explain this extraordinary case, this case in which the 
so-called victim was moving close to $1 million of drugs across the 
border, was shot, was wounded, was brought back into the United States, 
given immunity to testify against these two Border Patrol agents.
  Yet after he had been given immunity, and presumably had told the 
U.S. attorney that in exchange for that immunity he would not continue 
to move narcotics, he was connected with another massive case of moving 
almost another $1 million of drugs across the border. That information 
was never communicated to the court, even though the testimony of that 
drug dealer is the testimony that sent both these agents to the 
penitentiary for, essentially, murder sentences; that is, 11 and 12 
years respectively.

[[Page 20633]]

  Certainly the U.S. Government at that point had an obligation to go 
to the court and tell the court that, indeed, the credibility of their 
key witness had been doubly compromised by this second movement of 
narcotics.
  Lastly, let me just say this: Pardons are given, commutations are 
given. This is, I think you could look at this as maybe another species 
of commutation. That is, if the Congress speaks loud and clear, and the 
President signs this bill, then that will be a commutation of the 
sentence of Agents Compean and Ramos.
  In light of the commutations that have been given recently by the 
executive branch, I think we need to remember that people that live in 
small houses sometimes have a right to commutations of sentences, just 
like people who live in big houses.
  In this case, these two Border Patrol men are now in isolation, 
having spent a long time in jail, Mr. Ramos having been beaten up. 
Their families, most of us have met their families. This is a matter of 
little children wanting to see their daddies come home who, in my 
estimation, have not broken any law anywhere as significant as that 
which would justify these massive sentences that they have been given, 
this 11 and 12 years in Federal penitentiary, respectively.
  Let me add my voice to support of this amendment, which I, along with 
a number of other colleagues have cosponsored with our great friend 
from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Poe the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
  The CHAIRMAN. There is 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. POE. I appreciate the support. I would like to comment on the 
comments earlier by the gentleman from California.
  It is true. I don't know if the American public knows this, but if 
drug dealers bring in $5,000 of drugs or less, they are not prosecuted. 
But this wasn't a $5,000 case. The drug dealer first brought in $1 
million worth of drugs, and in the second case he snuck in $800,000 
worth of drugs. The jury was never told about that.
  The other thing I would like to point out is that Members of Congress 
met with the Homeland Security inspector general about this case. They 
gave us information that turned out not to be true. Mr. Skinner finally 
testified under oath before Congress that the information they gave us 
about this case was false. That is disconcerting in this type of matter 
when we have Homeland Security telling Members of Congress things that 
are not true about this particular matter.
  I don't have time to go on that, but I would ask for support of this 
case. This is the only remedy available. In my judicial experience, I 
do believe in our court system, and our courts eventually will work 
this case out. It will be reversed, but meanwhile they are in jail. The 
only way they can get out of jail is if we pass this amendment. I 
appreciate it.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I was over in my office signing letters, and 
I heard the discussion on the floor about Ramos and Compean, and I 
heard what the great gentleman from West Virginia had to say. He talked 
about procedures and how, really, this would be better off left to the 
courts in some other avenue.
  But this is not about procedure. It's not about some rules and 
regulations that we must adhere to over what is just. What is just in 
this case is to set Ramos and Compean free.
  This is an issue of what's right for the United States of America. 
The morale of our Border Patrol has had a truck driven through it by 
those who have prosecuted and persecuted Ramos and Compean. They 
deserve no more prosecution. They deserve no more persecution. They 
need to be set free and enhance the morale of our Border Patrol and 
enhance the security and integrity of the United States of America.
  This is an issue about our borders. If you believe that our borders 
should be secure, and if you believe that those who enforce our borders 
should be stood up for, you need to vote ``yes'' for this amendment.
  I ask you to vote for our country. Vote for our sovereignty, vote for 
our borders and vote ``yes'' for the Poe-Hunter-Tancredo amendment.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent the 
expenditures of any funds for the purpose of enforcing the judgment or 
imposing the sentences handed down in the case of United States v. 
Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.
  As most of you know, President Bush so far has rejected appeals by 
many of us for a pardon for these two Border Patrol agents who are now 
sitting in Federal prison for shooting a professional drug smuggler who 
worked for the cartels, who was fleeing back across the Rio Grande. 
These two agents are now serving 11 and 12 years, respectively.
  I have talked to many Border Patrol agents about these cases, about 
the circumstances they face down there. I haven't found any that don't 
support Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, and certainly their association 
supports them fully.
  In the meantime, of course, the great irony here is the smuggler they 
apprehended for attempting to smuggle some 750 pounds of drugs into our 
country is free.
  The U.S. attorney here claimed that the agents fired on an unarmed 
man, but how do we know that? Because the U.S. attorney asked the jury 
to take the smuggler's word for that and to disbelieve the two Border 
Patrol agents who testified they thought he had a gun.
  I can tell you I held numerous hearings down there on the border in 
Texas in the past, over 400 attacks on our Border Patrol agents. The 
family members of the individual here who was smuggling say he would 
not move drugs without a gun on him. That is what his own family says 
about him.
  Frankly, it does take a stretch of the imagination to believe that an 
employee of a cartel down there would not have a gun somewhere near him 
moving this quantity of drugs.
  Now, the U.S. attorney said the agents failed to file a report for 
their actions, and that proved they tried to cover up the shooting. I 
am not sure that was true. Two of their supervisors were on the scene 
within minutes, and the agents made a verbal report to them, according 
to Ramos and Compean.
  Failing to file a written report is an administration violation and 
normally punishable by a 3-day suspension, but it is the supervisor who 
is supposed to file that report, as I understand it, not the agents.
  The U.S. attorney says that Ramos and Compean were convicted by a 
jury in Texas after all the evidence was presented. But, the U.S. 
Attorney, his team, prevented crucial evidence from being admitted in 
the trial. For example, the jury did not learn that the smuggler 
committed a second smuggling operation while he was under the grant of 
immunity given by the U.S. attorney. That information was withheld from 
the jury while it was argued that the agents, that the Border Patrol 
agents, couldn't have known he was a drug smuggler, even though there 
was this quantity of drugs in his van.
  The U.S. attorney had prosecutorial discretion in choosing to do 
this, and he chose to throw the book at Ramos and Compean while giving 
the professional drug smuggler a visa that allowed him free passage 
across our border to smuggle again. The attorneys for Ramos and Compean 
have filed an appeal with the U.S. circuit court asking for a new 
trial. They deserve a new trial. Yet the quickest and surest way to 
manifest this injustice is for President Bush to grant a full pardon 
or, at a minimum, a commutation of the prison sentence.
  These men deserve better, and today we have an opportunity to right 
that

[[Page 20634]]

wrong. By voting for this amendment to free these men, Congress will 
not only be correcting a terrible mistake, it will begin repairing the 
morale and effectiveness of our Border Patrol that have been damaged 
by, frankly, these reckless actions.
  It's time to send a different message to both the courageous men and 
women of the Border Patrol and to the mules and to the bosses in the 
drug cartels. Let's send that message today by telling the cartels that 
our Border Patrol means business, not business as usual.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the Ramos and Compean prosecution has 
been the greatest miscarriage of justice in my 30 years in Washington, 
DC, and, believe me, I have seen a lot.
  Ramos and Compean were veteran Border Patrol agents. They had 
unblemished records. They had both served in the military. Ramos and 
Compean were veterans of the Border Patrol, 5 and 10 years, 
respectively. Both had been in the military. In fact, Mr. Ramos, I 
believe, had been a 10-year veteran. He was a naval officer in the Navy 
Reserve for 10 years. Ramos had been nominated the year before as 
Border Patrol Agent of the Year.
  Yet these two agents, their lives have been destroyed, and they have 
been vilified by Department of Justice officials and this 
administration. One day 2 years ago, they interdicted a drug dealer. 
After a scuffle ensued, the drug dealer ran toward the border, shots 
were fired, the drug dealer was shot in the buttocks. At the end of 
this incident that took place in just a few minutes, where a split-
second decision was made to shoot their weapons, they decided that he 
had gotten away. They didn't know that the drug dealer had been hit.
  There is where they made their mistake. They decided to not go 
through the 8 hours of arduous drudgery of filling out all of the 
reports that are necessary, the paperwork that is necessary when there 
is a shooting incident. So they and their supervisors, I might add, 
helped collect the little shell casings and determined, well, the guy 
didn't get hit, we will just forget it.
  Well, that was a violation of procedure, yes. For that they might 
have deserved a suspension. Instead, this administration chose to throw 
the book at these men and turn what should have been just a violation 
of procedure, perhaps just a paperwork mistake, which sometimes happens 
even here in this body, they turned that into a felony.
  They have destroyed the lives of these two defenders of our country 
who have spent 5 and 10 years of their lives willing to take bullets 
for us on the border. But our administration, this administration, 
decided to throw the book at them and give a free pass to the drug 
dealer, to the man who is bringing in $1 million worth of narcotics 
into our country.
  That decision is so indefensible that I believe that the 
administration has been trying to cover up for that mistaken decision 
since that moment. What we have had, for those of us who have been 
looking into this, is we have been completely stonewalled by this 
administration, by the Department of Justice, by U.S. Attorney Johnny 
Sutton in trying to get the information about the drug dealer and the 
free passes, the free passes that he had to transit into our country 
unescorted after this incident.
  The fact of the matter is that the jury was told that the drug dealer 
involved was a one-timer who was trying to raise money so he could buy 
medicine for his mother, his sick mother. That was a lie that was 
presented to the jury, a lie.
  Let me repeat that. It was not true, and the prosecutors understood 
they were given something not true. In fact, we were told by the U.S. 
attorney, Johnny Sutton, well, the fact that the information that the 
drug dealer had been picked up a second time before that trial was kept 
from the jury, but that the judge was the one who decided that.

                              {time}  2130

  That too is a lie. A lawyer may believe that, but the fact is we know 
the prosecutors were the ones who demanded the judge. It was their 
motion to keep that from the jury.
  So why do we have an administration that feels so intent on 
destroying the lives of these two Border Patrol agents that they 
vilified them, that they keep information from the jury? This whole 
thing stinks to high heaven and the smell seems to be emanating from 
the White House.
  Ladies and gentlemen, these are two people, two men, two brave heroes 
who were defending our country every bit as much as those men and women 
who are overseas right now defending our country. They were willing to 
risk their lives for us. We should not sit aside and let them languish 
in prison as their families go down into abject poverty without any 
health care, without any source of income. Their retirement benefits 
are destroyed. This is the most mean-spirited, nasty attack on some of 
the defenders of our country that I have ever seen in my lifetime. We 
cannot let it sit. If we are patriotic Americans, it doesn't go to just 
posture ourselves with the defenders of this country and then let these 
two men languish in prison.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Mollohan, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Rohrabacher was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to search 
their hearts. We can do something about this.
  You know, first of all, it has been a dismay to me to see how we have 
treated each other in this body. I don't know why, but people are 
looking to bring down each other because people disagree. We can 
understand that with philosophical differences, but how can we ever 
justify someone who has gone out of their way, our representatives in 
the Department of Justice going out of their way to bring down two 
defenders, turning a paperwork mistake, a procedural error, into a 
felony which has destroyed these men's lives.
  If we stand up for Ramos and Compean, we stand up for the people of 
the United States. They know that; they are watching us. They know if 
we really care about the little guy, and that is what this is all 
about. We care about the little guy because that is what America is all 
about.
  I support the amendment and ask my colleagues to join me in doing so.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BILBRAY. To the gentleman from West Virginia, let me just say I 
know your concern about the process here. But I think that if you 
reviewed this situation and the process these two Border Patrol agents 
went through, you would understand why some of us are standing up and 
saying, first of all, the 10-year minimum for the commission of a crime 
while carrying a firearm, it was used to apply to these agents, was 
never meant to apply to law enforcement agents who are required by law 
to carry firearms. And I think we can kind of understand.
  Remember when we passed that and it went through, it was sort of 
like, criminals, if you are going to engage in criminal activity, leave 
your gun at home, as a way of lowering the level of violence and the 
potential violence of criminals carrying firearms at the time of the 
commission of the crime.
  This law that we passed at the Federal level is being applied to 
Federal officers who are required by statute to carry a firearm. And so 
now what we have is that we have law enforcement agents who are sworn 
to serve the American people, that are being prosecuted under a statute 
that says we are going to nail you because you were carrying a firearm 
during the commission of a crime when, as a requirement of their 
employment, they had to carry the firearm.
  Doesn't anybody else find this kind of absurd, if not ridiculous?
  And all I have to say is I would sincerely hope that the chairman of 
the

[[Page 20635]]

committee will take a second thought about opposing this amendment, 
because I think in all fairness the American people are saying we have 
two agents who were serving their Nation as best as they could. They 
might have made a mistake that should have been administered through an 
administrative process; and those of us in local government that have 
worked with law enforcement know this, excessive force happens in 
certain situations.
  But this is where a Federal law that we passed in Congress that says 
we are going to nail the criminals who use firearms in the commission 
of a crime and tell them don't ever carry a firearm when you are 
thinking of breaking a crime, that that law is being applied to our 
agents who are executing the requirements of Federal law. That was 
never the intention of this law, but it is being applied to these two 
agents.
  So I just have to say sincerely, I would really ask the chairman to 
reconsider his opposition to this amendment. I think fair-minded people 
that know why this Federal law was passed know that it was not meant 
for Border Patrol agents or any Federal agents that are required to 
carry a firearm, to use this law against those agents. And if you can 
do it to Border Patrol agents, you can do it to FBI agents, you can do 
it to everybody.
  Now, let me just say something about the unique situation that we are 
seeing down at the border. At this location, Mr. Chairman, within the 
month of this incident you had Border Patrol agents under fire by 
automatic gunfire, AK-47s firing at our agents from across the border. 
There was good reason to think that our agents might have been a little 
more active with their guns than we might have preferred. But, in all 
fairness, it really comes down to: Are we willing to stand up and say 
there has been a mistake, that mistake needs to be addressed, needs to 
be reassessed, and do we now relinquish our responsibility of the 
budget to the executive branch where we say these agents have been 
wronged?
  And if those of you that want to talk about this, in all the years I 
was in local government I saw excessive force cases brought very 
seldom. In this one sector, this Federal attorney has brought excessive 
force cases against three different law enforcement officers. Every one 
of them that we know of, or I know of, just happened to have been cases 
that involved illegal aliens, drug smugglers, foreign nationals 
committing a crime. That is really unique. I have never heard of that 
kind of situation occurring anywhere else.
  In this case, it is time that we stand up and we say, you have the 
jurisdiction to prosecute, you have the jurisdiction not to give 
clemency on this issue, but we have the jurisdiction of saying you will 
not use the taxpayers' funds to prosecute these men.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I understand, Mr. Chairman, the President of the United 
States today issued a press release saying that he was not going to ask 
that these officers be allowed out on bail or bond even after it was 
requested that they do be permitted to be released on bail and bond. I 
find it regrettable that the President did not give some explanation 
for why he didn't give these officers an opportunity to be given 
release on bail or bond as other people who would be on trial or given 
that kind of opportunity would otherwise be given.
  At the very least, I think the President, given the nature of these 
officers being in law enforcement, has an obligation to ensure their 
security when they are in prison because they are, I understand, at 
greater threat to their own lives being law enforcement officers if 
they are incarcerated. And I would hope that the Department of Justice 
in its incarceration procedures does take into account the very 
increased threat level to these officers because of the nature of them 
being law enforcement officers.
  That being said, however, we do have to keep in mind that it is a 
Bush-appointed U.S. Attorney that prosecuted these Border Patrol 
officers and it was a jury of a U.S. citizens who rendered a verdict 
based upon the U.S. law and based upon the evidence of U.S. law, not 
the Members of Congress here standing based upon newspapers and based 
upon Fox news stories and everything else, but based upon the evidence 
in a case presented to a jury through an evidentiary hearing. And that 
is what we need to abide by is a legal process. We can't abide by a 
political process.
  If we were to abide by political process every time a legal case came 
along and were to suspend the process every time we thought one case 
was more popular than the other, it would just upend the idea of 
justice as we know it in this country, because I think all of us could 
come here to the floor and tell of a unique story where someone was 
wronged by the system of justice in this country.
  And I think that it is kind of ironic that my friends are so outraged 
by mandatory minimums with guns, because they are so outraged by 
mandatory minimums with everything, and yet they are the first ones to 
pass these mandatory minimums and then wonder, now finding their own 
friends in the behind and saying, no, we can't have it touch our 
friends, and then all of a sudden they don't want it that way.
  Well, you know what? There are lots of people in this country who 
have been caught behind these mandatory minimums who have just been 
caught in the wrong place at the wrong time that are now serving life 
sentences. Kids that have been caught in ghettos just because they have 
been friends of friends who have been part of gangs. Now that they have 
been associated with gangs, they have gotten the gang-related crime 
tagged onto them, which has added another 10 years to their sentence, 
and that has been a mandatory minimum just because of some law that we 
have passed saying that you get another 10 years because you are 
related to a gang member. Now it is very interesting that all of a 
sudden people are so outraged by these minimums that have been tacked 
on to these officers carrying firearms in the commission of a crime.
  So I just think that we should all pause for a moment when we think 
about being tough on crime. Here is a perfect example of where it comes 
back to bite us in the you-know-where when we think that we are trying 
to be tough on crime and then find out that sometimes when we are 
passing these mandatory minimums it doesn't always work out the way we 
expected it to be.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I think you agree, though, that when we talked about the 
10-year minimum, the jury was told that they had to administer the 10-
year execution based on the commission of the crime. And I think you 
were here when the 10-year minimum was passed. I think you would agree 
the idea was to try to encourage anybody that, if you are going to do 
something that was illegal, you don't carry a gun, because it would 
lower that level of potential.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentlemen 
that have bought this amendment to the floor. It is something that all 
America has been fixated upon, because they understand the injustice 
that underlies the prosecution of these two Border Patrol officers. And 
I would like to characterize this perhaps a little bit differently.
  Listening to the gentleman, my friend who just got done speaking, 
talking about the mandatory minimums being something that comes back to 
bite us in the you-know-where, no, this isn't the mandatory minimum 
issue that is before us tonight. This is the equivalent of a private 
bill.
  We have brought private bills through this Congress a number of times 
when we see issues that there is such an egregious case for specific 
individuals that we will generally bring that language through the 
Judiciary

[[Page 20636]]

Committee, through the Immigration Subcommittee and on through 
Judiciary and onto the floor. It has happened a number of times in my 
time here in Congress. In fact, I have one here today that one of your 
colleagues from your side of the aisle offered to me, and I will 
consider it. But this is actually in my jacket pocket. This is a 
private bill asking for relief for people who have violated the law but 
find themselves in unique circumstances and pleading upon this Congress 
to make an exception because they are unique circumstances, and this is 
a measure to our heart.
  What does our heart have to say to us when you see two Border Patrol 
officers who put their lives on the line on a daily basis and find 
themselves caught in this legalistic vice that has unfolded because, I 
think, of a discretionary decision by a U.S. Attorney in his 
prosecution?
  What I am concerned about is if this Congress doesn't stand up and 
defend these two people, Ramos and Compean, Border Patrol officers will 
be reluctant to pull their weapon in the line of duty and they will be 
in the line of fire. And I am afraid we will lose one or more Border 
Patrol officers in the line of duty because they will be hesitant to 
ever pull their weapon. That is a piece of their thing.
  I yield to the gentleman from Texas, and again thank him for his work 
in bringing this amendment to the floor.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. POE. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding.
  I know that we've discussed this issue a lot tonight, but it's 
important because it has to do with the most important concept that any 
of us have, liberty. And we have found in the investigation of this 
case that the U.S. Attorney's Office has done everything it can to make 
sure that these two people stay in jail.
  The key to this is that the jury did decide the facts of this case, 
but the jury didn't get all the facts given to them under the law. 
There was another case where the drug dealer brought in another 
$800,000 worth of drugs while he's running free at American taxpayer 
expense, and brings in these drugs while he's waiting to testify. 
Anybody who served on any jury in the country would want to know about 
that second case. This jury was prohibited from knowing about that 
because of the insistence and the relentless prosecutor who demanded 
that the jury not hear about all of the facts.
  The question is why? Why wouldn't the prosecutor want the jury to 
know all the truth about this case?
  We don't know. We do know that the Mexican Government, in its 
righteous indignation, sent a speedy letter over to the U.S. Attorney's 
Office demanding prosecution of these border agents. The Mexican 
Government dealing in our court system, their opinion is irrelevant, I 
submit, Mr. Chairman.
  And this case is a case where our Border Patrol agents are in Fabans, 
Texas. I don't believe there's been a person here that's been to 
Fabans, Texas, unless they've gone there on purpose to see the border. 
It's a violent, dangerous, desolate area. And based upon the rules they 
have to follow, they cannot fire their weapon unless they are fired 
upon. In other words, they've got to take a bullet before they can 
defend the border. And they operate under that environment because of 
the national security of our border.
  In this case, overreaching by the prosecutor; too heavy a sentence. 
He even said so later after the prosecution. And what this does is 
release these two individuals while the appeal goes on. It releases 
them from custody of our Federal Government. And it's the 
responsibility of Congress in further investigations to find out why 
our Western District of Texas is so relentless in prosecuting border 
protectors. And this is one way we can do something. We have that 
authority. We can cut the funds, and we ought to cut the funds that 
incarcerate these two individuals. We ought to pass this amendment in a 
bipartisan manner.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I'd say also there is a bill 
following this. If this doesn't do the job, I have a bill ready to 
introduce that grants them a new trial, a de novo review, and it 
removes the jurisdiction to the Northern District of Texas.
  We're going to find a solution this. We're going to stand up and 
defend Ramos and Compean. This sends the message. It might get the job 
done. I urge adoption.
  I yield back.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is have a 
colloquy with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) to inquire about some 
of the comments that have been made here tonight so I can better 
understand Congress's role in this particular judicial decision, court 
decision, conviction in Texas, just to give me a little comfort in 
trying to understand our role in this case and whether or not it is 
appropriate.
  Can the gentleman from Texas tell me, after the incident occurred 
with the border agents and the drug dealer, who brought that 
information to the U.S. attorney in the very beginning? Does anybody 
know that?
  Mr. POE. There's a disagreement over who brought that to them. We 
first heard that the Mexican Consulate brought it to someone working in 
the Federal Government. And then we also heard that another border 
agent brought it, so I don't know the answer to that question.
  Mr. GILCHREST. So that's not clear.
  Did the border agents supervisors, or do you have any idea who spoke, 
if there was, in fact, a grand jury, to determine whether or not there 
was enough evidence?
  Mr. POE. There was a grand jury investigation. I do not know who 
testified. The border supervisors were on the scene and were aware of 
the entire circumstances.
  No one knew that the drug dealer who disappeared back into Mexico had 
even been shot, and so they thought that the person was shot at and he 
disappeared. And the next thing they know, they are being questioned 
about 30 to 60 days later about the incident that occurred.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Under those circumstances, with the supervisors aware 
of the actions of the border agents, the defendant subsequently was 
found out to be wounded, under those circumstances, in a Federal court, 
did the prosecutor take into consideration those mitigating 
circumstances that border agents are often, and in your case, in the 
area where you represent, a very dangerous situation? This was a known 
drug smuggler. He had smuggled in $1 million worth of drugs. He had, 
apparently, a violent past.
  What sentencing guidelines did the prosecutor use to give these 
border agents 11 years and then 12 years?
  Mr. POE. The border agents were offered, if they pled guilty to the 
offense, 2 years incarceration. If they did not plead guilty and went 
to trial, the prosecutor added the section under our law, 924(c) 
section that required or would allow a mandatory additional 10 years 
incarceration because a weapon was used. That is subject to appeal as 
to whether that applies to peace officers or not. That was added. 
Therefore they received 11 and 12 years in the penitentiary after the 
trial and after sentencing because they would not plead guilty for a 
crime they didn't do.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Has there been an appeal filed on behalf of the 
defendants?
  Mr. POE. Yes. There has been an appeal. Both of these cases are on 
appeal, and they are in custody while these cases are on appeal.
  Mr. GILCHREST. And it is also under appeal to determine whether or 
not the sentencing guidelines that we passed in the House applied in 
this case?
  Mr. POE. The indictment on its face is being challenged because in 
the indictment it alleges the deadly weapon or the brandishing of a 
firearm, which requires an additional 10 years. That is also contested 
on appeal, whether it applies to peace officers or not.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Was it the intent of this Congress that that 
particular statute be applied to a peace officer or a

[[Page 20637]]

border agent in defense of the country, the border or his own life?
  Mr. POE. In my opinion, absolutely not. It applies to other cases 
where a firearm is used, such as in a robbery. It doesn't apply to 
border agents who are required to use and possess a firearm while they 
are on duty. And so it is not, in my opinion, the intent of Congress. 
And, of course, that will be litigated on appeal as well.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for answering the questions.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Drake

  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I introduced an amendment today that merely 
reinforces current Federal law and provides a penalty for jurisdictions 
that choose not to follow this law.
  My amendment would prohibit funds from being made available to States 
and localities that do not abide by section 642(a) of the Illegal 
Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996. Simply 
put, Congress will not distribute funds to any jurisdiction that is a 
sanctuary city.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I 
want to commend her on a very thoughtful amendment. As I understand it, 
the majority is going to be willing to accept it.
  I had two amendments that dealt with this very same issue that 
specifically dealt with the SCAAP program and the COPS program, denying 
funds to any of the sanctuary city or sanctuary community 
jurisdictions.
  As I understand it, her language covers both of those things, and I 
am going to be looking forward to working with the gentlelady in the 
years ahead to make sure that these sanctuary cities do not have access 
to these funds.
  Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to this amendment. 
We're going to accept this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Capito

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

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

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 402(e)(1) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to help 
prevent aliens who lack authorization to work legally from taking 
Federal jobs.
  In the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996, Congress responded to the problem of document verification when 
hiring folks by establishing three pilot programs for employment 
eligibility verification. Private employers in selected States could 
volunteer to participate in these programs.
  Under a program called the Basic Pilot Program, Social Security 
numbers and Alien Identification Numbers of new hires are checked 
against Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland 
Security records. This weeds out fraudulent numbers and assures that 
new hires are legally eligible to work.
  A 2001 report on the Basic Pilot Program found 96 percent of 
employers found it to be an effective tool.
  In 2003, Congress extended the Basic Pilot Program for another 5 
years and made it available to employers nationwide.
  The 1996 law stipulates that each department of the Federal 
Government must participate in the Basic Pilot Program. Incredibly, the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, are currently not 
participating.
  My amendment basically says, because I hear from constituents all the 
time who are angry about those working who do not have legal 
verification. What message does it send when Federal agencies do not 
abide by the Federal laws?
  There's no excuse for having any illegal aliens taking Federal jobs. 
We have a Basic Pilot Program to stop this from happening. We have a 
law on the books that requires Federal agencies, including Commerce, 
Justice and State, to use it for employment verification.
  My amendment provides that no funds in this appropriation bill shall 
be spent in contravention of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we are willing to accept the gentlelady's 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  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:
  An amendment by Mrs. Capito of West Virginia.
  An amendment by Mr. Etheridge of North Carolina.
  Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Sessions of Texas.
  An amendment by Mr. Inslee of Washington.
  An amendment by Mr. Poe of Texas.
  An amendment by Mr. Reichert of Washington.
  An 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 Offered by Mrs. Capito

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West Virginia 
(Mrs. Capito) 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 243, 
noes 186, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 727]

                               AYES--243

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Donnelly

[[Page 20638]]


     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Rush
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Space
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--186

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Akin
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Clarke
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis, Jo Ann
     LaHood
     Marshall
     Michaud
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on the 
vote.

                              {time}  2228

  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. NEAL and Mr. McNULTY changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. HOBSON, LAMPSON, HALL of Texas, CAMP of Michigan, LOEBSACK, 
HIGGINS, ARCURI, TOM DAVIS of Virginia, KIND, DOGGETT, HERGER, POMEROY, 
DELAHUNT, SESTAK, COSTELLO, GUTIERREZ, DAVIS of Alabama, HARE, WYNN, 
JOHNSON of Georgia, ELLISON, MELANCON, AL GREEN of Texas, SHULER, 
NADLER, HODES, SCOTT of Georgia and RUSH, and Ms. GRANGER, Mrs. MALONEY 
of New York, Ms. WATERS and Ms. GIFFORDS changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Etheridge

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The 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 421, 
noes 2, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 728]

                               AYES--421

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)

[[Page 20639]]


     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--2

     Flake
     Moran (VA)
       

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Clarke
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     LaHood
     Marshall
     McCrery
     Michaud
     Rangel
     Ross
     Serrano
     Young (AK)
       


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  2232

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


                Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Sessions

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) 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 162, 
noes 267, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 729]

                               AYES--162

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--267

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hensarling
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Clarke
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis, Jo Ann
     LaHood
     Marshall
     Michaud
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 45 seconds remain 
in this vote.

                              {time}  2237

  Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee) 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.

[[Page 20640]]




                             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 412, 
noes 18, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 730]

                               AYES--412

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--18

     Abercrombie
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Clay
     Frelinghuysen
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Herger
     Hirono
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kingston
     Lewis (CA)
     Mollohan
     Rahall
     Ryan (OH)
     Shadegg

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     LaHood
     Marshall
     Michaud
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  2240

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


                      Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) 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 395, 
noes 34, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 731]

                               AYES--395

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)

[[Page 20641]]


     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--34

     Becerra
     Butterfield
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Dingell
     Frelinghuysen
     Grijalva
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Mollohan
     Olver
     Rahall
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watt
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     LaHood
     Marshall
     Michaud
     Walsh (NY)
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  2244

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Reichert

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Reichert) 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 405, 
noes 25, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 732]

                               AYES--405

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--25

     Becerra
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gilchrest
     Hastings (FL)
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     Kucinich
     Lee
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Mollohan
     Rahall
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Solis
     Stark
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     LaHood
     Marshall
     Michaud
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

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

                              {time}  2248

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

[[Page 20642]]




                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished 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.
  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 165, 
noes 262, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 733]

                               AYES--165

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Broun (GA)
     Campbell (CA)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Melancon
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--262

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachus
     Boucher
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     LaHood
     Marshall
     Michaud
     Stark
     Young (AK)


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains 
on the vote.

                              {time}  2252

  Mr. GUTIERREZ changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. 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. 
Altmire) having assumed the chair, Mr. Snyder, 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. 3093) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and 
Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
2008, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________