[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 20792-20803]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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}  1248


                     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 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 bill had been read through page 85, line 24.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to 
the bill may be offered except those specified in the previous order of 
the House of today, which is at the desk.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
       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 the 
     Department of Justice, not more than $50,000,000 shall be 
     available for the Attorney General, after consultation with 
     Indian tribes pursuant to Executive Order 13175, to appoint 
     attorneys to assist United States Attorneys when the public 
     interest so requires, as authorized by sections 542 and 543 
     of title 28, United States Code, to litigate cases involving 
     the enforcement of Federal law on Tribal lands, including 
     domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and 
     stalking, and to allow reimbursement out of existing Federal 
     funds, if available, to compensate appointees whenever such 
     appointments facilitate the efficient, thorough enforcement 
     of Federal law on Tribal lands.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to ensure that 
the U.S. Attorney General appoints attorneys to assist in enforcing 
Federal law when it comes to public interest as outlined in 28 U.S.C. 
542 and 28 U.S.C. 543. It is in the public's interest to prosecute 
crimes committed against Native women, including domestic violence, 
sexual assault, stalking and dating violence. As they take on this 
task, I also urge them to consult with tribes as practiced and required 
under Executive Order 13175.
  As we know, there are 4 million American Indian and Alaska Native 
people throughout the United States, and jurisdictional questions today 
are preventing the enforcement of Federal laws. Indian women suffer 
2\1/2\ times more domestic violence and 3\1/2\ times more sexual 
assaults than the rest of the American population. An Amnesty 
International report showed that 86 percent of these crimes are 
committed by non-Indian men, and the law prevents Tribal courts from 
prosecuting them.
  As a former prosecutor, I was shocked that the majority of criminals 
go unpunished. Justice Department data compiled by Syracuse University 
showed that in two decades, only 30 percent of tribal land crimes 
referred to U.S. Attorneys were ever prosecuted. I would like to see 
U.S. Attorneys consult with the tribes and work to enforce Federal law, 
especially when it comes to crimes of domestic violence, stalking and 
sexual assault. And ensuring that U.S. Attorneys appoint special 
attorneys to assist in prosecuting these Federal laws is imperative.

[[Page 20793]]

  I will include for the Record information from a Wall Street Journal 
article entitled, ``Tattered Justice on U.S. Indian Reservations, 
Criminals Slip Through Gaps.'' It is time we close those gaps, and I 
urge U.S. Attorneys to act with dispatch in this regard.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, June 12, 2007]

        On U.S. Indian Reservations, Criminals Slip Through Gaps

                            (By Gary Fields)

       Cherokee, N.C.--Jon Nathaniel Crowe, an American Indian, 
     had a long-documented history of fighting with police 
     officers and assaulting women. But the tribal court for the 
     Eastern Band of the Cherokee, under whose jurisdiction he 
     lives, couldn't sentence him to more than one year for any 
     charge. Not when he left telephone messages threatening to 
     kill an ex-girlfriend, not when he poured kerosene into his 
     wife's mouth, not when he hit her with an ax handle.
       ``We put him away twice for a year, that's all we could 
     do,'' says James Kilbourne, prosecutor for the tribe. ``Then 
     he got out and committed the same crime again.''
       Indian tribes are officially sovereign nations within the 
     U.S., responsible for running services such as schools and 
     courts. But a tangle of federal laws and judicial precedents 
     has undermined much of their legal authority. As a result, 
     seeking justice on Indian reservations is an uneven affair.
       Tribes operate their own court systems, with their own 
     judges and prosecutors. Sharply limited in their sentencing 
     powers, they are permitted to mete out maximum jail time of 
     only 12 months for any crime, no matter how severe. The law 
     also forbids tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians, even 
     those living on tribal land.
       Federal prosecutors can intervene in serious cases, but 
     often don't, citing the long distances involved, lack of 
     resources and the cost of hauling witnesses and defendants to 
     federal court. In the past two decades, only 30% of tribal-
     land crimes referred to U.S. attorneys were prosecuted, 
     according to Justice Department data compiled by Syracuse 
     University. That compares with 56% for all other cases. The 
     result: Many criminals go unpunished, or minimally so. And 
     their victims remain largely invisible to the court system.
       The justice gap is particularly acute in domestic-violence 
     cases. American Indians annually experience seven sexual 
     assaults per 1,000 residents, compared with three per 1,000 
     among African-Americans and two per 1,000 among whites, says 
     the Justice Department. The acts are often committed by non-
     Indians living on tribal land whom tribal officials cannot 
     touch. Local prosecutors say members of Indian communities 
     have such low expectations about securing a prosecution that 
     they often don't bother filing a report.
       ``Where else do you ask: How bad is the crime, what color 
     are the victims and what color are the defendants?'' asks Mr. 
     Kilbourne, who has prosecuted cases on Cherokee lands since 
     2001. ``We would not allow this anywhere else except Indian 
     country.''
       The lack of prosecutorial discretion is one of many ways in 
     which Indian justice has been split off from mainstream 
     American due process. For example, some defendants appearing 
     before Indian courts lack legal counsel, because federal law 
     doesn't require tribes to provide them with a public 
     defender. Although some tribes have them, others can't afford 
     to offer their members legal assistance. It's not unusual for 
     defendants to represent themselves.
       The Indian Civil Rights Act, passed by Congress in 1968, 
     limited to six months the sentences tribes could hand down on 
     any charge. At the time, tribal courts were seeing only minor 
     infractions. Congress increased the maximum prison sentence 
     to one-year in 1986, wrongly assuming that the Indian courts 
     would continue to handle only misdemeanor-level crimes. 
     Tribal offenses, meanwhile, escalated in both number and 
     severity, with rape, murder and kidnapping among the cases.
       The Supreme Court weighed in on another level, with its 
     1978 Oliphant decision ruling that tribes couldn't try non-
     Indian defendants in tribal courts--even if they had 
     committed a crime against a tribe member on the tribe's land. 
     In its ruling, the court held that it was assumed from the 
     earliest treaties that the tribes did not have jurisdiction 
     over non-Indians.
       ``If you go to Canada and rob someone, you will be tried by 
     Canadian authorities. That's sovereignty,'' says University 
     of Michigan law professor and tribal criminal-justice expert 
     Gavin Clarkson. ``My position is that tribes should have 
     criminal jurisdiction over anybody who commits a crime in 
     their territory. The Supreme Court screwed it all up and 
     Congress has never fixed it.''
       Jeff Davis, an assistant U.S. Attorney in Michigan who 
     handles tribal-land cases, acknowledges that his hands are 
     often tied. Mr. Davis is also a member of North Dakota's 
     Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa. ``I've been in the U.S. 
     Attorney's office for 12 years, and both presidents I have 
     served under have made violent crime in Indian country a 
     priority. But because of the jurisdictional issue and 
     questions over who has authority and who gets to prosecute, 
     it is a difficult situation.''
       Often cases don't rise to the level of felony federal 
     crimes unless the victim has suffered a severe injury. 
     Federal prosecutors have limited resources and focus almost 
     exclusively on the most serious cases. Compounding that is 
     the fact that domestic-abuse cases are difficult to prove, 
     especially if the lone witness recants.
       ``It requires stitches, almost a dead body,'' says Mr. 
     Davis. ``It is a high standard to meet.''
       For some non-Indians, tribal lands are virtual havens. 
     Chane Coomes, a 43-year-old white man, grew up on the Pine 
     Ridge Reservation in South Dakota--home to the Oglala Lakota, 
     near the site of the infamous 1890 massacre at Wounded Knee. 
     Marked by a small obelisk, the mass grave is a symbol of 
     unpunished violence, literally buried in the soil of the 
     tribe. The 2000 census documented Shannon County, which 
     encompasses the remote and desolate reservation, as the 
     second-poorest county in the U.S., with an annual per-capita 
     income of $6,286 at the time. Only Buffalo County, S.D., was 
     poorer.
       According to local authorities, Mr. Coomes used his home on 
     the reservation as a sanctuary, knowing he would be free from 
     the attentions of tribal prosecutors.
       Tribal Police Chief James Twiss says Mr. Coomes was 
     suspected of dealing in small amounts of methamphetamine for 
     years. Tribal police also thought he might be trafficking in 
     stolen goods.
       In 1998, Mr. Coomes assaulted a tribal elder, Woodrow 
     Respects Nothing, a 74-year-old decorated World War II and 
     Korean War veteran. Because it couldn't prosecute, the tribe 
     ordered Mr. Coomes off its land. But attempts to remove him 
     were unenforceable.
       ``All I could do was to escort him off the reservation,'' 
     says tribal police officer Eugenio White Hawk, who did that 
     several times, the last when he spotted the banned man 
     hauling horses in a trailer. ``He kept coming back. After a 
     while I just left him alone and let it go. It was just a 
     waste of time.''
       Mr. Coomes remained in his Shannon County home until 2006 
     when he was accused of beating his estranged wife in nearby 
     Nebraska and threatening to kill her, according to Dawes 
     County District Attorney Vance Haug. The crime was committed 
     off the reservation, and the subsequent investigation gave 
     state authorities official jurisdiction.
       After raiding his home, they found stolen equipment as well 
     as 30 grams of methamphetamine and $13,000 hidden in the 
     bathroom, along with syringes.
       Mr. Coomes is now in the Fall River County Jail charged 
     with possession of stolen property, grand theft and 
     unauthorized possession of a controlled substance. He also 
     faces separate charges, of assault and ``terroristic 
     threats'' related to his wife, in Dawes County, Neb. If 
     convicted on the latter charges, he faces up to six years in 
     prison, Mr. Haug said. Mr. Coomes's attorney declined to 
     comment.
       The jurisdictional quagmire also has implications for 
     Indian members on the other side of the tribal border. Gene 
     New Holy, an ambulance driver on Pine Ridge, had been 
     arrested by the tribe more than a dozen times for various 
     drunk-driving offenses, for which he received only two 
     convictions totaling about a month in a tribal jail. In state 
     court, four convictions would have led to a maximum sentence 
     of five years.
       Lance Russell, the state prosecutor for Shannon County and 
     neighboring Fall River County, had never heard of Mr. New 
     Holy until Feb. 11, 2001, when Mr. New Holy got drunk at a 
     Fall River County bar. According to court documents, he 
     nearly hit one car on a main highway, forced two others into 
     a ditch and sideswiped a third that had pulled off the road 
     as Mr. New Holy approached it in the wrong lane.
       The last car he hit contained three tribe members--cousins 
     Bart Mardinian, Anthony Mousseau and Russell Merrival-- all 
     of whom died. The accident was less than a mile off the 
     reservation, enough to give Mr. Russell and the state 
     jurisdiction in the case. Mr. New Holy is serving 45 years in 
     state prison for three counts of vehicular homicide--much 
     longer than the 12 months per count he would have served 
     under tribal law. His attorney didn't return a call seeking 
     comment.
       ``The holes in the system are more practical than legal, 
     and the victims of crime pay the price,'' says Larry Long 
     III, the South Dakota attorney general. ``The crooks and the 
     knotheads win.''
       The Eastern Band of Cherokee, located in the Smoky 
     Mountains of North Carolina, is one of the most efficiently 
     run tribes in the country. Its ancestors hid in these 
     mountains while Cherokee east of the Mississippi River were 
     forcibly moved to present-day Oklahoma, a migration known as 
     the ``Trail of Tears.'' Today the tribe is spread across five 
     counties and is economically well off: It takes in more than 
     $200 million annually from the Harrah's Cherokee Casino & 
     Hotel, which it owns, and has a robust tourist industry. 
     About half of the tribe's gambling spoils go to pay for 
     infrastructure and government services.
       Its court, which is housed in a prefabricated building, 
     looks like any other in the U.S., except the judges wear 
     bright, red

[[Page 20794]]

     robes. The offices, while cramped, are modern and 
     computerized, and are a little over one hour's drive from the 
     federal prosecutor's office in Asheville. Tribal authorities 
     meet regularly with federal prosecutors for training. The 
     tribe's top jurist is a former federal prosecutor who has 
     regular contact with his successors.
       Yet even here, the justice system works erratically. In 
     2005, tribal police received a tip that James Hornbuckle, 46, 
     an Oklahoma Cherokee who had moved to the reservation, was 
     dealing marijuana. Officers built a case for weeks. They 
     raided the business and then Mr. Hornbuckle's home, where 
     they found 10 kilograms of marijuana, packaged in small 
     bricks. By tribe standards, it was a big haul, and 
     authorities approached the U.S. Attorney's office.
       Gretchen Shappert, U.S. Attorney for the Western District 
     of North Carolina, says federal sentencing guidelines for 
     marijuana are so lenient, that ``we'd need 50 kilograms in a 
     typical federal case'' to pursue it. The feds rejected the 
     case.
       If the state court had jurisdiction to prosecute the crime, 
     Mr. Hornbuckle might have received a three-year term. 
     Instead, he pleaded guilty to the marijuana charge and was 
     sentenced to one year in tribal court. Recently the tribal 
     council voted to permanently ban him from the reservation, 
     with backing from the feds. Messages left for Mr. 
     Hornbuckle's attorney weren't returned.
       Mr. Crowe's name is all too familiar on the reservation. 
     Tribal Police Chief Benjamin Reed has known him since he was 
     a juvenile. ``What I remember is his domestic-violence 
     incidents. He just wouldn't stop,'' Mr. Reed says.
       Crystal Hicks, who dated Mr. Crowe before his marriage, 
     says the tribal member was verbally abusive. She says she 
     left him after she had a miscarriage, when he berated her for 
     not giving him a ride to a motorcycle gathering. ``He said I 
     was using the miscarriage as an excuse,'' says Ms. Hicks, 27 
     years old.
       After that, in several telephone messages saved by Ms. 
     Hicks and her family, Mr. Crowe threatened to kill them and 
     bury Ms. Hicks in her backyard. He was jailed by the tribe 
     and ordered to stay away from the Hicks family.
       ``One year,'' says Ms. Hicks. ``He even told me he was fine 
     in jail. He got fed three times a day, had a place to sleep 
     and he wasn't going to be there long.''
       After he married, the violence escalated, says Police Chief 
     Reed. During one incident he drove to the home Mr. Crowe 
     shared with his wife, Vicki. ``He had threatened her, and dug 
     a grave, and said no one would ever find her. We believed 
     him,'' Mr. Reed said. ``Just look at some of the stuff he'd 
     done. That girl was constantly coming down here, her face 
     swollen up.'' At one point, he choked his wife, poured 
     kerosene into her mouth and threatened to light it, police 
     reports say. Mr. Crowe's attorney didn't return calls seeking 
     comment.
       None of these acts led to more than one year in jail, a 
     sentence he has been given twice since 2001. His criminal 
     file at the tribal court building fills a dozen manila 
     folders. There are reports of trespassing and assault 
     convictions, telephone harassment, threats and weapons 
     assaults--one for an incident when he hit his wife with an ax 
     handle, breaking her wrist. His latest arrest, in September, 
     came about a week after he finished his most recent sentence, 
     when he came home and beat his now-estranged wife--again.
       After seven years, his crimes finally triggered federal 
     involvement, although almost by accident. Federal prosecutors 
     from around the country met at Cherokee earlier this year to 
     discuss crime on tribal land. One federal official mentioned 
     to Mr. Kilbourne, the tribal prosecutor, a new statute that 
     allows federal intervention where defendants have at least 
     two domestic-violence convictions, regardless of the crime's 
     seriousness.
       Mr. Kilbourne, who was preparing for a new trial against 
     Mr. Crowe the following week, quickly turned the case over. 
     Mr. Crowe pleaded guilty to assault last Friday and is 
     awaiting sentencing.


                     Corrections and Amplifications

       The attorney for James Hornbuckle, a Cherokee who was cited 
     in this article, couldn't be reached for comment. This 
     article incorrectly says his attorney didn't return calls 
     seeking comment.

  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Mack

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mack:
       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 by this Act may 
     be used to carry out the composition and delivery of exigent 
     circumstance letters, that indicate that a grand jury 
     subpoena is forthcoming where none has been convened or where 
     there is no reasonable likelihood that one will be convened, 
     to United States citizens, businesses, banks, firms or any 
     other entity that retains personal identity information about 
     citizens.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, a wise man said, ``Freedom is the core of all 
human progress.'' It is my belief that he is right.
  Since coming to Congress, I have often been an advocate of oversight. 
My colleague from Arizona routinely comes to this floor urging us to 
make oversight a larger part of the congressional process, and I agree 
with him. It is an area where we all need to pay more attention.
  Unfortunately, when we turn our attention away, it is often at the 
expense of our own liberty and freedom. This amendment seeks to 
spotlight a particular area of concern, the so-called exigent 
circumstances letters sent out from the FBI to obtain highly sensitive 
information.
  While I support using the proper tools to keep our Nation safe, 
particularly in the war on terror, these letters seem to fall well 
short of constitutional checks and balances. My colleagues and I fear 
that innocent citizens are being netted in the process.
  But, Mr. Chairman, how are we to know that? The very limited 
justification that comes from the Department of Justice stands on shaky 
ground. The rest of the time they hide behind national security as a 
reason for not telling us more. While I am pleased the FBI is taking 
internal steps to clarify the scope and use of these letters, I believe 
we should raise the process up by codifying it to ensure there are no 
questions that civil liberties are not being violated and the 
information that is coming from these searches is not being used for 
wrongful purposes.
  Thankfully, article I of the Constitution says we are a coequal 
branch of government charged with cooperation and oversight of these 
types of activities. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to our freedom, we all 
need to be diligent. We all need to exercise care and we all need to be 
cautious of government. Though it often seeks to protect us, it always 
ends up capturing more of our precious liberties.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In 2005, while on the House Judiciary Committee, I, along with some 
others, offered a series of reforms to the process of issuing national 
security letters. These reforms came about during the reauthorization 
of the PATRIOT Act. These reforms didn't go as far as I would have 
liked, but we took the administration at their word when they said that 
civil liberties would not be violated.
  During the reauthorization process, I and others were told by 
administration officials that the reforms we sought were not needed, 
that the Department of Justice and FBI would never do the hypothetical 
worst-case scenario that some of my colleagues and I worried about.
  After a long investigation by the Inspector General of the Department 
of Justice, I can regrettably say many of the worst-case scenarios 
actually came about and that our hypotheticals were not so farfetched.
  The FBI has abused its power both in terms of National Security 
Letters and exigent letters. In the case of exigent letters, it appears 
the FBI repeatedly asserted exigent circumstances where none existed in 
order to obtain telephone records. The Inspector General's probe also 
concluded that there sometimes was no open nor pending national 
security investigation tied to

[[Page 20795]]

the request. This directly contradicts the requirements of U.S. law. 
Letters went out stating that a grand jury subpoena was forthcoming 
when none was forthcoming.
  The Inspector General's report was just a small sampling of the use 
of these letters, and we have not been given a larger picture yet. I 
want to commend the gentleman from Florida for bringing this forward. 
He has worked hard on this issue, and we are not speaking anymore in 
hypotheticals. We have seen abuses. They have been documented. This is 
very important, and I commend him for bringing this forward, and I join 
him in his effort.
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that I think this is 
absolutely a justified effort to bring to light something that I think 
all of the American people deserve, and that is to understand truly 
what is going on at the Department of Justice insofar as the use of 
these letters.
  Unfortunately, this is legislating on an appropriations bill. I do 
hope that in the course of this session we will bring up legislation 
that will get at the PATRIOT Act so that we can bring to light how far 
the Justice Department has gone in overriding the initial intent of the 
PATRIOT Act and overriding the sense of Congress in terms of the abuse 
of issuance of both National Security Letters and exigency letters. For 
that reason, I think the intent of this is very well placed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff) for whom this is a very important issue.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank 
Mr. Mack for his strong work on this issue and his protection of civil 
liberties in this regard and many others.
  Most disturbingly, from my view, from the Inspector General's report 
was the fact that the FBI issued at least 739 exigent letters to obtain 
telephone toll records in violation of internal Justice Department 
guidelines.
  These exigent letters are used in emergency situations when an attack 
can be imminent and information is required immediately. They said 
things like this: ``Due to exigent circumstances, it is requested the 
records for the attached list of phone numbers be provided. Subpoenas 
requesting this information have been submitted to the U.S. Attorney's 
Office, who will process and serve them as expeditiously as possible.''

                              {time}  1300

  The problem with these letters, in at least 739 cases there was no 
grand jury meeting. There were no subpoenas requested, and none would 
ever be delivered. And so here you have the prospect of the FBI going 
out to a phone company or other provider and saying, this is an 
emergency, we need this information, subpoenas to be forthcoming, and 
none were.
  Now, as a telephone company, you get the FBI knocking on your door 
asking for records, saying, this is an emergency, someone's life may be 
at risk, we may be at risk of an attack, you're going to want to 
comply. And then after the fact, after the FBI discovered that it had 
issued all these letters erroneously, unlawfully, it then issues an 
NSL, National Security Letter, asking for the information that was 
provided for in these exigent letters, basically to cover up, to try to 
give a patina of legality over an illegal practice.
  This is deeply disturbing, and my friend's amendment, that I was 
pleased to join him in cosponsoring, would prohibit the expenditure of 
funds on these exigent letters when the claim is made that a grand jury 
subpoena is forthcoming when there's no grand jury even impaneled on 
the issue.
  We need to put a stop to this practice. I very much appreciate my 
colleague raising this issue. I'm proud to support it.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I think that this 
issue is an issue of due process. This country was founded on the basis 
of due process and on law, and that is why this strikes at the very 
heart of our system of government and why this is such an important 
issue to be raised.
  And for that reason, I think that while this is a point of order, I 
do believe this is going to be an issue for this Congress to address in 
the course of this session. I commend the gentleman from Florida for 
raising it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time,
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues as well. 
I think this demonstrates that there is bipartisan support on this 
issue, and at the heart of this is to preserve and protect the citizens 
of this country's freedoms and liberties.
  So I want to thank again my colleagues and the staff on both sides 
for working this.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. The amounts otherwise provided in this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for the 
     ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Office of Justice Programs--state 
     and local law enforcement assistance'' and by increasing the 
     amount made available for the ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--Office 
     of Justice Programs--state and local law enforcement 
     assistance4'' by $10,000,000 and $10,000,000, respectively.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
chair.
  Let me first of all, as I bring my amendment to the attention of my 
colleagues, thank the chairman of the subcommittee Mr. Mollohan, and 
the ranking member of the subcommittee Mr. Frelinghuysen, for your 
leadership on a number of these issues of which I will discuss today.
  Let me, first of all, acknowledge the Department of Justice funding, 
particularly the State and local law enforcement and crime prevention 
grants and the COPS program, of which many of us have supported for an 
extensive period of time.
  I rose to the floor of the House yesterday and indicated that I 
believe that the father of community-oriented policing was both the 
mayor and chief of police in my city of Houston, Lee P. Brown, who 
served as the chief of police in New York and Atlanta.
  I rise today to emphasize for my colleagues the importance of 
providing resources to public safety officers so that they can provide 
the service to the community in this increasing period of rising crime 
statistics, and let me share with you the vastness of the public safety 
officers' responsibility.
  What I want to suggest in this amendment is that public safety 
officers are needed in schools. They're needed on the highways. They're 
needed in our neighborhoods. They're needed on our buses and our 
trains. Many times incidences will occur on our trains and buses with 
citizens who are using those facilities, and the quick response of 
public safety officers can lead to the saving of lives. That is why it 
is important for them to have appropriate commitment and the 
appropriate equipment.
  Let me cite in my own community, which we're seeing statistically 
across the Nation, having just heard the FBI report that says crime 
statistics are increasing all over America, not only in the urban 
centers like Houston, which is the fourth largest city in the Nation, 
but it is also increasing in our rural

[[Page 20796]]

hamlets and villages and farmlands. We have a crisis in crime. Part of 
it has been because we have not provided, I think, the extra resources 
that we see in this bill.
  But let me just cite for you why people traveling on transportation 
need the quick access of a public safety officer. One article says, a 
second metro bus driver attacked. Two men attacked a metro bus driver 
Tuesday after they argued with her about a fare. That means all of 
those riding the bus were in jeopardy. A quick response by a public 
safety officer was clearly a need.
  And so my amendment is simple. It provides for the reemphasis of the 
need of this equipment, whether they are walkie-talkies and others, to 
ensure that we have safety, and as well to ensure that these dollars 
are used effectively for safety in our community.
  I'd ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to explain my amendment to 
H.R. 3093. My amendment is simple. It seeks to assist public safety 
officials in the United States in communicating with one another across 
jurisdictions and disciplines, to enhance the public's safety and 
prevent unnecessary loss of lives and property.
  My amendment recognizes immense importance of hand-held communication 
devices to the transit workers and other public officials who play a 
key role in responding to disasters and terrorist attacks. It seeks to 
ensure that they may be provided with fully interoperable equipment, 
maximizing their effectiveness and working to ensure their safety as 
they work to protect our communities.
  Throughout the United States, public safety agencies--law 
enforcement, fire fighters, emergency technicians, public health 
officials, and others--often cannot communicate effectively with one 
another, even within the same jurisdiction, or with other public safety 
agencies at the Federal, State, or local level, when responding to 
emergencies.
  As a senior Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I have 
worked tirelessly to ensure that our communities' first responders are 
equipped with the best possible equipment, including communication 
devices that allow them to effectively communicate with each other and 
with their Federal counterparts across jurisdictions and disciplines. 
Interoperable communications would allow our Nation's first responders 
to communicate in real time, in the event of an emergency.
  Mr. Chairman, the lack of sufficient hand-held communications devises 
may have contributed to the deaths of 343 firefighters in New York City 
on September 11, 2001, when police could not communicate effectively 
with firefighters prior to the collapse of the Twin Towers. Similarly, 
the lack of adequate equipment exacerbated the difficulties in 
evacuating people during hurricane Katrina, where many could have been 
saved if effective communications equipments were available not only to 
safety workers but to transit authorities and others in a collective 
effort to save the lives of those who were stranded and injured that 
tragic day.
  Recent national catastrophes, including the terrorist attacks of 
September 11th and Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, clearly illustrate the 
need to ensure that safety responders have interoperable communications 
systems. Emergency response systems must be able to function under 
extreme and unpredictable conditions. We can learn from our past that 
when those responding to emergencies cannot communicate effectively, 
the danger to public safety officials and the public increases.
  The Department of Homeland Security has recognized the importance of 
providing effective and real-time communication capabilities. Secretary 
Chertoff stated in November 2006 his intention to make sure that major 
cities ``have interoperable communications in effect by the end of this 
coming year.'' Interoperable communications provide tangible benefits 
to places like my home City of Houston, with its 5.3 million residents 
and concentration of critical infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply aims to ensure that high risk 
areas, like Houston, have sufficient communications devices to enable 
our Nation's first responders and transit workers to communicate in 
real time, in the event of an emergency.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

                      [From the Houston Chronicle]

                    Second Metro Bus Driver Attacked

                           (By Lindsay Wise)

       Two men attacked a Metro bus driver Tuesday after they 
     argued with her about the fare, making it the second attack 
     this week of a female driver.
       The men, who appeared to be inebriated, got into a dispute 
     with the driver over fares and threatened her, said Metro 
     spokeswoman Raequel Roberts. The men initially retreated into 
     the bus, but about 10 minutes later, they returned to the 
     front and punched her, Roberts said.
       The driver was taken to Memorial Southwest hospital, where 
     she was treated for a cut on her nose, Roberts said.
       Some passengers on the bus took pictures of the two men 
     with their cell phones, and Metro police are now looking for 
     the suspects, Roberts said.
       The assault took place on the same bus route and in the 
     same area as the reported robbery and sexual assault of a 
     Metro bus driver early Sunday.
       In that case, a man boarded a Metro bus on Hillcroft at 
     Bellaire and remained on board for several miles, waiting for 
     the last passenger to exit before dragging the driver to the 
     back of the bus and assaulting her at gunpoint, Metro 
     officials said.
       According to statistics provided by Metro, 28 violent 
     crimes--ranging from robberies to aggravated assaults--
     occurred so far this year on their buses. Last year, 50 
     violent crimes were reported on Metro buses, up from 38 in 
     2005.
       Roberts said Metro has increased security patrols in the 
     area as they search for the attackers.
       ``We've been out there with officers in force,'' she said.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we commend the gentlewoman for bringing 
this to the attention of us, and we have no objection to the amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Reclaiming my time, I'd like to thank the 
distinguished gentleman and the ranking member.
  And let me just say to all those individuals impacted by crime, 
particularly these bus drivers that I'm speaking of today, help is on 
the way.
  I ask for support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. The amount otherwise provided in this Act for 
     ``Department of Justice'' is hereby decreased by $10,000,000 
     and increased by $10,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me also thank the 
chairman and ranking member for their infusion of dollars in the 
Federal prison system, $179 million above 2007.
  There needs to be an infusion of funding because we have an 
overcrowded system in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. We, as the 
authorizing committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, have heard 
repeatedly of the concerns of both the management of the Federal Bureau 
of Prisons, but also the inmates. I have visited institutions in my own 
area. I've seen the overcrowding. I've seen the conditions and paid 
attention to some of the elements that we could improve.
  Many may hear this debate and suggest that incarcerated persons 
should be treated in a certain way. This is a very simple amendment. It 
asks for a study to look at the possibilities of early release for 
nonviolent prisoners who are over the age of 45.
  How does that help our community? One, it sends individuals back home 
to their families to provide resources. We know that we are watching a 
second chance bill make its way through this Congress. We hope that it 
will move quickly. Many of these offenders are middle age. Many of them 
are sick. This costs a great deal for the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

[[Page 20797]]

  It is noted that 1.1 million nonviolent offenders are currently 
locked up. Many of them are African Americans, and in the 1930s, 75 
percent of the people entering State and Federal prison were of the 
majority population. That is not the case now.
  So it's a simple premise. It has been adopted in the authorization 
bill. It asks the hard question, why are we incarcerating for decades 
and decades nonviolent individuals who pay their debt to society, when 
they could come out and provide the comfort and nurturing and financial 
support to their own families and also address the question of Federal 
prison overcrowding?
  I'd ask my colleagues to support it.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman for this opportunity to explain my amendment. 
My amendment provides for the early release for non-violent offenders 
who have attained the age of at least 45 years of age, have never been 
convicted of a violent crime, have never escaped or attempted to escape 
from incarceration, and have not engaged in any violation, involving 
violent conduct, of institutional disciplinary regulations.
  My amendment seeks to ensure that in affording offenders a second 
chance to turn around their lives and contribute to society, ex-
offenders are not too old to take advantage of a second chance to 
redeem themselves. A secondary benefit of my amendment is that it would 
relieve some of the strain on federal, state, and local government 
budgets by reducing considerably government expenditures on warehousing 
prisoners.
  Mr. Chairman, some of those who are incarcerated face extremely long 
sentences, and this language would help to address this problem. 
Releasing rehabilitated, middle-aged, non-violent offenders from an 
already overcrowded prison population can be a win-win situation for 
society and the individual who, like the Jean Valjean made famous in 
Victor Hugo's Les Miserables, is redeemed by the grace of a second 
chance. The reentry of such individuals into the society will enable 
them to repay the community through community service and obtain or 
regain a sense of self-worth and accomplishment. It promises a 
reduction in burdens to the taxpayer, and an affirmation of the 
American value that no non-violent offender is beyond redemption.
  Mr. Chairman, the number of federal inmates has grown from just over 
24,000 in 1980 to 173,739 in 2004. The cost to incarcerate these 
individuals has risen from $330 million to $4.6 billion since 2004.
  At a time when tight budgets have forced many states to consider the 
early release of hundreds of inmates to conserve tax revenue and when 
our nation's Social Security system is in danger of being totally 
privatized, early release is a common-sense option to raise capital.
  The rate of incarceration and the length of sentence for first-time, 
non-violent offenders have become extreme. Over the past two decades, 
no area of state government expenditures has increased as rapidly as 
prisons and jails. According to data collected by the Justice 
Department, the number of prisoners in America has more than tripled 
over the last two decades from 500,000 to 1.8 million, with states like 
California and Texas experiencing eightfold prison population increases 
during that time. Mr. Chairman, there are more people in the prisons of 
America than there are residents in states of Alaska, North Dakota, and 
Wyoming combined.
  Over one million people have been warehoused for nonviolent, often 
petty crimes. The European Union, with a population of 370 million, has 
one-sixth the number of incarcerated persons as we do, and that 
includes violent and nonviolent offenders. This is one third the number 
of prisoners which America, a country with 70 million fewer people, 
incarcerates for nonviolent offenses.
  The 1.1 million nonviolent offenders we currently lock up represents 
five times the number of people held in India's entire prison system, 
even though its population is four times greater than the United 
States.
  As the number of individuals incarcerated for nonviolent offenses has 
steadily risen, African-Americans and Latinos have comprised a growing 
percentage of the overall number incarcerated. In the 1930s, 75% of the 
people entering state and federal prison were white (roughly reflecting 
the demographics of the nation). Today, minority communities represent 
70% of all new admissions--and more than half of all Americans behind 
bars.
  This is why for the last several years I have introduced the Federal 
Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender Relief Act. The bill I introduced 
earlier this year, H.R. 261, forms the basis for the present amendment.
  Over 2 million offenders are incarcerated in the nation's prisons and 
jails. At midyear 2002, 665,475 inmates were held in the Nation's local 
jails, up from 631,240 at midyear 2001. Projections indicate that the 
inmate population will unfortunately continue to rise over the years to 
come.
  To illustrate the impact that this amendment will potentially have on 
Texas, the Federal prison population for the years 2000, 2001, and 2002 
reached 39,679, 36,138, and 36,635 persons respectively; the State 
prison population for the same years reached 20,200, 20,898, and 23,561 
persons. These numbers have grown since 2002, so the impact is indeed 
significant and the State of Texas is an important stakeholder.
  As I stated at the outset, my amendment will ensure that in affording 
offenders a second chance to turn around their lives and contribute to 
society, ex-offenders are not too old to take advantage of a second 
chance to redeem themselves. My amendment will also relieve the some of 
the strain on federal, state, and local government budgets by reducing 
considerably government expenditures on warehousing prisoners.
  For these reasons, I ask that all members to support my amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have no objection to the amendment. 
The gentlelady's insights into this issue are clear. The committee 
actually welcomes the thought, the amendment, and we accept the 
amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished chairman, 
and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. This will go a long 
way to this very strong and harsh question of Federal prison 
overcrowding and how we use our resources for nonviolent prisoners.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of 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 violation of Subtitle A of Title VIII 
     (International Space Station Independent Safety Taskforce) of 
     the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law No. 109-155).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the Chair, and 
again, I thank the chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee. 
Let me also add my appreciation to the appropriators and the chair and 
ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to acknowledge the hard work of the Science 
Committee. I had the pleasure of serving on that committee for almost 
12 years. My issue there was the question of safety during the tenure 
that I was in that role or a member of that committee. Of course, we 
had the backdrop of Challenger and then Columbia.
  Safety is a crucial component to the continued support of Americans 
of the International Space Station and America's space program. When I 
have an annual Christmas party in Houston, the most popular visitor is 
not Santa Claus. For children, it is the astronauts, and I rise today 
to offer an amendment that will reinforce the importance of safety in 
the NASA program.
  Space exploration remains a part of our national destiny. After the 
Columbia disaster, NASA stands at a pivotal moment in its history. It 
is the responsibility of this Congress to ensure that the future of 
NASA is one of continued

[[Page 20798]]

progress. I have long been an advocate of space exploration, and I have 
steadfastly emphasized that while safety must be the number one 
priority of NASA, this should not deter us from pushing the boundaries 
of technology and discovery.
  In June of this year, we saw the space shuttle Atlantis and the 
International Space Station both experience serious safety scares. The 
shuttle's mission had to be extended following the discovery of a rip 
in the shuttle's thermal blanket, while the space station experienced 
the failure of a Russian-operated computer system controlling a crucial 
portion of the station's navigational system. These recent incidents 
clearly indicate the need for improved safety standards and oversight. 
Space exploration must be coupled with satisfactory safety assurances.
  The amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I offer refers to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act signed into law 
by President Bush, which provided for the establishment of an 
International Space Station Independent Safety Commission, that I 
authored, to discover and assess any vulnerabilities of the 
international space station that could lead to its destruction, 
compromise the health of its crew, or necessitate its premature 
abandonment.
  We will launch on August 7. That launch will head to the 
International Space Station. People will be on that international space 
station, which is the ultimate goal, that scientists will find the 
place in space to be able to do the research that will carry America 
forward.
  That safety task force provided valuable observations on the 
strengths and weaknesses of the International Space Station safety 
systems. It went on to say that we should have strong congressional 
support for the space shuttle and International Space Station, as well 
as a number of specific technical recommendations, such as increased 
attention to orbital debris and ensuring that all personnel and 
managers have the necessary skills and experience.
  If these recommendations are to be successful in identifying and 
mitigating future risks, then we must have a Congress that reinforces 
safety for NASA.

                              {time}  1315

  We shouldn't have the individual there who is afraid to speak up. We 
should have whistleblower protection. And we should have a director who 
cares about safety and does not reject Congress' interest in safety.
  I hope that we will keep our eye on this international space station 
commission on safety, even though its report is in, to ensure that the 
individuals we sent on the space shuttle, the work that we are doing on 
space has the element of safety to save lives and create the 
opportunity for men and women to live and work in space.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment as we support NASA and 
my appreciation for the funding that is in this bill for NASA and 
aeronautics and research and ask my colleagues that NASA should equate 
to safety, NASA should equate to science. That is an important aspect.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment. It 
states that none of the funds made available in this Act may be used to 
limit the safety provisions enumerated in the NASA Authorization Act of 
2005 (Public Law No. 109-155), particularly those regarding the 
International Space Station Independent Safety Commission.
  Space exploration remains a part of our national destiny. After the 
Columbia disaster, NASA stands at a pivotal moment in its history. It 
is the responsibility of this Congress to ensure that the future of 
NASA is one of continued progress. I have long been an advocate of 
space exploration, and I have steadfastly emphasized that while safety 
must be the number one priority of NASA, this should not deter us from 
pushing the boundaries of technology and discovery.
  In June of this year, we saw the Space Shuttle Atlantis and the 
International Space Station both experience serious safety scares. The 
shuttle's mission had to be extended following the discovery of a rip 
in the shuttle's thermal blanket, while the space station experienced 
the failure of a Russian-operated computer system controlling a crucial 
portion of the station's navigational system. These recent incidents 
clearly indicate the need for improved safety standards and oversight. 
Space exploration must be coupled with satisfactory safety assurances.
  Mr. Chairman, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Authorization Act of 2005, signed into law by President Bush, provided 
for the establishment of an International Space Station Independent 
Safety Commission, to discover and assess any vulnerabilities of the 
International Space Station that could lead to its destruction, 
compromise the health of its crew, or necessitate its premature 
abandonment.
  This congressionally mandated International Space Station Independent 
Safety Task Force offered its recommendations in the form of a final 
report, which was submitted to NASA and the United States Congress in 
February of 2007. This report offered a number of valuable observations 
on the strengths and weaknesses of the International Space Station's 
safety systems, and it went on to make several important 
recommendations. The report called for strong congressional support for 
Space Shuttle and International Space Station, as well as a number of 
specific technical recommendations, such as increased attention to 
orbital debris and ensuring that all personnel and managers have the 
necessary skills and experience.
  If these recommendations are to be successful in identifying and 
mitigating future risks to the International Space Station, Congress, 
together with the Administration, must firmly reaffirm its commitment 
to pursuing safety as a top priority. My amendment speaks to this clear 
need to emphasize the importance of safety standards by ensuring that 
none of the funds made available in this Act may be used to limit the 
safety provisions enumerated in the recent NASA Authorization Act.
  We must continue to work to ensure that adequate safety standards 
apply to all NASA endeavors, and particularly to manned space 
exploration. As I previously stated, I am a strong supporter of the 
International Space Station, and I hope that we can move forward with 
its mission. However, our mission for discovery can not be done in 
haste; instead we must ensure that all steps have been taken to 
minimize the risk to astronauts onboard.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important 
amendment.

         U.S. and Russia View Space Station Safety Differently

                          (By Mike Schnelder)

       Cape Canaveral, FL.--It was just four high-energy 
     batteries, the kind that are found in a lot of military 
     equipment such as walkie-talkie sets and night vision 
     equipment. Similar batteries already were being used on the 
     International Space Station.
       But when NASA officials discovered last year that Russian 
     space officials were allowing the four batteries on-board the 
     space station without the proper testing, they objected 
     strenuously. The batteries could be toxic and had a small 
     potential to explode. The Russians went ahead anyway.
       Nothing ever happened. But the friction caused by the 
     batteries underscores the divide between the now hyper-
     safety-conscious Americans and what the Russians describe as 
     their ``more flexible'' approach.
       It's a different philosophy, explains Shirley McCarty, 
     former head of NASA's safely advisory board: In the U.S. 
     program you must prove it is safe. The Russian approach is 
     ``prove it's not safe.''
       After the Columbia space shuttle disaster, safety is 
     getting even more attention by the U.S. Space program,
       Tensions over the two countries' approaches are being 
     played out in Houston and Moscow as both programs debate 
     whether to allow a spacewalk by the current space station 
     crew of just two men--astronaut Michael Foale and cosmonaut 
     Alexander Kaleri. A spacewalk would leave the space station 
     temporily empty. Previous spacewalks at the international 
     space station have depended on a third crew member inside.
       The Russians, however, are comfortable with the risk and 
     carried out spacewalks on their Mir space station with just a 
     two-man crew. They are pushing for a spacewalk in late 
     February to do minor work involving payloads and preparatory 
     work for a new type or cargo ship.
       The Russians consider themselves less rigid and more 
     inventive than the Americans, who tend to follow every letter 
     in the technical manuals, said Sergei Gorbunov, a spokesmen 
     for the Russian Space Agency.
       ``Here in Russia, we are more flexible in our approach to 
     technical problems,'' Garbunov said. ``The Americans are more 
     conservative in dealing with technical problems, but this 
     isn't a fault.''
       It may not be a fault but the different approaches 
     contribute to communications problems that could lead to 
     dangerous situations, NASA's safety advisory board warned in 
     a report last year.
       ``They share safety concerns,'' Michael Suffredini, the 
     station's operations and integration manager for NASA, said 
     last week of

[[Page 20799]]

     the Russians. ``Sometimes we have a different view.''
       Jerry Linenger, a former astronaut who lived aboard 
     Russia's Mir in 1997, said there has to be a ``happy medium'' 
     between the two approaches.
       ``The Russians are probably on one side of the balance, and 
     the Americans are probably too much on the other side,'' 
     Linenger said.
       During Linenger's stay on Mir, the Russian space station 
     suffered the most severe fire ever aboard an orbiting 
     spacecraft, a near collision with a cargo ship, failures of 
     onboard system including an oxygen generator, loss of 
     electrical power and an uncontrolled tumble through space.
       The current space station crew also is experienced with 
     close calls. Foale was on Mir when it collided with a cargo 
     ship. Kaleri was on Mir along with Linenger when the fire 
     broke out.
       The differences between the Russian and U.S. approaches to 
     safety are as much from cultural as economic factors, said 
     Linenger.
       Russian industry, for instance, doesn't have the commitment 
     to worker safety that the United States has adopted in recent 
     decades through agencies such as the Occupational Safety and 
     Health Administration. In addition, workers in the Russian 
     space program haven't shaken off the Soviet-era habit of 
     following orders without question, Linenger said.
       ``The Russians don't want to lose a cosmonaut any more than 
     we want to lose an a astronaut,'' he said, but suggested that 
     perhaps they were ``less used to protecting the worker . . . 
     They're probably more willing to overlook a lot of things 
     that we're not.''
       The limited budget of the Russian space program also 
     contributes to how it approaches safety, Linenger said. The 
     cash-strapped space agency, after all, has allowed U.S. 
     millionaire Dennis Tito and South African Mark Shuttleworth 
     to pay for the privilege of being space tourists on the 
     station despite the initial objections of NASA officials.
       Most recently, the Russian space program disclosed that 
     government funds allocated for building crew capsules and 
     supply ships for the space station are only about half of 
     what's needed.
       ``When you have a limited budget like they did when I was 
     there, you can't afford to go to option B,'' Linenger said. 
     ``Maybe we misinterpret that they're cavalier about things 
     when they have no options.''
       Linenger noted that NASA recently decided to send the 
     current crew to the space station despite concerns from a 
     NASA physician and scientist that exercise equipment and some 
     water and air monitoring devices weren't working properly.
       ``When you're between a rock and a hard place. I'm not sure 
     we would act any differently,'' he said.
       Ed Lu, who returned from the space station last month after 
     a six-month stay, said any differences in approaches to 
     safety aren't noticeable.
       It's really one big program right now,'' he said during an 
     interview from space before his return. ``You can't really 
     separate the organizations too much anymore.''
       But members of NASA's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel felt 
     otherwise. They resigned en masse in September after being 
     described as ineffective in a report by the Columbia Accident 
     Investigation Board. Before resigning, members cited two 
     other recent incidents in which miscommunication between the 
     Russians and Americans on the ground had caused problems with 
     how the space station was positioned.
       ``It just seems all the required operating procedures, the 
     ground rules aboard the station, really hadn't been 
     completely planned out between the various international 
     partners,'' said Robert Schaufele, a former member of the 
     safety panel and a professor of aircraft design at California 
     State University.
       But the two programs have learned from past problems, and 
     new procedures have been put in place, said Bill 
     Gerstenmaier, the space station's program manager for NASA.
       Since the batteries incident, complaints or concerns can be 
     taken up the command chain more quickly, said Arthur 
     Zygielbaum, a former safety advisory board member.
       And in recent years, eight NASA specialists have worked in 
     Russia while 10 Russian specialists have worked with NASA in 
     Houston to smooth out potential communication issues, said 
     Joel Montalbano, lead flight director for the current space 
     station mission.
       With this communications foundation, Montalbano said, ``we 
     can work better and stronger.''

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I appreciate the gentlelady yielding.
  NASA has been on the forefront of safety on the NASA side, these 
provisions she has worked on in 2005 to incorporate into authorizing. 
She is reaffirming these safety procedures in this amendment, and we 
certainly have no objection on that.
  We accept the amendment and compliment her on her efforts to improve 
and insist upon safety in NASA operations.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman for his 
courtesy, I thank the ranking member, and I thank the Congress for 
accepting the importance of safety as we explore the beyond.
  I simply say thank you to the staff of these committees, and I ask my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Upton

  Mr. UPTON. 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. 41 offered by Mr. Upton:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to purchase light bulbs unless the light bulbs have 
     the ``ENERGY STAR'' or ``Federal Energy Management Program'' 
     designation.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, we don't intend to take very much of our 
time. We have debated this amendment on each of the appropriation bills 
thus far. We have been very fortunate to have the support of Mr. Obey 
and Mr. Lewis and all the subcommittee chairmen and ranking members.
  I offer this with my friend and colleague, Ms. Harman, along with Mr. 
English and Mr. Lipinski. It is a bipartisan amendment simply requiring 
that the Federal Government, beginning on October 1, purchase only 
ENERGY STAR light bulbs.
  This will be a savings of hundreds of millions of dollars to the 
taxpayers over the course of the year, and it is something that has 
enjoyed, again, wide bipartisan support. I don't need to debate it 
further.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. UPTON. 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 Michigan 
will be postponed.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

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

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

                TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 701. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwises made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 3.0 percent.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and a Member opposed each will control 
15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, we have offered this amendment for 
the eighth time.
  Let me just help set a framework before I talk specifically about the 
amendment. Today we have approximately a $200 billion annual budget 
deficit. We have an $8 trillion national debt. We have a budget that we 
have been debating over the last several weeks and will complete the 
spending process of that next week, but we have a budget of $3 trillion 
annual budget.

[[Page 20800]]

  We have an entitlement spending crisis looming, when we think about 
what's going to happen in the next 10 to 15 years relative to Social 
Security, Medicare, Medicaid. We have got a crisis that we have to 
begin to deal with.
  Today, today the Federal Government spends approximately $23,000 per 
household. Now, with that as a frame work, I think it's fair to ask, is 
government too big or too small? If you ask that question of the 
average American family, my guess is when they think about those facts, 
$200 billion deficit, $3 trillion annual budget, $8 trillion national 
debt and an entitlement crisis that is looming, and a Federal 
Government that spends $23,000 per American household, if you asked the 
average American family if government is too big, my guess is they 
would probably say yes.
  All this amendment does is begin to take that first step, that modest 
first step into getting our spending under control.
  It says this: instead of in this appropriation bill, instead of 
spending $53.5 billion, let's just spend $52 billion, which happens to 
be the amount that we spent last year. So it's not a cut, as our 
friends on the other side will most assuredly say when it's their turn 
to speak. It's not a cut; it's simply level funding, holding the line 
on spending. It's a 3 percent reduction from what's in the bill, simply 
going to spend what we did last year.
  That's not too much to ask when you think about the context we find 
ourselves in today in the United States of America. Here is why it's 
important, and I have said this every single time.
  Again, every time I bring this amendment, I always articulate to the 
Chair of the subcommittee and the ranking member and the Chair and 
ranking member of the full committee that, you know, I don't do this to 
be a pain.
  I really believe we have to begin to focus on reducing spending. I 
appreciate the work that the Appropriations Committee does. I 
appreciate the work of the subcommittee. But if we don't begin to get a 
handle on spending, we are going to have problems economically in the 
future.
  The way it works is spending inevitably leads to more taxes. The 
American family is already overtaxed. That's why it's important. We 
start to get a handle on spending, so we can reduce the tax burden that 
the families across this country face.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 15 
minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, with violent crimes increasing for the 
first time in 15 years, with more pressure on the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, less resources and less investments in keeping our 
communities safe is not the answer. Cutting programs to the FBI, cops 
on the streets, anti-meth programs is not the answer.
  Our communities want safer streets. They want a vigorous response 
against crime. That's what this bill does.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as the 
gentleman would like to consume to the Chair of the Republican Study 
Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio, again, 
for his leadership in bringing this terribly needed amendment to the 
floor, his diligence in authoring this amendment on a number of these 
spending bills.
  Again, although I wish we were debating other facets of the Federal 
budget today, I think it is very, very important to illuminate once 
again where we stand as a Nation on spending.
  I was in a hearing earlier this morning in the Financial Services 
Committee. In that committee, we are talking about the possibility of a 
whole new Federal wind storm insurance program. I am not here to debate 
the merits of that, but it brought to mind that this Nation is facing a 
fiscal storm, and it's a storm that we see off our shore; but it is one 
that unfortunately, this body continues to ignore.
  It continues to ignore this problem by growing the Federal budget at 
a huge multiple over inflation, growing the Federal budget way beyond 
the growth of the family budget. Ultimately, it's the family that has 
to pay for this, hardworking American families that are trying to pay 
for their transportation programs, trying to pay for their health care 
programs, trying to pay for their education programs.
  I have no doubt that every single dollar in this bill can be used for 
a good purpose. There is not a doubt there, but when do we look at what 
happens in the aggregate? We have had spending debates going on for 
weeks and weeks now. Unfortunately, they do become somewhat similar.
  But there are very important points that still need to be illuminated 
in this debate. Again, in every single spending bill brought to the 
floor, somebody can say, well, this is a good idea. But who goes back 
and looks at it in the aggregate? Whoever adds it all up and sees what 
we are doing to the least of these in our society, those who do not 
vote, and those who have yet to be born. I am speaking about future, 
future generations.
  So all this amendment is asking to do, notwithstanding the language 
of the other side, this amendment seeks to cut nothing. This amendment 
seeks to level fund this particular appropriations bill, using the same 
funding last year that it will use this year.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many people, many families all across America 
who would love the opportunity to make it on the same income they had 
last year, this year, this year to next year. So somehow we are trying 
to be convinced that something terrible and draconian is going on.
  Frankly, our friends from the other side of the aisle always accuse 
us of cutting something. I wish, occasionally, that might be true.
  But all spending is not created equal, and there needs to be 
priorities. There is no doubt that many items within this bill are a 
priority. But I don't believe it's a priority to impose an even greater 
tax burden on the American people, as the Democrats seek to do in their 
single largest tax increase in history. That shouldn't be a priority.
  Nor should it be a priority to pass on debt to future generations, 
which ultimately I believe this bill will do. It shouldn't be a 
priority to raid the Social Security trust fund, which, by definition, 
if we are running a Federal deficit, then any excessive spending 
continues to raid the Social Security trust fund.
  So all we are asking is, is it easier to be on the road to fiscal 
responsibility and keep faith with future generations, or are you going 
to be on the road to fiscal irresponsibility and not keep faith? If you 
follow that road, here is what you are looking at. Listen to the words 
of our Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, who said: ``Without 
early and meaningful action'' to address government spending, 
particularly entitlements ``the U.S. economy could be seriously 
weakened with future generations bearing much of the cost.'' Those 
aren't my words. Those are the words of the Federal Reserve Chairman.
  Now listen to scholars at the Brookings Institute, widely known as a 
liberal institution, no bastion of conservative thought: ``The authors 
of this book believe that the Nation's fiscal situation is out of 
control and can do serious damage to the economy in coming decades, 
sapping our national strength, making it much more difficult to respond 
to unforeseen contingencies and passing on an unfair burden to future 
generations.''
  Yet week after week after week we have spending bills coming to this 
floor, growing government way beyond the rate of inflation, growing 
government way beyond the growth of the family budget, and it's the 
family budget that has to pay for Federal budget.
  So here we have just one more chapter in this book of fiscal 
irresponsibility.

[[Page 20801]]

  Now, again, I know there are many good programs in this bill. But why 
were so many of the other bills costing billions and billions and 
billions and growing these budgets 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 percent more than last 
year? Again, too often people are focusing on one individual aspect of 
this budget, and they are not focusing on the budget as a whole.
  Let's listen to the words of the Comptroller General, the chief 
fiduciary officer in America, who said that the rising cost of 
government, again, particularly the entitlement spending, is a ``fiscal 
cancer,'' fiscal cancer that threatens ``catastrophic consequences for 
our country and could bankrupt America.''
  Again, these aren't my words. These aren't the words of one lone 
Member. These aren't the words of the Member from the Fifth District of 
Texas. These are words of the people who most know about the fiscal 
condition of this Nation.

                              {time}  1330

  The Comptroller General has gone on to say, and I paraphrase, that 
we're on the verge of being the very first generation in America's 
history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living.
  Mr. Chairman, like many others on this floor, I'm in the next 
generation business. I've got a 5-year-old daughter and a 3-year-old 
son, and I am not indifferent as to leaving my children and the 
children of America with a lower standard of living. I can't sit idly 
by while this House week after week after week spends our children's 
future, spends them into bankruptcy, threatens to double their taxes. 
That's the magnitude we're looking at, doubling their taxes.
  And so this is a very reasonable amendment. Frankly, I wish the 
gentleman from Ohio had done even more on his amendments. But level 
funding, that's all we're asking, Mr. Chairman. When you look at the 
consequences, can we at least take a bill and get a little smarter, a 
little wiser and spend the same amount of money next year that we did 
this year? And, frankly, it's the future of our children and our 
grandchildren that are on the line.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said that we can afford to 
cut or shave budgets for anticrime programs like COPS. The gentleman 
did not support attempts to cut or shave the $90 billion in tax 
shelters that allow offshore companies to shelter their profits, open 
up P.O. boxes in Bermuda so that they don't have to pay their fair 
share of taxes. We invest a fraction of that $90 billion tax shelter, 
$693 million, to add 2,800 cops to the streets of neighborhoods. We 
want to make neighborhoods safer by adding more cops. The gentleman 
wants to make corporate offshore profits safer. That's a difference in 
priorities between our bill and theirs.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of things. I want to 
pick up on what the gentleman from Texas was talking about, families, 
and a lady from a family from our district, Theresa from West Liberty, 
Ohio, a small town in Ohio, said, when talking about spending, talking 
about taxes, talking about the growth of government, talking about the 
fact we've got an $8 trillion national debt, a $3 trillion budget, the 
government spends $23,000 per household, and all we're asking for in 
this legislation, all we've been asking for in each of these 
amendments, is to fund government at the same level we did last year, 
which all kinds of families have to do just like this family in West 
Liberty, Ohio.
  ``We're in the middle class, and we're the ones the tax hikes hit the 
hardest. We're trying to put our kids through college. Can't government 
live within their means?''
  I mean, pretty straightforward. It's amazing how the American people 
get it. If you ask the American people in this framework, all this 
spending, all this debt, all this deficit, is it too much to ask to 
say, you know what, Government, just spend what you did before. And the 
playbook from the other side never changes. As the gentleman from Texas 
articulated, we want to spend what we spent last year in this 
appropriations bill. Not a cut. We want to spend what we did last year. 
Yet the other side will say, if we do that, the sky's going to fall, 
the world's going to end, everything will be terrible. Oh my goodness, 
we won't have cops on the street.
  That's just baloney. We want to spend exactly what we spent last 
year, because if we don't, the ramifications, the consequences for 
future generations, as the gentleman from Texas pointed out, are huge. 
And it starts with the entitlement programs that everybody knows, 
Republicans and Democrats know, everybody knows those are going to be 
problems in the future.
  That's all this amendment does. It's not Draconian cuts. It's not 
devastating. It's not the end of the world. It's not the sky is 
falling. It's saying, you know what, instead of spending $53.5 billion, 
which is what this legislation wants to do, let's spend $52 billion, 
exactly what we spent last year.
  Mr. Chairman, that doesn't seem to be too much to ask when we're 
thinking about the context we find ourselves in, and, frankly, when 
we're thinking about the competition we face today in the international 
marketplace.
  As the gentleman from Texas pointed out, our Comptroller has pointed 
out the problems we face. It's critical that we begin to get a handle 
on that. That's why we bring the amendment forward, that's why it makes 
common sense, and that's why I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, violent crimes increased 3.6 percent in the 
past 2 years for the first time in 15 years. The gentleman's response 
is to cut spending for police officers, child abuse programs, domestic 
violence programs and antidrug programs by 3 percent.
  With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), 
a member of the committee.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman.
  I would just like to make a couple of points. The gentleman from 
Texas mentioned entitlements. I think it's important for the Members to 
recall that it was the Republican majority that passed a trillion 
dollars in spending on the Medicare part D program and had zero, zero 
ability for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate 
down drug prices to keep them under control.
  And my good friend from Ohio made the point about families, this 
family in his district, a middle-class family. This new Congress raised 
the minimum wage which will help that middle-class family. This 
Congress in the Labor-H bill passed an increase of $600 or $700 million 
in the Pell Grant. They're trying to send their kids to school. That 
will help. And we cut student loan interest rates in half. So that same 
family who has to borrow money will have to pay back $4,000 less over 
the course of the loan.
  We're helping that family, and I'm glad we can agree on that.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Can I inquire, Mr. Chairman, how much time our 
side has remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 2\1/2\ minutes. The 
gentleman from New York has 12 minutes.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this 
amendment.
  It's interesting to hear about all the savings that the majority 
party, Mr. Chairman, claims that they have saved. I'm interested to get 
to the debate on the farm bill so we can hear of all the savings that's 
in it, and we will see how the next tax increase is going to be 
explained as some type of offset, or, as they have done so well this 
whole 110th Congress, is the smoke-and-mirror thing. They do a great 
job with it. I believe when people do a good job, they should be 
complimented. I've never seen an illusionist as good, especially 
convincing people that they are actually getting something 
accomplished.
  If this Congress really wants to get something accomplished, we'll 
pass the

[[Page 20802]]

amendment from Mr. Jordan, because it's real savings to the taxpayers 
of $1.6 billion. Now, in the scheme of things, and I never thought I 
would be up here long enough to say that that's a small amount of money 
compared to the amount of money that we spend in Congress, but it is a 
reasonable savings. And not only that, but it's an important first 
step, the first time in the 110th Congress, and really, I think, 
probably one of the first times up here that we've actually saved some 
money, and there's nothing wrong with that. And even though it's a 
small start, it's a good start.
  This bill is $3.2 billion above last year, or a little over 3 percent 
more than it was last year. And while it's a modest increase, a 3 
percent increase, I think that we would do much better going back to 
last year's level and learning to live within that means, Mr. Chairman, 
than trying to expand the programs.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close; is that correct?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does have the right to close.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I know we have just 30 seconds, and 
the gentleman from New York will close.
  Again, it's a straightforward amendment. It's not a cut. It's level 
funding. All kinds of families have to do it every single year across 
this country. Again, I don't think it's too much to ask for government 
to do the same, particularly when you look at the facts and the 
financial situation that we're facing.
  With that, I yield back the remainder of our time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Well, here we go again. We've been here week after week 
after week and entertained amendment after amendment after amendment. I 
respect my colleagues for trying. Unfortunately, a majority of their 
caucus disagrees with them, as does a majority of Congress. These 
amendments keep coming up, and they keep getting defeated, and there's 
good reason for that, particularly with this bill.
  Let me share some statistics with you, Mr. Chairman. I alluded to 
them before. Violent crime is increasing in the United States today for 
the first time in 15 years. In 2005, violent crimes increased 2.3 
percent. 2006, violent crimes increased another 1.3 percent. From 2002 
to 2005, Mr. Chairman, there were an additional 100,000 new meth users 
over the age of 12.
  Now, there is a dangerous correlation, because at the same time these 
violent crimes are increasing, Federal investments in safe communities 
have been cut. From 2001 to 2006, funding for local law enforcement 
grants was cut 42 percent. This isn't just a cut in the rate of 
increase, this is a wholesale cut in Federal support for anticrime 
programs, 42 percent, from $4.4 billion to $2.5 billion. And not only 
is crime going up as a result of these Federal cuts, but local taxes, 
which in many cases are the most regressive form of taxation, are going 
up as well. Because the fact of the matter is that when you cut Federal 
law enforcement resources, the criminals don't go away. They stay on 
the streets. They keep robbing banks. They keep beating people up. They 
keep stealing. They keep conspiring. And so while the Federal 
Government has abandoned its commitment to keeping our streets safe, 
it's the local governments who are now responsible for trying to keep 
those streets safe. And so all this Federal cut is is a transfer of the 
obligation to local taxpayers. So what sounds like a cut on the Federal 
level ends up costing taxpayers even more and more to protect their 
communities.
  Mr. Chairman, let's analyze some of these cuts while crime increases. 
Safe communities. This small group of Members, who disagree with every 
Republican on the Appropriations Committee who supported this bill, had 
no problem supporting a $90 billion tax shelter for the biggest 
offshore companies on Earth to protect their profits. We in this bill 
invest a fraction of that, $693 million, to add 2,800 police officers 
to our streets to protect our neighborhoods.
  The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. We can have differences 
on how to protect our borders. We all want to keep our borders safe, 
but if someone crosses our borders here illegally and then commits a 
felony, or several misdemeanors, and is arrested and incarcerated, most 
of us believe that the Federal Government ought to assume the financial 
obligation for incarcerating those people.
  This small group of Members had no problem spending $14 billion on 
tax cuts for the biggest oil companies on Earth in the history of 
profit-making. We invest a fraction of that, $405 million, to reimburse 
local taxpayers for the costs of the incarceration of criminal aliens. 
What makes more sense to America?
  The war on drugs. We learned in Iraq that you can't win a war when 
you underfund the troops. Well, guess what, Mr. Chairman. You can't win 
a war on drugs when you underfund cops on the streets. This small group 
had no problem spending billions and billions of dollars on Vice 
President Cheney's no-bid contracts. We invest a fraction of that, $40 
million, to fight illegal drugs with mobile enforcement teams; not 
mobile enforcement teams in Iraq, Mr. Chairman, mobile enforcement 
teams here at home.
  Child exploitation. We fund 93 additional positions in U.S. 
attorneys' offices to fight child exploitation and enforce obscenity 
laws; 38 new positions in U.S. attorneys' offices to fight gang crimes. 
Gang crimes are proliferating. Gangs are a national problem. They cross 
not only State borders, they cross town lines and county lines and 
village lines. It requires a national investment to stop these gangs 
from preying on our children. We invest in stopping those gangs. This 
small group says, let's cut gang enforcement by 3 percent.
  Domestic violence. We invest $430 million for the Violence Against 
Women Act for prosecutions. This small group says, we can protect the 
profits of big drug companies, we can protect the profits of 
corporations that register themselves at P.O. boxes in Bermuda, but we 
have to save the investment in protecting women from domestic violence?
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, and this is the real kicker, to coin a phrase 
by my friend from Ohio several days ago, the war on terror. For the 
past 7 years, the FBI counterterrorist caseload has increased more than 
100 percent, from 1,150 to nearly 2,400. How do they make the argument, 
Mr. Chairman, that as the counterterrorist caseload is going up 100 
percent, we should shave resources by 3 percent to the FBI? I think 
most Americans understand that they can't go out and investigate 
terrorists, that that's the job of the FBI. We want the FBI to have 
those resources.
  If there is money for oil companies, if there is money for offshore 
corporations, if there is money for Halliburton, how is it that we 
can't afford additional resources for the FBI in the global war on 
terror?

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude by suggesting that this really is about 
priorities. And this is the debate we've had. The sponsors of this bill 
have legitimate philosophies, and I understand their philosophies. 
Their philosophies are wrong.
  They say government wants more of your money and that you should 
decide how to spend it. That's not true. They've spent the people's 
money on tax cuts for oil companies. We want to invest in COPS for 
neighborhoods. They've spent it on no-bid contracts for big companies. 
We want to spend it on investigators for the FBI. They spent it on 
protecting the profits of offshore companies. We want to invest it in 
protecting the safety of our neighborhoods.
  That is why, Mr. Chairman, Republicans and Democrats, were united on 
this bill in the Appropriations Committee. Every Republican on the 
Appropriations Committee joined Democrats in passing this bill because 
it was common sense, the right investments, the right priorities. And 
that's why when this amendment is offered again on the floor for a 
vote, it will follow the same course and the same fate as

[[Page 20803]]

every similar amendment before it. It will be defeated, not just by 
Democrats, but by Democrats and Republicans who understand that America 
would rather have their neighborhoods patrolled by more cops than have 
the offshore profits of companies at P.O. boxes in Bermuda protected by 
this small group of Members.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. 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 Ohio will be 
postponed.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Serrano) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________