[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9222-9274]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 585 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4660.
  Will the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  1845


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4660) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, with Mr. Denham 
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.

                              {time}  1845

  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier 
today, an amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin 
Scott) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 81, 
line 24.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 511.  None of the funds made available to the 
     Department of Justice in this Act may be used to discriminate 
     against or denigrate the religious or moral beliefs of 
     students who participate in programs for which financial 
     assistance is provided from those funds, or of the parents or 
     legal guardians of such students.
       Sec. 512.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government, except pursuant to a 
     transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act 
     or any other appropriations Act.
       Sec. 513.  Any funds provided in this Act used to implement 
     E-Government Initiatives shall be subject to the procedures 
     set forth in section 505 of this Act.
       Sec. 514. (a) The Inspectors General of the Department of 
     Commerce, the Department of Justice, the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, 
     and the Legal Services Corporation shall conduct audits, 
     pursuant to the Inspector General Act (5 U.S.C. App.), of 
     grants or contracts for which funds are appropriated by this 
     Act, and shall submit reports to Congress on the progress of 
     such audits, which may include preliminary findings and a 
     description of areas of particular interest, within 180 days 
     after initiating such an audit and every 180 days thereafter 
     until any such audit is completed.
       (b) Within 60 days after the date on which an audit 
     described in subsection (a) by an Inspector General is 
     completed, the Secretary, Attorney General, Administrator, 
     Director, or President, as appropriate, shall make the 
     results of the audit available to the public on the Internet 
     website maintained by the Department, Administration, 
     Foundation, or Corporation, respectively. The results shall 
     be made available in redacted form to exclude--
       (1) any matter described in section 552(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code; and
       (2) sensitive personal information for any individual, the 
     public access to which could be used to commit identity theft 
     or for other inappropriate or unlawful purposes.
       (c) A grant or contract funded by amounts appropriated by 
     this Act may not be used for the purpose of defraying the 
     costs of a banquet or conference that is not directly and 
     programmatically related to the purpose for which the grant 
     or contract was awarded, such as a banquet or conference held 
     in connection with planning, training, assessment, review, or 
     other routine purposes related to a project funded by the 
     grant or contract.
       (d) Any person awarded a grant or contract funded by 
     amounts appropriated by this Act shall submit a statement to 
     the Secretary of Commerce, the Attorney General, the 
     Administrator, Director, or President, as appropriate, 
     certifying that no funds derived from the grant or contract 
     will be made available through a subcontract or in any other 
     manner to another person who has a financial interest in the 
     person awarded the grant or contract.
       (e) The provisions of the preceding subsections of this 
     section shall take effect 30 days after the date on which the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Office of Government 
     Ethics, determines that a uniform set of rules and 
     requirements, substantially similar to the requirements in 
     such subsections, consistently apply under the executive 
     branch ethics program to all Federal departments, agencies, 
     and entities.
       Sec. 515. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available under this Act may be used by the Departments 
     of Commerce and Justice, the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration, or the National Science Foundation to acquire 
     a high-impact or moderate-impact information system, as 
     defined for security categorization in the National Institute 
     of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Federal Information 
     Processing Standard Publication 199, ``Standards for Security 
     Categorization of Federal Information and Information 
     Systems'' unless the agency has--
       (1) reviewed the supply chain risk for the information 
     systems against criteria developed by NIST to inform 
     acquisition decisions for high-impact and moderate-impact 
     information systems within the Federal Government;
       (2) reviewed the supply chain risk from the presumptive 
     awardee against available and relevant threat information 
     provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other 
     appropriate agencies; and
       (3) in consultation with the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation or other appropriate Federal entity, conducted 
     an assessment of any risk of cyber-espionage or sabotage 
     associated with the acquisition of such system, including any 
     risk associated with such system being produced, 
     manufactured, or assembled by one or more entities identified 
     by the United States Government as posing a cyber threat, 
     including but not limited to, those that may be owned, 
     directed, or subsidized by the People's Republic of China.
       (b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act may be used to acquire a high-impact 
     or moderate-impact information system reviewed and assessed 
     under subsection (a) unless the head of the assessing entity 
     described in subsection (a) has--
       (1) developed, in consultation with NIST and supply chain 
     risk management experts, a mitigation strategy for any 
     identified risks;
       (2) determined that the acquisition of such system is in 
     the national interest of the United States; and
       (3) reported that determination to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
     Senate.
       Sec. 516.  None of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be used in any way whatsoever to support or justify the 
     use of torture by any official or contract employee of the 
     United States Government.
       Sec. 517. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law or 
     treaty, in the current fiscal year and any fiscal year 
     thereafter, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under this Act or any other Act may be expended or 
     obligated by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States to pay administrative expenses or to compensate 
     an officer or employee of the United States in connection 
     with requiring an export license for the export to Canada of 
     components, parts, accessories or attachments for firearms 
     listed in Category I, section 121.1 of title 22, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (International Trafficking in Arms 
     Regulations (ITAR), part 121, as it existed on April 1, 2005) 
     with a total value not exceeding $500 wholesale in any 
     transaction, provided that the conditions of subsection (b) 
     of this section are met by the exporting party for such 
     articles.
       (b) The foregoing exemption from obtaining an export 
     license--
       (1) does not exempt an exporter from filing any Shipper's 
     Export Declaration or notification letter required by law, or 
     from being otherwise eligible under the laws of the United 
     States to possess, ship, transport, or export the articles 
     enumerated in subsection (a); and
       (2) does not permit the export without a license of--
       (A) fully automatic firearms and components and parts for 
     such firearms, other than for end use by the Federal 
     Government, or a Provincial or Municipal Government of 
     Canada;
       (B) barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames) or complete 
     breech mechanisms for any firearm listed in Category I, other 
     than for end use by the Federal Government, or a Provincial 
     or Municipal Government of Canada; or
       (C) articles for export from Canada to another foreign 
     destination.
       (c) In accordance with this section, the District Directors 
     of Customs and postmasters shall permit the permanent or 
     temporary export without a license of any unclassified 
     articles specified in subsection (a) to Canada for end use in 
     Canada or return to the United States, or temporary import of 
     Canadian-origin items from Canada for end use in the United 
     States or return to Canada for a Canadian citizen.
       (d) The President may require export licenses under this 
     section on a temporary basis if the President determines, 
     upon publication first in the Federal Register, that the 
     Government of Canada has implemented or maintained inadequate 
     import controls for the articles specified in subsection (a), 
     such that a significant diversion of such articles has and 
     continues to take place for use in international terrorism or 
     in the escalation of a conflict in another nation. The

[[Page 9223]]

     President shall terminate the requirements of a license when 
     reasons for the temporary requirements have ceased.
       Sec. 518.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     the current fiscal year and any fiscal year thereafter, no 
     department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States 
     receiving appropriated funds under this Act or any other Act 
     shall obligate or expend in any way such funds to pay 
     administrative expenses or the compensation of any officer or 
     employee of the United States to deny any application 
     submitted pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 2778(b)(1)(B) and qualified 
     pursuant to 27 CFR section 478.112 or.113, for a permit to 
     import United States origin ``curios or relics'' firearms, 
     parts, or ammunition.
       Sec. 519.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to include in any new bilateral or multilateral trade 
     agreement the text of--
       (1) paragraph 2 of article 16.7 of the United States-
     Singapore Free Trade Agreement;
       (2) paragraph 4 of article 17.9 of the United States-
     Australia Free Trade Agreement; or
       (3) paragraph 4 of article 15.9 of the United States-
     Morocco Free Trade Agreement.
       Sec. 520.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to authorize or issue a national security letter in 
     contravention of any of the following laws authorizing the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation to issue national security 
     letters: The Right to Financial Privacy Act; The Electronic 
     Communications Privacy Act; The Fair Credit Reporting Act; 
     The National Security Act of 1947; USA PATRIOT Act; and the 
     laws amended by these Acts.
       Sec. 521.  If at any time during any quarter, the program 
     manager of a project within the jurisdiction of the 
     Departments of Commerce or Justice, the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration, or the National Science Foundation 
     totaling more than $75,000,000 has reasonable cause to 
     believe that the total program cost has increased by 10 
     percent or more, the program manager shall immediately inform 
     the respective Secretary, Administrator, or Director. The 
     Secretary, Administrator, or Director shall notify the House 
     and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 30 days in 
     writing of such increase, and shall include in such notice: 
     the date on which such determination was made; a statement of 
     the reasons for such increases; the action taken and proposed 
     to be taken to control future cost growth of the project; 
     changes made in the performance or schedule milestones and 
     the degree to which such changes have contributed to the 
     increase in total program costs or procurement costs; new 
     estimates of the total project or procurement costs; and a 
     statement validating that the project's management structure 
     is adequate to control total project or procurement costs.
       Sec. 522.  Funds appropriated by this Act, or made 
     available by the transfer of funds in this Act, for 
     intelligence or intelligence related activities are deemed to 
     be specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of 
     section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 
     414) during fiscal year 2015 until the enactment of the 
     Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015.
       Sec. 523.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to enter into a contract in 
     an amount greater than $5,000,000 or to award a grant in 
     excess of such amount unless the prospective contractor or 
     grantee certifies in writing to the agency awarding the 
     contract or grant that, to the best of its knowledge and 
     belief, the contractor or grantee has filed all Federal tax 
     returns required during the three years preceding the 
     certification, has not been convicted of a criminal offense 
     under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and has not, more 
     than 90 days prior to certification, been notified of any 
     unpaid Federal tax assessment for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied, unless the assessment is the subject of an 
     installment agreement or offer in compromise that has been 
     approved by the Internal Revenue Service and is not in 
     default, or the assessment is the subject of a non-frivolous 
     administrative or judicial proceeding.

                             (rescissions)

       Sec. 524. (a) Of the unobligated balances available for 
     ``Department of Commerce, Departmental Management, Franchise 
     Fund'', $2,906,000 is hereby rescinded.
       (b) Of the unobligated balances available to the Department 
     of Justice, the following funds are hereby rescinded, not 
     later than September 30, 2015, from the following accounts in 
     the specified amounts--
       (1) ``Working Capital Fund'', $54,000,000;
       (2) ``Legal Activities, Assets Forfeiture Fund'', 
     $193,000,000;
       (3) ``United States Marshals Service, Federal Prisoner 
     Detention'', $122,000,000;
       (4) ``State and Local Law Enforcement Activities, Office on 
     Violence Against Women, Violence Against Women Prevention and 
     Prosecution Programs'', $12,200,000;
       (5) ``State and Local Law Enforcement Activities, Office of 
     Justice Programs'', $59,000,000; and
       (6) ``State and Local Law Enforcement Activities, Community 
     Oriented Policing Services'', $26,000,000.
       (c) The Department of Justice shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate a report no later than September 1, 2015, 
     specifying the amount of each rescission made pursuant to 
     subsection (b).
       Sec. 525.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to purchase first class or premium airline travel in 
     contravention of sections 301-10.122 through 301-10.124 of 
     title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 526.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to send or otherwise pay for the attendance of more 
     than 50 employees from a Federal department or agency at any 
     single conference occurring outside the United States unless 
     such conference is a law enforcement training or operational 
     conference for law enforcement personnel and the majority of 
     Federal employees in attendance are law enforcement personnel 
     stationed outside the United States.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chair, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the chairman.
  As the gentleman from Virginia is aware, I have serious concerns 
about the nonresponsiveness of certain Federal officials to legitimate 
congressional oversight activities. In some of these situations, there 
have been actions taken by the House to hold these officials in 
contempt of Congress.
  As the gentleman is aware, I was considering offering an amendment to 
this bill that would simply prohibit funding for any Federal employee 
who has been found in contempt of Congress. It is my firm belief that 
the American people should not be footing the bill for Federal 
employees who stonewall Congress or rewarding government officials' bad 
behavior. If the average American failed to do his or her job, she 
would hardly be rewarded.
  However, based on conversations I have had with the chairman and 
other Members, I do not plan to offer such an amendment to the bill, 
with the understanding that the chairman and the committee will 
continue to work with me to assure that this matter is considered in an 
appropriate bill.
  I would like to ask the gentleman if he would commit to working with 
me to find a satisfactory vehicle for addressing the issue of 
compensation for public officials found in contempt of Congress.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to address this 
important issue, and it is an important one. I can assure him that we 
will work with him on this as we move forward in the appropriations 
process.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 527.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used in a manner that is 
     inconsistent with the principal negotiating objective of the 
     United States with respect to trade remedy laws to preserve 
     the ability of the United States--
       (1) to enforce vigorously its trade laws, including 
     antidumping, countervailing duty, and safeguard laws;
       (2) to avoid agreements that--
       (A) lessen the effectiveness of domestic and international 
     disciplines on unfair trade, especially dumping and 
     subsidies; or
       (B) lessen the effectiveness of domestic and international 
     safeguard provisions, in order to ensure that United States 
     workers, agricultural producers, and firms can compete fully 
     on fair terms and enjoy the benefits of reciprocal trade 
     concessions; and
       (3) to address and remedy market distortions that lead to 
     dumping and subsidization, including overcapacity, 
     cartelization, and market-access barriers.
       Sec. 528.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this or any other Act may be used to transfer, 
     release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within 
     the United States, its territories, or possessions Khalid 
     Sheikh Mohammed or any other detainee who--
       (1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States; and
       (2) is or was held on or after June 24, 2009, at the United 
     States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department 
     of Defense.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Moran

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. The amendment 
would strike both section 528 and 529 so I ask that they would be 
considered en bloc.

[[Page 9224]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the consideration of the 
amendment at this point?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike sections 528 and 529.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Sections 528 and 529 of this bill would restrict the Department of 
Justice from transferring detainees to the United States. The problem 
with this is that Guantanamo is now a rallying cry for extremists 
around the world. Until we transfer and try these detainees, there is 
no denying that Guantanamo is hurting our national security, and so my 
amendment would strike sections 528 and 529.
  Mr. Chair, we are currently spending $2,670,000 per detainee per year 
at Guantanamo compared to $34,000 per year at a high-security Federal 
prison here in the United States.
  In fiscal year 2014, the Department of Defense estimates that it is 
going to spend $435 million in operations and personnel costs to 
operate this facility. That money could so much better be spent on 
military readiness, medical research, improving the quality of life for 
our men and women in uniform.
  The fact is, Mr. Chair, nearly 500 defendants charged with crimes 
related to international terrorism have been successfully convicted in 
the United States since 9/11, quoting a former Gitmo detainee: the 
Times Square bomber; the shoe bomber; and a 9/11 coconspirator, 
Zacarias Moussaoui. All of them are incarcerated in 98 Federal prisons 
here in the United States with no security incidents.
  Now, by comparison, military commissions, which is the alternative, 
have managed to prosecute eight cases in that time, and many of them 
have, in fact, been overturned on appeal.
  There are six DOD facilities where Gitmo detainees could be held in 
the United States that are currently only at 48 percent capacity.
  The political and legal expediency of the detention center at 
Guantanamo Bay is not worth the cost to America's reputation around the 
world nor to the erosion of our legal and ethical standards here at 
home.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I want to thank the gentleman. We visited Guantanamo Bay 
together. I think any Member who has not been down there, you should go 
down and see what is there. These are important provisions that have 
been put in appropriation bills for the last several years. They 
represent a strong and enduring consensus in Congress.
  Striking these provisions would have unknown consequences for U.S. 
communities. Imagine bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who beheaded 
Daniel Pearl, and who was the mastermind of the 9/11 attack. About 170 
people from my district died in the attack on the Pentagon. Can you 
imagine, they were initially going to bring him to New York City, and 
Mayor Bloomberg and Senator Schumer all opposed it because they knew 
what the impact was going to be and the security requirements. So this 
would have an unbelievable impact on communities.
  Putting detainees in U.S. prisons, as the administration originally 
proposed, would be disruptive and, I think, disastrous. Former FBI 
Director Mueller stated: ``To transfer detainees to local jails could 
affect or infect other prisoners or have the capability of affecting 
events outside the prison system.''
  One of the things I think Members have to understand is this. There 
was a pirate, if you saw the movie ``Captain Phillips.'' He was 
arrested. He was arrested and tried. And they said that he would be 
convicted, and there would be no way that he would ever be released.
  You ought to go see ``Captain Phillips.'' It is a fascinating movie.
  He was tried and he was acquitted, and now he is seeking asylum. He 
is in Virginia. He is seeking asylum maybe in Virginia.
  There was another case, if you recall, Attorney General Holder said 
there is no way that this guy will ever get off, and he was only 
convicted on one count; and had that count not been a conviction, he 
would have been released.
  Lastly, there were Uighurs that were arrested in Tora Bora in a 
training camp run by Osama bin Laden. They were there to learn how to 
kill Americans, but also to kill Chinese, if you follow the concerns of 
the Uighur issue in China. The administration had reserved apartments. 
They were in Guantanamo Bay. They reserved apartments in northern 
Virginia at Seven Corners for them to live here.

                              {time}  1900

  I know the gentleman is well meaning, but I think to bring Guantanamo 
Bay detainees here, people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, people like 
that, and then what if they ever were tried here and were acquitted, 
and then can you imagine they then apply for asylum, because we are now 
going to see a case where one pirate acquitted is applying for asylum 
and now is living in Virginia and may very well want to stay in 
Virginia.
  I urge defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler), from the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  I understand that there is an irrational fear of bringing Guantanamo 
detainees into the United States, even though we would only do so to 
bring them to justice. In contrast to the military commissions at 
Guantanamo, which have not reached one verdict other than by plea, the 
Federal Court system in the United States has been extremely successful 
at prosecuting terrorists and safely imprisoning them for long periods 
of time.
  One of the 9/11 terrorists is in a U.S. prison. The shoe bomber is in 
a U.S. prison. The underwear bomber is in a U.S. prison. The Times 
Square bomber is in a U.S. prison. One of the Boston Marathon bombers 
is in a U.S. prison. We have tried and convicted terrorist masterminds 
in U.S. courts in my own district.
  But others are being held at Guantanamo without any prospect of a 
trial. Ever since Magna Carta, we have denied the government the power 
to imprison and punish people on mere accusation. Just because the 
government labels someone a terrorist doesn't make him one. The 
government must be asked to prove the accusation in court. That has 
always been a bedrock American principle until we opened Guantanamo. 
Now we imprison people indefinitely without trial. By what claim of 
right do we do this?
  How can we be sure we are punishing actual terrorists and not actual 
people when we hold no trials? Mr. Wolf said someone may be acquitted. 
If he is acquitted he should be released. That is our basic principle 
of justice for the last thousand years.
  Guantanamo should be closed and its inmates either tried or released. 
It is beyond time to close Guantanamo so it can no longer be used to 
rally our enemies to recruit terrorists, to undermine our ability to 
bring terrorist suspects to justice, and to violate bedrock American 
principles of due process of law.
  I am astonished, frankly, that I would hear on the floor of the 
United States Congress someone say that people might be acquitted, 
therefore, they should be held in jail forever because maybe the 
evidence doesn't exist because someone in the government in the all 
powerful, almighty, all knowing bureaucracy says that if someone is a 
terrorist that person must be held in jail indefinitely because maybe 
we

[[Page 9225]]

don't have the proof. That is not America.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, Politico talks about this case and said:

       The failed prosecution of an alleged Somali pirate--and the 
     fact that that failure could leave him living freely, and 
     permanently, inside U.S. borders--is highlighting anew the 
     risks of trying terror suspects in American courts.
       Just a few weeks ago, Ali Mohamed Ali was facing the 
     possibility of a mandatory life sentence in a 2008 
     shipjacking off the coast of Yemen--an incident much like the 
     one dramatized in the film `Captain Phillips.' Now, the 
     Somali native is in immigration detention in Virginia and 
     seeking permanent asylum in the United States.
       One current Federal terrorism prosecutor said the Ali case 
     and the potential for his eventual release is another reason 
     why foreign al Qaeda suspects picked up overseas should not 
     be brought to the United States but should instead be 
     detained at Guantanamo or some other facility.

  I personally would think the very thought of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 
or some of the people when you go down to Guantanamo Bay and see them, 
walking the streets here in the United States should they be 
acquitted--they ought not to be brought to the United States.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, the person that my good friend refers to is 
not a Guantanamo detainee. The reality is that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 
is not representative of the vast majority of Gitmo detainees who were 
brought 13, 14 years ago. There are a handful several years later that 
were brought to Guantanamo. They are really bad guys. They are kept 
separately. But I am talking about the people, 86 percent of whom were 
turned in for bounties, the majority of whom were not involved in 
combat activity against the United States or its allies.
  We ought to look at this Guantanamo population and do what this 
country, our Founding Fathers, intended that we do. Give them a right 
to trial, prosecute them, and punish them.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  As for myself, I believe that America and our ideals, the notion that 
someone could have their liberty taken, be held with secret evidence, 
be denied an opportunity to appear before a court of law, be denied 
counsel or outside contact, is something that our country would never 
engage in.
  The problem with this theory is that we are engaged in it. The 
problem is that, under President Bush, Sr., he would say about China: 
You all are arresting people with no charges, no public evidence, no 
tribunal of any sort, and that this is not part of the civilized world.
  I remember questioning the former Speaker of the House, Newt 
Gingrich. We had a talk right after 9/11. He was talking, and I said: 
Well, if we are a Nation of laws, how are we going to reconcile that in 
this new circumstance? He said: It is going to be very difficult. And 
here we are. It is very difficult.
  We are spending $3 million per prisoner to house people in a foreign 
land under charges that we are not prepared to make public, no offering 
of a trial, most of whom were turned over for bounty or for ransom paid 
out by our government. I don't know how it is that we suggest that we 
want to project to the rest of the world what a Nation of laws actually 
looks like, but as for me and my district, I am going to cast a vote in 
favor of this amendment because the Constitution of the United States 
was drafted and written and signed in Philadelphia, and somehow I 
believe that the notion that our country would ever come to this moment 
is the voice from the source of those who wrote that document at that 
time.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 529. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise 
     made available in this or any other Act may be used to 
     construct, acquire, or modify any facility in the United 
     States, its territories, or possessions to house any 
     individual described in subsection (c) for the purposes of 
     detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the 
     effective control of the Department of Defense.
       (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to 
     any modification of facilities at United States Naval 
     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       (c) An individual described in this subsection is any 
     individual who, as of June 24, 2009, is located at United 
     States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and who--
       (1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of 
     the Armed Forces of the United States; and
       (2) is--
       (A) in the custody or under the effective control of the 
     Department of Defense; or
       (B) otherwise under detention at United States Naval 
     Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
       Sec. 530.  To the extent practicable, funds made available 
     in this Act should be used to purchase light bulbs that are 
     ``Energy Star'' qualified or have the ``Federal Energy 
     Management Program'' designation.
       Sec. 531.  The Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget shall instruct any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States receiving funds 
     appropriated under this Act to track undisbursed balances in 
     expired grant accounts and include in its annual performance 
     plan and performance and accountability reports the 
     following:
       (1) Details on future action the department, agency, or 
     instrumentality will take to resolve undisbursed balances in 
     expired grant accounts.
       (2) The method that the department, agency, or 
     instrumentality uses to track undisbursed balances in expired 
     grant accounts.
       (3) Identification of undisbursed balances in expired grant 
     accounts that may be returned to the Treasury of the United 
     States.
       (4) In the preceding 3 fiscal years, details on the total 
     number of expired grant accounts with undisbursed balances 
     (on the first day of each fiscal year) for the department, 
     agency, or instrumentality and the total finances that have 
     not been obligated to a specific project remaining in the 
     accounts.
       Sec. 532. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used for the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration (NASA) or the Office of Science and Technology 
     Policy (OSTP) to develop, design, plan, promulgate, 
     implement, or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or 
     contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or 
     coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-
     owned company unless such activities are specifically 
     authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to effectuate the hosting of official Chinese visitors 
     at facilities belonging to or utilized by NASA.
       (c) The limitations described in subsections (a) and (b) 
     shall not apply to activities which NASA or OSTP has 
     certified--
       (1) pose no risk of resulting in the transfer of 
     technology, data, or other information with national security 
     or economic security implications to China or a Chinese-owned 
     company; and
       (2) will not involve knowing interactions with officials 
     who have been determined by the United States to have direct 
     involvement with violations of human rights.
       (d) Any certification made under subsection (c) shall be 
     submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and the Senate no later than 30 days prior to 
     the activity in question and shall include a description of 
     the purpose of the activity, its agenda, its major 
     participants, and its location and timing.
       Sec. 533.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay the salaries or expenses of personnel to deny, 
     or fail to act on, an application for the importation of any 
     model of shotgun if--
       (1) all other requirements of law with respect to the 
     proposed importation are met; and
       (2) no application for the importation of such model of 
     shotgun, in the same configuration, had been denied by the 
     Attorney General prior to January 1, 2011, on the basis that 
     the shotgun was not particularly suitable for or readily 
     adaptable to sporting purposes.
       Sec. 534. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to maintain or establish a computer network 
     unless such

[[Page 9226]]

     network blocks the viewing, downloading, and exchanging of 
     pornography.
       (b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall limit the use of funds 
     necessary for any Federal, State, tribal, or local law 
     enforcement agency or any other entity carrying out criminal 
     investigations, prosecution, or adjudication activities.
       Sec. 535.  The Departments of Commerce and Justice, the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the 
     National Science Foundation shall submit spending plans, 
     signed by the respective department or agency head, to the 
     Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate within 60 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       Sec. 536.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation 
     that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any 
     Federal law within the preceding 24 months, where the 
     awarding agency is aware of the conviction, unless the agency 
     has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and 
     has made a determination that this further action is not 
     necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
       Sec. 537.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of 
     understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant 
     to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation 
     that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been 
     assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies 
     have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being 
     paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the 
     authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, where 
     the awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, 
     unless the agency has considered suspension or debarment of 
     the corporation and has made a determination that this 
     further action is not necessary to protect the interests of 
     the Government.
       Sec. 538.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to implement the Arms Trade Treaty 
     until the Senate approves a resolution of ratification for 
     the Treaty.
       Sec. 539.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to require a person licensed under section 923 of 
     title 18, United States Code, to report information to the 
     Department of Justice regarding the sale of multiple rifles 
     or shotguns to the same person.


                     Amendment Offered by Ms. Esty

  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. I would like 
to offer and withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 100, strike lines 7 through 11.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The gentlewoman from Connecticut is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes section 539 of the bill.
  Section 539 is an unnecessary and harmful gun rider that would bar 
the ATF from using any funds to investigate straw purchases or 
trafficking of certain highly dangerous weapons.
  This ``long gun'' requirement, which has been in effect since 2011, 
is an essential tool for law enforcement to combat drug cartels and 
weapons trafficking.
  In fact, in the first 8 months after the rule was enacted, more than 
100 criminals and traffickers were identified for prosecution.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that the reporting requirement is keeping 
guns out of the hands of criminals, and the ATF must be able to 
continue to do this important work.
  I thank my colleagues who are in support of our gun violence 
prevention efforts, today and every day.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, law-abiding Americans shouldn't have to 
sacrifice their right to privacy to exercise their Second Amendment 
rights because they live in the southwestern part of the United States.
  I don't understand why they want to take the people who stand on the 
border and take this onslaught of the failure of the administration to 
defend and prosecute those who violate the laws of our country, and 
they want to have something that imposes upon our right to privacy and 
our right to exercise our Second Amendment rights.
  Law enforcement tools are not taken away by the fact that we have 
limited this intrusion upon the rights of the people in the States that 
are on our southwestern border. In fact, law enforcement has the right 
to at any time walk into a Federal firearms dealer and request any 
sales records, and they mandatorily must provide them. A bouncer can 
walk into a Federal licensed firearms dealer and get these records 
every day. The amendment doesn't prohibit gun dealers from reporting 
multiple sales of purchases. It just doesn't mandate on four States of 
this Union a violation of their right to privacy.
  The playing field should be level in anything we do under the law. 
But the fact is we are unleveling the playing field for the very people 
that stand down in the direct onslaught of the invasion coming across 
our southern border as a result of this administration's failure to 
properly enforce immigration policy.
  This is something that we shouldn't even be discussing, limiting the 
ability and making reporting requirements on four States and involving 
their right of privacy contrary to the rest of the union. I don't 
understand why this is even being discussed.
  I oppose the attempts to toss out the Second Amendment rights of the 
people of the State of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1915

  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro, my colleague.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Congresswoman Esty's 
amendment, which strikes a dangerous rider that would bar the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives from enforcing a reporting 
requirement on certain semiautomatic weapons in four southwest border 
States.
  It is over 16 months since the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, where 
six adults and 20 children were murdered in cold blood. It has been 
almost a week since the latest mass tragedy that occurred in 
California. Nineteen people were shot, and four were killed in New 
Orleans last weekend.
  Even before what happened at UC Santa Barbara, over 80 Americans were 
killed by guns last week, and all of the families who have lost loved 
ones--the families in Newtown, in Santa Barbara, and all across 
America--are still waiting for Congress to act.
  It is no secret that the appropriations bills have been used to 
incrementally chip away at the Federal Government's ability to enforce 
the gun laws and to protect the public from gun crime.
  This is yet another example of the same bad behavior. Currently, 
licensed gun dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas are 
required to report to the National Tracing Center when a dealer sells 
multiple assault rifles to one individual, just as all dealers have 
reported multiple handgun sales for over 20 years.
  This requirement is narrowly tailored, applying only to the sales of 
rifles that are semiautomatic, that are greater than the .22 caliber, 
and that hold a detachable magazine.
  Multiple assault rifle sales reports help law enforcement crack down 
on gun trafficking along the southwest border, where dealers are 
disproportionately fueling Mexican cartel violence.
  This reporting requirement is effective. During the first 8 months it 
was in effect, the ATF initiated 120 investigations based on reports of 
multiple sales of assault rifles and recommended the prosecution of 
more than 100 defendants in 25 separate cases.
  Furthermore, every Federal court has addressed this issue and has 
found that requiring dealers in these four border States to report 
multiple assault rifle sales is well within the ATF's authority. This 
requirement is critical to identifying straw purchasers who put guns in 
the hands of criminals.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment that will 
continue to give ATF the tools it needs to combat gun trafficking and 
to keep the public safe.

[[Page 9227]]


  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this recordkeeping 
is directed at multiple rifle and shotgun sales of a semiautomatic 
character. It becomes a habit around here to call anything that will 
fire six shots when you pull the trigger an assault rifle.
  In fact, this requires the reporting of semiautomatic shotguns, as 
well as of semiautomatic rifles. People all over the United States--and 
particularly in our State--hunt every day with these weapons. Families 
have these weapons in their homes. They are not assault weapons. They 
are semiautomatic shotguns and rifles. This reporting requirement is on 
those weapons, and it doesn't say anything about assault weapons.
  I question the logic of this whole thing when we are talking about 
the privacy of the individual under the Second Amendment and about the 
right for Americans to keep and bear arms.
  Therefore, I think that the language that is in place today is the 
right language for the policies of the United States.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from New 
York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), my colleague.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of 
Representative Esty's amendment to remove this misguided rider that 
will only prevent law enforcement from doing its job.
  Since the ATF launched this initiative--the so-called long gun rule--
to track multiple purchases of rifles and assault weapons, it has 
become a crucial tool with which to investigate and prosecute straw 
purchasers who enable the flood of illegal guns to cities and towns 
across our Nation. In my home city of New York, 85 percent of guns used 
in crimes were originally sold in a different State.
  When we see the toll that illegal guns takes on our streets, why do 
we in Congress stand idle, now blocking law enforcement from addressing 
this crisis?
  In the first 8 months of this initiative, the Bureau launched 120 
investigations into gun trafficking in high-powered assault weapons, 
and a former special agent has called this rule a huge tool to combat 
illegal sales.
  Please vote ``no'' on this misguided rule.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that this law pertains 
only to the southwestern border States and that my friends from 
Connecticut and New York are not affected by this rule. There is no 
reason why you can't buy long guns in New York or in Connecticut and 
ship them down to the border. This is discriminatory against four 
States and four States only. It is bad policy.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of points.
  One is that this requirement is in place now and has been in place, 
and it has not disrupted life. It has saved lives, however.
  This requirement does not actually apply to normal shotguns or to 
hunting rifles. I think it is important for the House to understand 
that it applies to semiautomatics that are greater than a .22 caliber 
and that can hold a detachable magazine. All this says is, if somebody 
shows up and buys 1,000 of these, the Federal firearms license dealer 
needs to report that multiple sale. It is a reasonable thing.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey), 
the ranking member on Appropriations.
  Mrs. LOWEY. I want to thank the outstanding ranking member of this 
committee for his work on this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Let me be 
very clear. The long gun rider currently in this bill makes it easier 
for drug cartels to smuggle weapons across the border and more 
difficult for law enforcement to identify straw purchasers and get 
weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.
  The reporting of multiple purchases for powerful semiautomatic 
firearms is the same policy we have had for handguns for decades, and 
it saves lives.
  Let me be very clear, my friends. The long gun reporting requirement 
would not stop a law-abiding person from purchasing a firearm. It only 
allows the reporting of multiple sales of powerful, semiautomatic 
rifles--greater than the .22 caliber--and only if they can hold 
detachable magazines.
  The Justice Department found that more than half of the guns 
recovered in Mexico in connection with drug cartels originated in the 
United States of America. A case study of firearms trafficking by one 
drug cartel found that, during a 15-month period, the cartel purchased 
251 assault rifles from U.S. gun dealers, all but one of which was 
purchased as part of a multiple sale.
  Law enforcement needs more, my colleagues, not less to fight drug 
cartel violence. Support this amendment. Help law enforcement stop the 
trafficking of weapons and save lives.
  Mr. FATTAH. In reclaiming my time, I would now like to yield to the 
gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
  Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Ranking Member, and thank you for your 
leadership on this issue.
  I appreciate the kind words of my colleagues and their support for 
this amendment.
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Chair, here I stand in support of an amendment to the 
Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriation Act. 
Specifically, the proposed amendment would strike Section 539 of this 
bill to allow funding to be used to mandate reporting to the Justice 
Department the name of an individual who has purchased multiple long-
barreled arms in five days. The Republicans attempted to disallow the 
Justice Department from keeping these records, even though these 
records are crucial in cracking down on gun trafficking and straw 
purchasing.
  I stand in the wake of another unconscionable mass shooting. A recent 
wound not yet healed, our nation still mourns the lives that were cut 
short by a mentally unstable gunman. I stand not only as a Member of 
Congress but also as a concerned United States citizen, outraged by the 
fact that no measures have been taken to defend our nation's people 
against gun violence. I stand just as many of my distinguished 
colleagues have, to implore the Republicans to finally pass gun control 
legislation. I also stand in frustration, knowing that the Republicans 
will decry such acts of violence as the recent UC-Santa Barbara 
massacre but will refuse to take action to protect our nation's 
innocent citizens.
  I will do everything in my power to convince my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle that it is our duty, as Members of Congress, to 
defend our nation's people while also upholding the second amendment of 
our Constitution.
  Dare I invoke the names of the hundreds of victims of mass-shootings 
in the last few years? Should I mention the alarming number of 
Americans murdered by guns every day which averages to more than 30 
people? Or perhaps I should comment on the startling statistic that 140 
Americans are taken to the emergency room every day to be treated for a 
gun assault.
  Of course, Republicans are aware of the thousands of people who are 
injured and murdered by guns every year. They know the toll that gun 
violence is taking on the American people. I am sure they also 
acknowledge that their pillar of conservatism, the 40th President of 
the United States, Ronald Reagan, supported gun control.
  Yet, Republicans still attached a gun rider to this bill to bolster 
their NRA ratings at the risk of the safety of the American people. 
They don't seem to care that less than a week ago, an individual 
documented for struggling with mental illnesses legally purchased a 
firearm and proceeded to use said firearm to deprive families of their 
loved ones. Well, according to the FBI, more than 400 people were 
murdered in my home state of New York in 2012 alone and I am outraged.
  It is in the honor of the victims of the UC-Santa Barbara tragedy and 
their families that I support this amendment. It is in the honor of 
those lost in other tragedies, who are not forgotten, and all victims 
of gun violence and their families who have wept at funerals that I 
support this amendment.
  Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chair, once again, Americans are 
heartbroken by a gun violence tragedy, mourning the students killed in 
Santa Barbara.
  Since that mass shooting on Friday, more than 120 others have lost 
their lives at the hands of a gun, including an 18-month-old

[[Page 9228]]

who was shot in front of his mother this morning in West Palm Beach.
  This mother will never see her child go to school, graduate from 
college, or walk down the aisle--she will never hear him say, ``I love 
you Mom.''
  As a former Mayor of an urban city, I've seen firsthand how gun 
violence disrupts entire communities and devastates families.
  Too many lives have been taken. Too many families have lost their 
daughters and sons, their sisters and brothers. And too many people 
have endured unimaginable pain and grief caused by senseless acts of 
gun violence.
  And, it is unbelievable to me about in the wake of more heartbreaking 
killings with firearms that the reaction of some in this Congress is to 
weaken gun laws. That's why I support the Esty amendment to keep strong 
laws against gun trafficking on the books.
  Not only should we pass this amendment, we must do much more to 
improve our national background check system and strengthen mental 
health intervention and research.
  From California to Florida, American families are counting on us to 
keep guns out of the hands of criminals and keep our children safe.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chair, Congresswoman Esty has 
introduced a common sense amendment to inhibit gun trafficking along 
the Southwest Border.
  Her amendment seeks to strike Section 539, which prohibits the 
necessary funding required for federally licensed firearms dealers to 
report to DOJ when they sell multiple rifles or shotguns to the same 
person. This requirement applies to dealers in Arizona, California, New 
Mexico, and Texas due to their proximity to Mexico. Nearly 80% of 
Mexico's illegal firearms are imported illegally from the U.S.
  Gun traffickers frequently buy multiple guns at one time and then 
resell them to prohibited persons. Section 539 blocks ATF's ability to 
track the bulk buying of assault rifles in those border states.
  Eliminating this key reporting requirement opens the door wide for 
criminals, and those who would normally not pass a background check, to 
obtain a gun. Each year nearly 12,000 gun murders are committed by 
people who have no legal right to a gun. I applaud Congresswoman Esty 
for introducing the amendment to strike the language, thus curbing gun 
trafficking and allowing ATF to properly do its job.
  We need to strike negative gun riders from CJS legislation, like 
section 539. I lend my support to this amendment and to Congresswoman 
Esty and I hope you do, as well.
  Ms. ESTY. With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                       Spending Reduction Account

       Sec. 540. The amount by which the applicable allocation of 
     new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of 
     proposed new budget authority is $0.


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) add the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     under the heading ``Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery'' may be 
     used for grant guidelines or requirements to establish 
     minimum riparian buffers.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  For the past 15 years, a large part of the success of the salmon 
recovery in the Northwest and in other States has been through locally 
driven solutions funded through the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery 
Fund, and I continue to support this program.
  This amendment will ensure, however, that these funds continue to 
benefit salmon through on-the-ground projects, but without questionable 
buffer guidelines imposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, or NOAA, as a condition of their use.
  Agriculture is the background of my central Washington district, and 
it is estimated that these and other similarly imposed land set-aside 
guidelines by NOAA could restrict the use of vital crop protection 
tools on as much as 50 acres of farmland per mile. I am not alone in my 
concern about NOAA's use of unverifiable salmon buffer requirements in 
other instances.
  Last year, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals found similar NOAA 
salmon buffer requirements in a biological opinion that were based on 
scientific standards that ``did not always appear to be logical, 
obvious, or even rational.''
  In my home State of Washington, over two dozen agricultural 
associations strongly oppose NOAA's recommendation of large buffers on 
agricultural lands, and one local recovery board group that has 
successfully used these funds to improve salmon survival in the upper 
Columbia River opposes mandatory buffers tied to these important salmon 
grant funds.
  Let me be very clear. This amendment won't cut Pacific Coastal Salmon 
Recovery funds, nor will it prohibit riparian buffers where they are 
appropriate, but it will ensure that NOAA does not make them a 
prerequisite for these funds to be awarded for on-the-ground projects, 
respecting unique geographical priorities of agricultural areas and 
locally driven solutions to salmon recovery.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I ask that this amendment be approved, so that the 
Federal Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery funds, which have been proven 
effective over the years for farmers and local projects, will not be 
used as a backdoor way for NOAA to implement other controversial 
guidelines for these buffers.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, this is an attempt to 
authorize on an appropriations bill. These buffer zones that have been 
put in place under the expertise of NOAA have been part and parcel to 
making sure that the salmon in the hatchery system work properly. I 
think for us to delve into this at this point is difficult, and the 
wording is challenging.
  Rather than deal with it here, I would ask if we could talk about it 
and see what we could do in conference, and that would be a good thing. 
I would hate for us, after having invested tens of millions of dollars 
in the salmon, to be taking a rash action here on the floor.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman, and I would like to work with 
you on this.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I respect that, but let me clarify what 
is going on here because the gentleman, with due respect, represents an 
urban area, and I represent a rural area. That is self-evident. That is 
not criticism. I am just pointing out the obvious.
  Mr. FATTAH. In reclaiming my time, it is true that I represent an 
urban area, yes. I would be glad to continue to yield.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for that 
clarification.
  I just want to make this point. These are suggested guidelines, and 
we have gone through this before. In fact, the EPA is working on this 
precisely.

                              {time}  1930

  I oppose what the EPA is doing, as a matter of fact, and most people 
on the ground.
  I am just simply saying that through the funding mechanism, NOAA 
should not be able to impose these guidelines that have a great deal of 
controversy in the Pacific Northwest.
  I know this is the start of this process. I know NOAA had some 
problems with the initial language. We changed that language now. They 
can't say they

[[Page 9229]]

oppose this because this only affects particularly these guidelines 
that are being proposed.
  So I think the amendment is something that needs to be passed, 
frankly, to send a message.
  By the time we go through this process, if they want to have some 
other adjustments, when they make their adjustments, I would be more 
than willing to talk. But I think this amendment should be passed so we 
can send a message to NOAA.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, the United States taxpayers have 
invested a lot of money for the help of salmon in your neck of the 
woods. I am all for it. I like to make sure that whatever we are doing 
is correct. We have got treaty obligations. We have got hatcheries. We 
have got all kinds of stuff going on with both the Native Americans and 
the commercial fishermen operations there.
  All I am saying is I don't want to come to the end of the night, 
after we have been debating this bill for 2 days, and rush something 
forward that may not be the way to go.
  It is interestingly worded. I know that you have good intentions. I 
would like to work with you and the majority staff and see where we 
are. I just can't support this, given the complexities of the issues 
and the limitations of me being from an urban area. I want to make sure 
I have a complete grasp on the issue.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate that. I simply want to say 
that these are issues that I know are unique to mainly the Western part 
of the United States.
  But in many respects, the gentleman made a statement that really 
supports my amendment. Because he said the American taxpayers are 
spending billions of dollars on salmon recovery. That is true. So are 
the ratepayers in the Bonneville power system. They are paying billions 
of dollars for salmon recovery.
  The good news is the fish runs in the last 5 years have come back in 
record numbers.
  To be very honest with you, these guidelines haven't been imposed, 
and the salmon are coming back. So why would you want to impose these 
buffer zones when it probably wouldn't add anything, and when a Federal 
court has said it is questionable science anyway.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, a lot of us would love to go out to 
dinner tonight and have salmon.
  The issue for the science of this is that you can't make a mistake. 
This is a multiyear process. You have got a lot going on here. And if 
you blow it, you are going to blow it for a big industry that is 
important for America.
  So I would like to work with you and make sure that we get it right. 
And the expertise of NOAA, I think, could be helpful in that process.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I appreciate, again, the ranking member working with me. But I think 
this is sufficiently important that we should adopt this amendment.
  Again, I will point out the American taxpayers, as have the 
ratepayers, spent billions of dollars recovering salmon.
  The good news in the Pacific Northwest, as I mentioned, some of the 
salmon runs are coming back in record numbers in the last 4 or 5 years.
  So if there is something that is before the final part of this bill 
becomes a law, and there needs to be some adjustment, I would be more 
than happy to talk about it. But I think it is sufficiently important 
to send a message right now to NOAA to not impose these guidelines when 
the evidence is contrary to what they are trying to do.
  So I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Doyle

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce, the United 
     States Trade Representative, and United States International 
     Trade Commission shall jointly submit to Congress a report on 
     the following:
       (1) The authorities of the Department of Commerce, the 
     United States Trade Representative, and United States 
     International Trade Commission, respectively, to impose 
     sanctions against corporations or other legal entities that 
     benefit from utilizing trade secrets or other information--
       (A) obtained by such corporations or entities through cyber 
     intrusions or other illegal methods; or
       (B) provided to such corporations or entities by a national 
     government, foreign intelligence service, or other entity 
     using such means.
       (2) If the Department of Commerce, the United States Trade 
     Representative, or United States International Trade 
     Commission does not have sufficient authorities described in 
     paragraph (1), recommendations to improve or broaden the 
     scope of such authorities to address the matters described in 
     paragraph (1).

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to start off by saying to my good 
friend the chairman that I plan to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my good friend and colleague Tim Murphy and I are 
offering this bipartisan amendment that directs the Department of 
Commerce, the United States Trade Representative, and the United States 
International Trade Commission to report to Congress on the sanctions 
they can bring against companies that benefit from information acquired 
by hacking into private computers in the United States.
  The Justice Department recently indicted five Chinese military 
officers for stealing commercially valuable information from a number 
of companies in the United States. These indictments highlight what we 
have known for a long time: namely, that China and governments around 
the world are hacking into computers in the United States and using 
that information they steal for their own economic advantage.
  These hackers have targeted the offices of Westinghouse, U.S. Steel, 
the United Steel Workers Union, Alcoa, Allegheny Technologies, and 
SolarWorld, five of which are located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
  The information they stole helped Chinese companies in negotiations 
or trade disputes with each of the targeted organizations. While these 
indictments are the first of their kind, businesses in the United 
States have been facing cyber attacks like this for years.
  I would like to think that these cyber spies will be prosecuted and 
imprisoned for their actions at some point, but that won't do anything 
to reverse the damage that they have done. Congress needs to focus 
right now--today--on protecting the American workers and businesses who 
face these attacks every day.
  I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support our 
amendment and begin taking the necessary measures to counter cyber 
espionage against American workers and businesses. This amendment would 
take the first step by determining whether the U.S. government has the 
tools it needs to do just that.
  Let's send a clear message to bad actors around the world that the 
United States has the power and the will to punish those that engage in 
criminal trade practices.
  Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to my good friend and colleague, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).

[[Page 9230]]


  Mr. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. I thank my friend, Mr. Doyle.
  On Monday, May 19, the U.S. attorney for the Western District of 
Pennsylvania filed an indictment against five members of the Communist 
Chinese military, affirming what I as chairman of the Congressional 
Steel Caucus and other lawmakers have contended for quite some time. 
This indictment proves we are losing manufacturing jobs not because the 
U.S. stopped making great products, but because the Chinese Government 
is stealing ideas, inventions, and intellectual property straight out 
of western Pennsylvania.
  The Chinese Government has hacked into our computers, stolen business 
blueprints, erected trade barriers, and manipulated currency markets to 
give state-owned enterprises an unfair and illegal advantage in the 
American marketplace.
  For example, in 2010, as American factories were shutting down 
because of dumped and illegally traded Chinese pipe, Chinese agents 
were trying to cheat in court as well. The Chinese army hacked into 
computers at U.S. Steel and the United Steelworkers Union in 2010 to 
obtain privileged legal communications about the crucial unfair trade 
case then being litigated before the International Trade Commission on 
the oil country tubular goods from China.
  This amendment will help us continue this effort and apply the same 
crackdown on trade crimes. By dumping sophisticated, high-cost oil 
country tubular goods onto the U.S. market, countries like China are in 
clear violation of their obligations under international trade 
agreements.
  Western Pennsylvania--nor the rest of this country--won't be a 
welcome mat for the Chinese or any foreign competitor to walk over.
  Mr. DOYLE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman 
Wolf for his efforts and support. Hopefully, we can work together to 
achieve the goals of this amendment with language in the conference 
report or some other means.
  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOYLE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. This is one of the better amendments offered today. 
Frankly, I will do everything I can to make sure this is in the bill 
when it comes to the conference report.
  If the Members would take the time to go out and look at the place 
whereby you can see all the companies that are being hit, the Chinese 
are stealing jobs.
  And so I thank Mr. Doyle and Mr. Murphy for offering this. I will do 
everything I can. I think the staff knows how strongly I feel. Mr. 
Fattah has been a great help on these issues.
  So if the amendment is ruled out of order, we will make sure that we 
try to put it in the bill, and I thank both of you for offering it.
  Mr. DOYLE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I want to thank my colleagues from Pennsylvania.
  And yes, the case that was referenced centered in Pennsylvania, and 
it is a case that is pending before our courts. I won't have much to 
say about it other than under our system, an indictment is merely a 
charge. We have to go through the process.
  But the one thing that we do know--having nothing to do with the 
instant case--is Chairman Wolf has worked on this for a number of 
years. He has exposed all of us to information about this and arranged 
briefings from our highest levels of law enforcement officials in our 
country.
  And clearly, there is a great deal of cyber snooping going on. It 
emanates from a number of different places, China included: Ukraine, 
Nigeria--we can go through the laundry list. But we have to do more to 
protect ourselves.
  I want to thank the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle and Mr. 
Murphy, for bringing this amendment forward. As the chairman indicated, 
we will work with them in a way to make this as concrete as possible as 
we go forward.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.


               Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Each amount made available by this Act, except 
     those amounts made available to the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, is hereby reduced by 1 percent.
       (b) The reduction in subsection (a) shall not apply with 
     respect to the following accounts of the Department of 
     Justice:
       (1) ``Fees and Expenses of Witnesses''.
       (2) ``Public Safety Officer Benefits''.
       (3) ``United States Trustee System Fund''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin first by thanking 
Chairman Wolf for his patience. Every single year, as he has shepherded 
this appropriations bill, I have come to this floor and offered an 
amendment that would include a 1 percent across-the-board spending cut. 
He has been very gracious and very kind, even though he opposes. And 
even though I appreciate the good work that the committees have done to 
reduce spending and to get these levels down, I believe that we can do 
more--and that we should be doing more.
  I think it is admirable that the committee is showing us a 0.8 
percent reduction. But if we would pass my amendment, we would save 
another $400 million. And that is a step that we need to take.
  I think it is important to realize that this amendment exempts the 
$8.5 billion budget that is for the FBI. We think it is important that 
they get that for their vital mission that they conduct every single 
day in protecting American citizens at home and abroad and in 
conducting the activities that do help to keep the homeland and our 
people safe.
  My amendment will not affect the efforts that are combating 
terrorism, cyber crime, human trafficking or violent gangs. It is a 
targeted spending cut that will result in a savings to the taxpayers of 
over $400 million.

                              {time}  1945

  Given the $51 billion price tag of this bill, I do not feel that it 
is asking too much to cut a little bit more.
  I think it is important to note also that across-the-board spending 
cuts have worked at the State level. There is no reason not to utilize 
them here in Washington.
  We have heard from so many of our Governors and our mayors that have 
trumpeted the use of across-the-board spending cuts. We have heard 
Chris Christie, a 9 percent across-the-board spending cut; Rick Perry 
in Texas, a 5 percent savings.
  We have Governor Cuomo, who was looking at reducing 10 percent across 
the board; Schweitzer in Montana, 5 percent across the board.
  They work, and there is a reason they do--because it is an equitable 
cut.
  Mr. Chairman, we are $17 trillion in debt. This is something we can 
do for our children and our grandchildren and begin to responsibly roll 
back the amount that the Federal Government spends.
  At this point in time, we are spending the money that our children 
have not made for programs that they do not want and will never, ever 
use. What we need to do is be wise stewards of the taxpayer dollar, now 
and in the future.
  I also think this is an idea that the American people are beginning 
to support. I noted a recent poll--Washington Post-ABC News poll. This 
was March 6, 2013. Sixty-one percent of the American

[[Page 9231]]

public actually supports not a 1 percent or a 2 percent, but a 5 
percent across-the-board cut in all Federal spending.
  It is time for us to do a little more to save a little more, to make 
a few more spending reductions, and to think about what the addition of 
debt--piling on more debt does to our children and our grandchildren 
and to their futures.
  It is, indeed, capping and trading our children's futures to the 
people that hold our publicly-traded debt.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the 
amendment. I understand what the gentlelady is saying, and I think she 
makes a powerful case, but I think, to bring it back to this bill, the 
allocation for the bill already represents a cut of $398 million below 
the FY14 level. Thirty-three individual programs have been terminated 
in the bill.
  Moreover, and I will end with this, since the beginning of the 112th 
Congress, the allocation for Commerce-Justice-Science appropriation has 
been cut by $13.1 billion, or over 20 percent, so you have had a 20 
percent cut since the 112th.
  As a result of that, I would ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles for any 
     executive fleet, or for an agency's fleet inventory, except 
     in accordance with Presidential Memorandum--Federal Fleet 
     Performance, dated May 24, 2011.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, on May 24, 2011, President Obama issued a 
memorandum on Federal fleet performance that requires all new light-
duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be alternative fuel vehicles, 
such as hybrid, electric, natural gas, or biofuel, by December 31, 
2015.
  My amendment echoes the Presidential memorandum by prohibiting funds 
in the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act from being used to lease or purchase the new light-duty vehicles, 
except in accord with the President's memorandum.
  This amendment has been supported by the majority and minority on 
appropriations bills eight times over the past few years, and I 
understand it will receive similar support today.
  Our transportation sector is, by far, the biggest reason we send $600 
billion per year to hostile nations to pay for oil at ever-increasing 
costs, but America doesn't have to be dependent on foreign sources of 
oil for transportation fuel.
  Alternative technologies exist today and, when implemented broadly, 
will allow any alternative fuel to be used in America's automotive 
fleet.
  The Federal Government operates the largest fleet of light-duty 
vehicles in America. According to GSA, there are over 660,000 vehicles 
in the Federal fleet. By supporting a diverse array of vehicle 
technologies in our Federal fleet, we will encourage development of 
domestic energy resources, including biomass, natural gas, agriculture 
waste, hydrogen, renewable electricity, methanol, and ethanol.
  When I was in Brazil a few years ago, I saw how they diversified 
their fuel by greatly expanding their use of ethanol. When people drove 
to a gas station, they saw what a gallon of gasoline would cost and 
what an equivalent amount of ethanol would cost and could decide which 
was better for them.
  If they can do this in Brazil, then we can do it here. We can educate 
people on using alternative fuels and let consumers decide which is 
best for them.
  Expanding the role these energy sources play in our transportation 
economy will help break the leverage over Americans held by foreign 
government-controlled oil companies and will increase our Nation's 
domestic security and protect consumers from price spikes and shortages 
in the world oil markets.
  I also want to mention that Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and I 
have a bill which would mandate that, by a certain amount of time, all 
cars in America would be flex-fuel cars. We can build these cars for 
under $100 per car, and I think it is ridiculous that we don't do it.
  I want to thank Mr. Wolf and Mr. Fattah for their courtesies, and I 
ask that the Engel amendment be supported.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment 
forward. It is so very important that our country move aggressively in 
this area.
  As you travel around the world, you see other countries doing so much 
more in terms of renewable energy and utilizing cleaner energy sources.
  In Ireland, it is wind energy. In France, it is nuclear. In Israel, 
you have solar along the Dead Sea. Morocco has got one of the largest 
solar operations.
  One of the things that our government can do to save money, as was 
mentioned in the last discussion about the need to save money, is that 
we could be moving to a different type of fuel, and we also could be 
improving the circumstances under which the air that our grandchildren 
will breathe will be healthier.
  I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this forward. There are 
vehicles that are coming forward that are going to be solar-powered and 
powered by other types of alternative fuel. Our military has been 
investing very significantly in this regard, in terms of aviation fuel.
  There is work for us to do. We can actually do it together, Democrats 
and Republicans; and therefore, I rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for operation, renovation, or construction at Thomson 
     Correctional Facility in Illinois.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of my amendment to

[[Page 9232]]

shut down the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois. The amendment 
would prohibit any funds being made available for operations, 
renovation, or construction at Thomson Correctional.
  Section 529 of our CJS bill prohibits funds to construct, acquire, or 
modify a facility in the U.S. to house detainees. However, my amendment 
goes further, by not allowing any funds for operations at Thomson.
  In addition, I recognize that CJS also prohibits the use of funds to 
transfer Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. However, the administration 
has proven resourceful at finding pots of money to achieve their goals.
  Thomson Correctional Center is ground zero in this debate. As long as 
it remains operational, we run the risk of seeing Guantanamo Bay 
detainees on American soil.
  One of the President's first acts in office was signing Executive 
Order 13492 on January 22, 2009, to close Guantanamo Bay detention 
center. The administration has attempted to purchase the facility since 
2009 to hold these detainees.
  We have the letter from December 15 to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, 
which was signed by several administration officials, including 
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, stating the following:

       As the President has made clear, we need to continue to 
     detain some individuals currently held at the Guantanamo Bay 
     detention facility. To securely house these detainees, 
     Federal agencies plan to work with me and other State 
     officials to acquire the nearly vacant maximum security 
     facility in Thomson, Illinois.

  It later adds:

       The Defense Department will operate part of the facility to 
     house a limited number of detainees from Guantanamo.

  Congress passed language in subsequent bills to prevent the transfer 
of detainees from Guantanamo prisons to the U.S. However, the 
administration, once again, went behind the intent of Congress and 
purchased the Thomson facility in 2012 for $165 million, using money 
from various DOJ accounts. Supposedly, that was to combat prison 
overcrowding.
  Mr. Chairman, today, the prison is still empty.
  President Obama also requested $43.7 million in his fiscal year 2014 
budget to begin activating Thomson. I think that we all know that this 
administration intends to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. 
When it is shut down, those detainees are going to go somewhere.
  The handwriting is on the wall. President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and 
other Democrats have clearly stated their intent to bring those 
detainees to American soil.
  I think that it is imperative that we accept this amendment and make 
certain that there is no money for operational funds for the Thomson 
facility.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment and seek 
time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to voice my strong opposition to 
the amendment offered by the Congresswoman from Tennessee.
  The amendment she offers that aims to deny funding for the Thomson 
Correctional Center in Thomson, Illinois, would not only negatively 
impact public safety and put our hardworking prison guards in harm's 
way, but it would also be a big disservice to our Nation's taxpayers.
  On a personal level, it would also be another setback for Thomson, 
Illinois, and the surrounding communities that have been thirsting far 
too long for the good-paying jobs and the economic opportunity that 
will come with the long-awaited opening of this dormant facility.

                              {time}  2000

  When fully opened, the Thomson prison will create 1,100 jobs and will 
infuse more than $200 million into our local community. But making sure 
this facility remains on track to open has very important ramifications 
for communities across our country as well.
  Due to the shortage of prison bed space, high security prisons are 
today operating at 53 percent over capacity. This is especially 
alarming when considering that nearly nine out of every 10 high-
security inmates have a history of violence. This overcrowding has put 
our hardworking prison guards and staff at facilities from coast to 
coast at risk of harm every day while they are on the job.
  My husband ran our county jail for more than a decade, and I can tell 
you, I understand this on a very personal level.
  Let me quote the Government Accountability Office, which says that 
overcrowding has affected Bureau of Prisons' ``institutions, 
institution staff, and the infrastructure of Bureau of Prisons 
facilities, and has contributed to inmate misconduct, which affects 
staff and inmate security and safety.''
  Opening the Thomson prison will add critical high-security beds that 
will help alleviate overcrowding and make our prisons safer for guards, 
staff, and inmates.
  In addition to increasing safety, opening the Thomson Correctional 
Center would also save taxpayers' hard-earned money. The cost of 
constructing a new facility comparable to Thomson would exceed $400 
million and take 3 to 4 years to complete. That is more than double the 
funding needed to open the existing Thomson facility. In short, by 
purchasing Thomson from the State of Illinois, the Federal Government 
potentially saves the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
  Finally, the U.S. Attorney General has pledged, most recently at his 
House appropriations hearing, that no detainees from Guantanamo could 
or would be transferred to Thomson--zero, none. Additionally, there is 
language in the underlying bill that prohibits this. It is simply not 
going to happen. I repeat: it is not going to happen.
  The Bureau of Prisons has already designated funding for the 
activation of Thomson prison, and local job hiring has already begun. 
We cannot turn the clock back now. To even make that attempt is a 
display of contempt for the American taxpayer.
  The opening of the Thomson prison is good for prison guards. It helps 
relieve an overcrowded prison system and pays respect to our 
hardworking taxpayers who are seeking common sense, no more nonsense.
  I urge all of my colleagues to stand with me in opposing this foolish 
and misguided amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment.
  There are other priorities within the Bureau of Prisons, including 
bringing online two other recently constructed facilities and 
maintaining sufficient staffing levels at existing facilities to ensure 
safety.
  I am also concerned--and I think what the problem is, if I could just 
maybe speak to the gentlelady from Illinois. I think if the 
administration were saying that there will never be any Guantanamo 
detainees transferred, but the problem is we see the veto threat on the 
DOD bill. No one is trying to hurt your community, and I commend you 
for fighting for it; but every time you begin to kind of say, okay, we 
will go that way, you then begin to see the veto threats. The 
administration has not set a veto threat to this bill but has expressed 
concern with regard to our Guantanamo Bay language.
  And my sense is, if honestly, ethically, morally we were all 
convinced no Guantanamo Bay transfers--and, quite frankly, I don't 
think you want Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to come to your local community 
either. So I think you would probably agree with me as much as 
anything. But if there was convincing evidence that they were never 
going to be brought there, then I wouldn't have any problem.
  But I think the gentlelady from Tennessee raises a very, very good, 
good point. And every time you come back

[[Page 9233]]

to that, it always comes back to, we are going to veto that.
  So I think it is a good amendment. I guess the challenge would be: 
How could we remove this so that this does not become a problem? 
Eventually, I can understand. I think you make a legitimate case. But 
the hurdle is Members up here on both sides of the aisle believe that 
the administration ultimately will take people from Guantanamo to 
Thomson, and that becomes a problem.
  If you could remove that risk whereby nobody will ever come back to 
it, then I think this problem would go away. Until that time, I think 
it is going to be a battle constantly, constantly, constantly. And I 
know that Senator Durbin has made a strong effort, but there are some 
of us on this side who believe that it becomes a big political issue, 
too.
  So if you can somehow make it whereby there is some convincing and 
not run the risk of, in 2 or 3 years from now, say, ``Ah-hah, we have 
got you; we are going to take them there,'' then I think this problem 
would probably go away. But until that time, I support the gentlelady's 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).
  Mr. LOEBSACK. I thank my good friend and colleague from Illinois, who 
has been a real leader on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, like Congresswoman Bustos, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment today. This amendment would harm our economy and would add 
greater stress to our prison system as well.
  Iowans and Illinoisans have waited for years for a solution on the 
Thomson Correctional Center. For too long, politics in Washington--
which I think is on display again tonight, unfortunately--got in the 
way of creating jobs in our region, and for me, it is in eastern Iowa. 
It is a type of partisan game that really must end. And I do appreciate 
the comments from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on this.
  The Thomson prison will bring more than 1,000 new jobs at a time when 
families badly need them and will spur economic development in our 
region. Money for this facility was included in the FY14 omnibus bill 
that we just passed in January, and it makes no sense to me to prevent 
progress on a facility that we just voted to enhance 4 months ago.
  In addition to those economic benefits, I hope that I don't need to 
remind my colleagues of the fact that we have a capacity problem in our 
Nation's prisons. The problem only grows worse when we intentionally 
prevent more facilities from operating. And, again, while I understand 
the arguments that have been made tonight against it, those folks will 
not come here.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind my 
colleagues of a couple of things. Number one, going back to the letter 
dated December 15, 2009, it says in the letter: ``The Defense 
Department will operate part of the facility to house a limited number 
of detainees from Guantanamo Bay.''
  Now, I have to ask my colleagues: Who do you think is going to be 
there? This is a prison that is empty. It is empty right now. We know 
what is going to happen. This is going to be used to receive Guantanamo 
Bay detainees.
  The 9/11 families support this amendment. It is supported by these 
families. They do not want to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 
detainees here on American soil. They do not want them to have access 
to our civilian court system. And passing this amendment will save us 
millions of taxpayer dollars that could end up being used not only to 
house, not only to give access to the courts, but to pay for lawyers to 
defend enemies who have taken up arms against our brave men and women 
in uniform.
  It was clear from 2009 what the intent was. It said it in the letter: 
``The Defense Department will operate part of the facility to house a 
limited number of detainees.''
  I encourage support, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Let me say a couple of things. One is I am opposed to 
this amendment.
  Now, generally, I am opposed to us building new prisons. I think we 
would be much better off building new schools. But there are 
circumstances in which people have to be incarcerated to protect 
society from them.
  I want to talk about one young man who lost his life, and I think it 
is important relative to this amendment. His name was Eric Williams. It 
was February of 2013. He worked for us. He worked for the Federal 
Government. He worked in a Federal prison in Pennsylvania, and he lost 
his life because of the overcrowding there.
  So one of the things is that, if we are going to imprison more people 
than any other nation on the face of the Earth, then we have to do it. 
And we can't do it on the cheap. We have to have facilities that are 
well staffed so that our guards and the people who work for us are not 
put in unsafe circumstances.
  Now, this political nonsense, this is a new theme of some of my 
colleagues on the other side. We can't pass immigration reform because 
the President might not do something or might do something. We can't do 
this prison that we have already invested money in because the 
President might do something or not do something. So it is kind of like 
this hyperconcern about what the President may do.
  We should do our job, and our job is that, if we want to take the 
prison census from 20,000 to 220,000, then we have to have the 
facilities. We can't stand on the floor and vote for prison sentences 
that go out years and decades, have people tried through the DOJ that 
we are funding, and then have no place to incarcerate them. It doesn't 
work that way.
  So this amendment makes no sense, that you would have a facility that 
the taxpayers have paid for, you have a system that is overcrowded, you 
have people like Eric Williams who have lost their lives trying to do a 
job on behalf of the American public, and then we have politics 
intrude. This is not about criminal justice management. This is about 
politics. This is about, well, you know, Obama and this and that.
  There is no place in America in which we can have a circumstance in 
which we incarcerate someone and make sure--we don't have any breakouts 
from Federal maximum security prisons. If you did, the Congress would 
be excited about it. It hasn't happened. So the idea that we can't 
incarcerate people safely is defied by the facts. What we can't do is 
safeguard our prison staff if we put them in a situation where 
overcrowding exists.
  So I would hope that we would reject this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. It boils down to the issue of trust.
  I was specifically told by the Justice Department that the Uighurs 
from Guantanamo Bay would not be released. We had a meeting in my 
office. The White House was there. They were all there. They said they 
will not be released.
  We got a call from somebody in the administration who called us to 
say that the helicopters are getting ready and leaving Guantanamo. And, 
by the way, they have leased an apartment at Seven Corners. These were 
three people who had been picked up at Tora Bora in a camp.
  I understand. I mean, if we could work this thing out, I would be 
happy.
  So when you see the veto message, as the gentlelady from Tennessee 
said, the concern is that they will just blink and come and go. But 
they looked me directly in the eye and said: We will not release these 
inmates.
  And then had I not gotten that telephone call--and, quite frankly, I 
think this person who stopped them from being released was the current 
mayor of Chicago, to his credit.
  And so that is the concern we have. There needs to be a basic trust 
that if

[[Page 9234]]

somebody says something, there is absolutely no question that that is 
the word and it will never happen.
  But I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, when I was back in school, I read a 
paper called ``Metaphysical Madness,'' and the essence of it was that 
in politics the question was: How do you get ambitious, vindictive 
people to agree on something? That is how you make progress. Well, I 
don't know that we want to be vindictive. But the point here is that we 
still have to, in some way, come to a shared agreement about how this 
country is going to go forward.
  If you think the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, who is from 
Illinois, is going to have this bill moved forward with this language 
in it, it is not going to happen. We are just asking for a bottleneck. 
So we should stop wasting time and find a way to go forward.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. BUSTOS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  2015


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Bonamici

  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Harper). The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Justice may be used to prevent a State from 
     implementing its own State laws that authorize the use, 
     distribution, possession, or cultivation of industrial hemp, 
     as defined in section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 
     (Public Law 113-79).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Oregon.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, my bipartisan amendment is very simple. 
It would move our country in line with industrialized countries around 
the world that long ago recognized the importance of industrial hemp as 
a natural resource, an agricultural commodity, and a versatile 
component in thousands of commercial products.
  In fact, not only does this amendment bring America in line with much 
of the rest of the industrialized world, it brings America back in line 
with its own history. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew it. 
The first drafts of our Constitution and many of our first laws were 
written on paper made from it. In fact, during World War II, the USDA 
encouraged patriotic American farmers to raise it for the war effort. 
They even produced a promotional film entitled ``Hemp for Victory,'' 
and now at least 16 States have passed laws that will allow their 
farmers to grow it.
  Unfortunately, the Federal Government stands in the way of family 
farmers who want to be able to grow industrial hemp. The senseless 
classification of hemp as a Schedule I drug does not further public 
safety, but it does rob our farm economies of a potentially 
multibillion dollar crop that can be used to make everything from rope 
to soap. In fact, it seems like the only thing you can't make out of 
hemp is dope.
  Despite the fact that American farmers can't grow industrial hemp, 
hemp products here in this country account for nearly $500 million in 
annual sales. Now, that is a sizable industry, but nothing compared to 
the economic impact that full-scale cultivation and commercialization 
would have if States were permitted to implement their laws and our 
hemp did not have to get imported from other countries.
  This amendment would only allow farmers to grow hemp in accordance 
with their State's laws. It simply divests the Department of Justice 
and the DEA of their ability to treat industrial hemp like marijuana 
because it is not like marijuana. So far, 16 States have seen the value 
that hemp provides, and have passed laws to allow farmers to grow hemp 
and to closely regulate it.
  Farmers in those States across the country are waiting for the 
Federal Government to get out of their way. But because the Department 
of Justice refuses to acknowledge what Washington and Jefferson knew--
that hemp is an important agricultural commodity, it is not marijuana--
these State laws must take a back seat to Federal overreach.
  The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the 
American Farm Bureau Federation agree that we should allow our farmers 
to grow industrial hemp.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. The amendment seeks to fix a problem that does not exist. 
There is no restriction on use and transfer of domestically produced or 
traded industrial hemp products or seed. They never sought a license. 
They have every right to do this had they got a license. And the DEA 
had a responsibility, as the Customs and Border Patrol does, to ensure 
that imports are legal and safe, including the imports of agriculture 
products. The responsibility falls to those who seek to import these 
products to secure necessary import licenses in a timely way to ensure 
Federal law enforcement can do its job and confirm that the commodity 
imported is legal.
  There is no reason to restrict the exercise of this important law 
enforcement mission. So they never sought a license, and that is what 
the problem was.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, may I please inquire as to the remaining 
time?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Oregon has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. BONAMICI. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy as 
I appreciate her leadership on this.
  The matter is that 22 States have moved to reduce the barriers, 17 
States now, including our home State of Oregon, have removed barriers 
to production. But there is uncertainty. As a matter of fact, I think 
my friend from Kentucky may talk about a problem they had in the State 
of Kentucky now.
  We need to approve this amendment to get the Federal Government out 
of the way of a revolution that is taking place at the State level. 
States across the country understand that this is an important 
commodity, it is part of our heritage, and it is part of our future. 
The DEA has more important things to do than interfere with legal 
activities at the State level.
  We need to remove the cloud of uncertainty and approve this 
amendment, and I respectfully request that people approve it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Massie), my cosponsor.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, officials in my home State of Kentucky were 
recently forced to file a lawsuit in Federal Court to compel the DEA to 
release industrial hemp seeds intended for a university research pilot 
program. What a waste of time, money, and the court system's limited 
resources.
  States can't launch industrial hemp pilot programs if the DEA seizes 
the seeds before they reach their destination. And although the DEA did 
recently agree to release the seeds, they still insist that they have 
the authority to regulate industrial hemp--which

[[Page 9235]]

was clearly conveyed to the States in the farm bill.
  Isn't it ironic that thousands of pounds of cocaine and heroin are 
somehow passing across our borders every week, yet the DEA thinks that 
seizing hemp seeds, industrial hemp seeds, is a worthwhile use of its 
time and resources? I say it is not.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis) as a courtesy to my colleague to speak on the question of hemp.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania as well as the gentlewoman from Oregon and the gentleman 
from Kentucky.
  I am very pleased to support both this amendment as well as a very 
similar one along with Representatives Massie, Blumenauer, Bonamici, 
and Barr, thanking them for their leadership on a very commonsense 
issue that helps my home State of Colorado.
  Last year, I was thrilled to be part of a successful effort to pass 
an amendment to the farm bill that allows colleges like Colorado State 
University in my district to grow hemp and cultivate hemp for academic 
and agricultural research purposes. But in no other instance can I 
think of urgent emails and texts that I have got from farmers where 
they are in dire straits and need my help in getting the seed they need 
to grow their crop approved through our own State Department of 
Agriculture.
  Our current ag commissioner in Colorado is a former colleague of ours 
in this body, former Congressman John Salazar, as some of you may 
recall. He is our ag commissioner. They set up a rule process around 
industrial hemp farming. But farmers are unable to get the seed they 
need to be able to grow their legal crop.
  Industrial hemp is critical for our economy. It is already used in 
countless products from clothing to a flag that is flown over this very 
United States Capitol last year to, in fact, some of the very first 
American flags, which were made of hemp. And yet we are forced to 
import it from other countries, driving jobs away from American 
agriculture and farmers to farms overseas.
  It is really hard to grow industrial hemp when the DEA, without any 
clear reason, any argument, or any sense throws itself down as a 
roadblock to success. The DEA recently seized industrial hemp seeds 
intended for a university research pilot program. It is essential that 
our institutions of higher education are not prevented from growing or 
cultivating hemp seed.
  In addition, hemp, as we know, is an important agricultural commodity 
and a historic one. We can do a lot better as a country. That is why 
Representative Bonamici and others are offering this very simple 
amendment which states that the DOJ and DEA cannot use funds to prevent 
State agricultural agencies and universities from growing industrial 
hemp in States where it is always legal.
  Let us have access to the seed to ensure that we can continue to grow 
this crop here doing the research we need to ensure that the next great 
generation of hemp products that are bought and sold in our country are 
made in America. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Bonamici 
amendment as well as the Massie amendment. I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania kindly.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, in the hope that perhaps whatever the 
circumstances that might emerge from these couple of amendments, maybe 
it might bring greater harmony in our country.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I join him in 
opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, the purpose of this amendment ostensibly is to make it 
easier to import seeds for the purpose of research with regard to 
growing or cultivating industrial hemp, and for that reason the 
amendment is unnecessary and inappropriate. Current law imposes no 
impediment to legitimate research on industrial hemp being carried out 
in accordance with section 7606 of the Agricultural Act of 2014.
  Under current law, institutions of higher education and State 
Departments of Agriculture may import the seeds needed to conduct 
research authorized by section 7606 of the Agricultural Act.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Ms. BONAMICI. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I do not. I don't have enough time, I don't believe, 
to finish my remarks.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Such institutions of higher education or State 
departments of agriculture simply need to first become registered with 
the DEA as an importer or as a researcher and, second, obtain an import 
permit authorizing the shipment of seeds.
  The process is not burdensome. Within the last 10 days, the DEA 
registered two State departments of agriculture in Colorado and 
Kentucky to import industrial hemp seeds and issued an import permit to 
the Kentucky department of agriculture.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does the gentleman yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Ms. BONAMICI. It is a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Member having the floor would need to yield for 
a parliamentary inquiry to be entertained.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I do not yield, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman does not yield.
  The gentleman from Virginia may proceed.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. As the Chair stated, the gentleman from Virginia 
controls the time.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure the record is 
clear. There are two amendments. It appears that the gentleman is 
talking about the other amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is not recognized.
  The gentleman from Virginia may proceed.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. This amendment would require the U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection to choose between ignoring existing law or barring 
all imports of seeds. Removing DEA from the registration and permit 
process without changing existing law would eliminate the only lawful 
means of importing Cannabis seeds for industrial hemp cultivation 
pursuant to section 7606.
  To protect our Nation from the importation of potentially dangerous 
materials, our customs laws have always required the importer to 
demonstrate before the materials enter this country that the materials 
may lawfully be imported. In carrying out this function, the CBP 
consults with the appropriate government agencies, including the 
Department of Justice and the DEA. By cutting the DOJ and DEA out of 
this process, the amendment creates uncertainty and could potentially 
be construed to require CBP to allow any shipment by anyone to enter 
the U.S. as long as the shipper claims the goods are industrial hemp 
seeds. Since there is no way to tell just from looking at a bag of 
seeds whether they will actually yield Cannabis plants that fall within 
the TAT limits of section 7606, CPB, DOJ, and DEA consultation is 
important.
  Requiring CBP to accept bare representations from anyone claiming to

[[Page 9236]]

be a legitimate importer exposes the possibility of others importing 
any item under the guise of industrial hemp. The existing permit and 
registration process provides some protection against that risk. For 
that reason, I would join in opposing the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2030


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FATTAH. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FATTAH. There may be some confusion. The entire comments of the 
gentleman who just spoke, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was 
on an amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie). 
That is not the amendment that was being debated and is being offered 
by my colleague from Kentucky, and we were trying to clarify that 
because the House could be confused.
  The Acting CHAIR. In response to the inquiry, the Clerk will report 
the pending amendment.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Walberg

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the Investigative and Public Affairs Unit of the 
     Federal Bureau of Investigation except for the Ten Most 
     Wanted Fugitives, the Most Wanted Terrorists, and missing 
     children programs.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, taxpayers should not foot the bill for the 
FBI to be consultants for Hollywood producers. However, this is the 
case with the FBI Investigative Publicity and Public Affairs Unit.
  Although this unit does important work like publicize the Most Wanted 
Fugitives list, it also provides screenwriters, as well as movie and TV 
producers, advice on costumes, props, scenery, and weapons, as well as 
b-roll footage and fact-checking.
  Now, I am confident that Hollywood and their hundred-million-dollar 
production budgets can afford to hire ex-FBI agents to consult on their 
projects. It just seems to make good common sense.
  This unit's activities and most of its $1.5 million annual budget 
should be highlighted for what it really is, and that is Department of 
Justice waste.
  If Hollywood can make millions from these movies and television 
shows, such as ``Without a Trace,'' ``CSI,'' and ``The Closer,'' and 
also movies like ``Shooter,'' featuring--and no relation I might add--
Mark Wahlberg, that grossed over $80 million, as well as ``The 
Kingdom,'' which also grossed over $80 million, it does not need, I 
believe, the American taxpayer and FBI to help fund its research.
  Therefore, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment that simply 
states that no taxpayer funds can be used by the unit except--and I 
make this clear--it doesn't zero out the entire budget, but funds can 
only be used by this unit for the Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, the Most 
Wanted Terrorists, and missing children programs. I think it is a 
reasonable amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I ask for support of this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. It won't take long to make this point. All of us grew up 
during a time in which part of the ability to attract people to Federal 
service, particularly to law enforcement, were shows that highlighted 
the FBI and its prowess, but think about it today, in order to recruit 
people, in order to have job fairs and career fairs and to communicate 
information about the agency.
  For instance, it is trying to recruit now people who can help in 
cyber crimes, and they have had a problem getting people who can get 
past some of the screening, so they have to do even more public 
relations in order to attract people who are capable of helping to 
build the cases like some of the ones which were discussed here earlier 
on the floor in which American companies were being cyber hacked and 
they were stealing essentially American jobs and wealth in that 
process.
  I think, in this effort to separate the FBI from Hollywood, we might 
be separating the agency from its ability to promote itself. There is 
no Member of Congress that doesn't understand and appreciate the fact 
that there are times in which you need to be able to communicate with 
the public, and so it is the case with a Federal agency.
  I think that the amendment--and I understand the impulse, and I am 
sure there is waste, and I can show you waste in the FBI and in any of 
these other agencies, but I don't believe that communicating with the 
American public is something that we should consider as wasteful. I, 
therefore, oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would concur with the need to 
communicate; but, again, we are talking over 600 Hollywood projects, 
most of which are grossing millions of dollars, $80 million, as I 
mentioned, for ``Shooter,'' $80 million for ``The Kingdom.''
  It seems like, with that kind of grossing that is taking place, 
taxpayers shouldn't be on the bill to support the research that goes 
on. You have retired FBI agents, CIA, and others that can be brought in 
to do the research, as well as consult on these films.
  We want accuracy, and yet we also understand that the taxpayer should 
only be footing the bill as necessary, and I don't think this is. 
Nothing against Mark Wahlberg or any others that are being used in 
these movies, especially with my name attached.
  I still think the taxpayer deserves consideration here, and so I ask 
for this reasonable amendment to be supported. It allows the continued 
working on Most Wanted Fugitives and Most Wanted Terrorists and missing 
children programs. I think that is legitimate. Beyond that, I reject 
it. I ask for support of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Grayson

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract with any offeror or any of 
     its principals if the offeror certifies, as required by 
     Federal Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of 
     its principals:
       (A) within a three-year period preceding this offer has 
     been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it 
     for: commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection 
     with obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public 
     (Federal, State, or local)

[[Page 9237]]

     contract or subcontract; violation of Federal or State 
     antitrust statutes relating to the submission of offers; or 
     commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, 
     falsification or destruction of records, making false 
     statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax laws, 
     or receiving stolen property; or
       (B) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or 
     civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of 
     any of the offenses enumerated above in subsection (A); or
       (C) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has 
     been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount 
     that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, just for the sake of perfect clarity, may 
I have the first few words of the amendment read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  Mr. GRAYSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is identical to other 
amendments that have been inserted by voice vote into every 
appropriations bill this year and last year that has been considered 
under an open rule.
  This amendment would expand the list of parties the Federal 
Government is prohibited from contracting with because of misconduct on 
the part of those contractors. This list would include contractors who 
have been convicted of fraud; have violated Federal or State antitrust 
laws; who have been convicted of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, 
violation of Federal tax laws, and other items outlined in section 
52.209-5 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
  These are all offenses which any contractor doing business with the 
Federal Government must disclose to the contracting officer, but oddly 
enough, the contracting officer, absent this amendment, would then be 
free to ignore these transgressions and award contracts to the 
offending entities.
  I commend the authors of this bill for their inclusion of sections 
536 and 537. I still believe, however, that we can improve on the bill 
by prohibiting agencies from contracting with those entities who have 
engaged in the activities described above.
  It is my hope that this amendment will remain noncontroversial, as it 
has been, and, again, will be passed unanimously by the House.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the 
     States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, 
     Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, 
     Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 
     Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, 
     New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, 
     South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and 
     Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own 
     State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, 
     or cultivation of medical marijuana.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of my 
amendment, which would prohibit the Department of Justice from using 
any of the funds appropriated in this bill to prevent States from 
implementing their own medical marijuana laws. Twenty-nine States have 
enacted laws that allow patients access to medical marijuana and its 
derivatives, such as CBD oils.
  It is no surprise then that public opinion is shifting, too. A recent 
Pew Research Center survey found that 61 percent of Republicans and a 
whooping 76 percent of Independents favor making medical marijuana 
legal and available to their patients who need it.
  As I have said, 29 States have already enacted laws that will permit 
patients access to medical marijuana and their derivatives. By the way, 
80 percent of Democrats feel the same way.
  Despite this overwhelming shift in public opinion, the Federal 
Government continues its hard-line oppression against medical 
marijuana. For those of us who routinely talk about the 10th Amendment, 
which we do in conservative ranks, and respect for State laws, this 
amendment should be a no-brainer.
  Our amendment gives all of us an opportunity to show our constituents 
that we are truly constitutionalists and that we mean what we say when 
we talk about the importance of the 10th Amendment.
  In addition, this also gives us the opportunity to prove that we 
really do believe in respecting the doctor-patient relationship.
  I proudly offer this amendment that has the support of my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle. I am joined by Republican cosponsors Don 
Young, Tom McClintock, Dr. Paul Broun, Steve Stockman, and Justin 
Amash, as well as Democrat cosponsors Sam Farr, Earl Blumenauer, Steve 
Cohen, Jared Polis, Barbara Lee, and Dina Titus.
  I urge my colleagues to support our commonsense, states' rights, 
compassionate, fiscally responsible amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield myself 1 minute.
  The following national medical organizations are currently opposed to 
medical marijuana: American Medical Association, American Cancer 
Society, American Glaucoma Society, Glaucoma Research Foundation, 
American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child and 
Adolescent Psychiatry, and American Psychiatric Association.
  Also, recent research has demonstrated that marijuana use during teen 
years decreases IQ rates by an average of eight points.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Harris).

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose the amendment. My State is 
named in the amendment.
  Look, everyone supports compassionate, effective medical care for 
patients with cancer, epilepsy, chronic pain. You will probably hear 
anecdotal reports, maybe even during the testimony this evening, about 
how medical marijuana can solve some of these problems.
  There are two problems with medical marijuana. First, it is the 
camel's nose under the tent; and second, the amendment as written would 
tie the DEA's hands beyond medical marijuana.
  With regard to the camel's nose under the tent, let me just quote 
from

[[Page 9238]]

the DEA report just published this month: Organizers behind the medical 
marijuana movement did not really concern themselves with marijuana as 
a medicine. They just saw it as a means to an end, which is the 
legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes. They did not deal 
with ensuring that the product meets the standards of modern medicine: 
quality, safety, and efficacy.
  Because, Mr. Chairman, the term ``medical marijuana'' is generally 
used to refer--and this is from the NIH. We respect the NIH. This is 
the National Institute on Drug Abuse: The term ``medical marijuana'' is 
generally used to refer to the whole, unprocessed marijuana plant or 
its crude extracts.
  Mr. Chairman, that is not what medicine is about. Medicine is about 
refining the components THC and CBD, actually making sure they are 
efficacious, giving the exact dose, not two joints a day, not a brownie 
here, a biscuit there. That is not modern medicine. In fact, the DEA 
supports those studies, looking at the safety and efficacy and dosing 
regimens for these, THC, CBD. They have licensed some of the drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 
medical and street marijuana are not different. Most marijuana sold in 
dispensaries as medicine, again reading from the National Institute on 
Drug Abuse, is the same quality and carries the same health risks as 
marijuana sold on the street.
  Mr. Chairman, we know there are health problems. The problem is that 
the way the amendment is drafted, in a State like Maryland which has 
medical marijuana, if we ever legalized it, the amendment would stop 
the DEA from going after more than medical marijuana.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. We have 2\1/2\ minutes each.
  I yield 1 minute to my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I am not here to talk about brownies and 
biscuits. I am here to talk about a serious medical issue, cannabidiol, 
the CBD oil that comes from the cannabis plant. It is very low in THC 
and is nonpsychoactive. Research has shown very promising results in 
children with epilepsy, autism, and other neurological disorders. CBD 
oil is also showing promising results in adults with Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's, and PTSD.
  We need to remove the roadblocks to these potential medical 
breakthroughs. This amendment would do that. The Federal Government 
should not countermand State law. In this case, the absurd result of 
that is that medical discoveries are being blocked.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman 
from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, let me say that in this discussion you may 
have heard reference to the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause. Let 
me address that. I want to get that out of the way, because I have 
talked tremendously over the past few days and weeks about the dangers 
of marijuana.
  This controversy came before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 in 
Gonzales v. Raich. The Supreme Court reviewed the Federal Government's 
authority to enforce the Controlled Substances Act. In a 6-3 decision, 
Justice Scalia, a strong states' rights advocate, concurred with the 
majority ruling that the CSA does not violate the Commerce Clause or 
the principles of State sovereignty.
  Just to read what he said:

       Not only is it impossible to distinguish controlled 
     substances manufactured and distributed intrastate from 
     controlled substances manufactured and distributed 
     interstate, but it hardly makes sense to speak in such terms.

  Drugs like marijuana are fungible commodities, as the Court explains 
marijuana that is grown at home and possessed for personal use is never 
more than an instant from the interstate market, and this is so whether 
or not the possession is for medicinal use or lawful use under the laws 
of a particular State.
  Again, if we want to make a statement principle on the Tenth 
Amendment, fine, but don't do it on the backs of our kids and our 
grandkids. This is dangerous for them. How do we know this? The health 
risks: brain development, schizophrenia, increased risk of stroke. A 
study at Northwestern University recently showed profound changes in 
the brain just in casual marijuana users. Heart complications, three 
times normal in such use. Recent studies shows, as I said, not only 
damage in certain structures in the brain, but the same structures that 
attend to motivation, which again underlines the amotivational syndrome 
that we have all heard about.
  So again, it is settled law. The Supreme Court has already spoken on 
the constitutionality of this. It is settled when it comes to medicine. 
We hear anecdotal stories, but there is no widespread accepted use of 
marijuana, medicinal marijuana and so forth. There is no acceptance of 
this by the medical community. It is not evidence-based. Fine, if you 
want to do research on it, but this will take away the ability of the 
Department of Justice to protect our young people.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has 
expired.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Broun), our doctor in the House. We do believe in the 
doctor-patient relationship and that the government shouldn't 
interfere.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I am a family physician and an 
addictionologist. Marijuana is addicting if it is used improperly. But 
used medically, and there are very valid medical reasons to utilize 
extracts or products from marijuana in medical procedures, it is a very 
valid medical use under the direction of a doctor. It is actually less 
dangerous than some narcotics that doctors prescribe all over this 
country.
  Also, this is a states' rights, states' power issue, because many 
States across the country--in fact, my own State of Georgia is 
considering allowing the medical use under the direction of a 
physician. This is a states' rights, Tenth Amendment issue. We need to 
reserve the states' powers under the Constitution.
  Please support this amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chair, I am listening to our friends on the other 
side of the aisle in opposition here and the notion about camel's nose, 
this train has already left the station. Eighteen years ago, the State 
of California voters approved medical marijuana. We now have 22 States 
that are doing so.
  My good friend from Georgia is right. I mean, there are a million 
Americans now with the legal right to medical marijuana as prescribed 
by a physician. The problem is that the Federal Government is getting 
in the way. The Federal Government makes it harder for doctors and 
researchers to be able to do what I think my friend from Louisiana 
wants than it is for parents to self-medicate with buying marijuana for 
a child with violent epilepsy.
  This amendment is important to get the Federal Government out of the 
way. Let this process work going forward where we can have respect for 
states' rights and something that makes a huge difference to hundreds 
of thousands of people around the country now and more in the future.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment as a 
coauthor of it and to point out this is six Democrats and six 
Republicans that are authoring this. There are 33 States, three

[[Page 9239]]

of which have just passed laws and the Governors have indicated they 
will sign them.
  This is essentially saying, look, if you are following State law, you 
are a legal resident doing your business under State law, the Feds just 
can't come in and bust you and bust the doctors and bust the patient. 
It is more than half the States. So you don't have to have any opinion 
about the value of marijuana. This doesn't change any laws. This 
doesn't affect one law, just lists the States that have already 
legalized it only for medical purposes, only medical purposes, and 
says, Federal Government, in those States, in those places, you can't 
bust people. It seems to me a practical, reasonable amendment in this 
time and age.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Titus).
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chair, for the District of Columbia and 22 States, 
including Nevada, with laws in place allowing the legal use of some 
form of marijuana for medical purposes, this commonsense amendment 
simply ensures that patients do not have to live in fear when following 
the laws of their States and the recommendations of their doctors. 
Physicians in those States will not be prosecuted for prescribing the 
substance, and local businesses will not be shut down for dispensing 
the same.
  I urge you vote in favor.
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oakland, California, 
Congresswoman Lee.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
bipartisan amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor along with my 
colleagues. This amendment will provide much-needed clarity to patients 
and businesses in my home State of California and 31 other 
jurisdictions that provide safe and legal access to medicine. We should 
allow for the implementation of the will of the voters to comply with 
State laws rather than undermining our democracy.
  In States with medical marijuana laws, patients face uncertainty 
regarding their treatment, and small business owners who have invested 
millions creating jobs and revenue have no assurances for the future. 
It is past time for the Justice Department to stop its unwarranted 
persecution of medical marijuana and put its resources where they are 
needed.
  In States with medical marijuana laws, people with multiple 
sclerosis, glaucoma, cancer, HIV, and AIDS and other medical issues 
continue to face uncertainty when it comes to accessing the medicine 
that they need to provide some relief. So it is time to pass this. It 
is time to give these patients the relief that they need.
  This is the humanitarian thing to do, it is the democratic thing to 
do, and I hope this body will vote for it and pass it on a bipartisan 
basis. It is long overdue. Enough is enough.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words, 
and I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Harris.
  Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chair, marijuana is neither safe nor legal. Let's get 
it straight. The Controlled Substances Act makes marijuana in the 
United States illegal because it is not safe.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Chairman, there is more and more evidence every day that it is 
not safe. The effect on the brains, developing brains of teenagers and 
young adults, is becoming more and more clear, as the doctor from 
Louisiana has talked about, the effect on affect, the effect on mood; 
it is not safe.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a medicine. This would be like me as a 
physician saying: You know, I think you need penicillin, go chew on 
some mold. Of course I wouldn't do that. I write: for 250 milligrams of 
penicillin q.6 hours times 10 days. I don't write: chew on a mold a 
couple of times a day.
  Mr. Chairman, why don't we have therapeutic tobacco? Nicotine, one of 
the substances in tobacco, purified is actually useful as a drug to 
treat autosomal dominant nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy. Nobody writes 
a prescription: smoke a couple of cigarettes and cure your epilepsy. 
But that is what we are being asked to do.
  Mr. Chairman, worse than that, this blurs the line in those States 
that have gone beyond medical marijuana. For instance, in Colorado, 
under Amendment 64, a person can grow six plants under the new law for 
general use, but if it is medical marijuana you can grow as many plants 
as you want as long you can prove you have a medicinal use.
  So how is the DEA going to enforce anything when, under this 
amendment, they are prohibited from going into that person's house 
growing as many plants as they want, because that is legal under the 
medical marijuana part of the law, not under the new law?
  Mr. Chairman, this is not the right place for this. The Ogden 
memorandum from this administration clearly states that the Department 
of Justice does not prioritize prosecution for medical marijuana--
clearly states it. They don't do it. This is a solution in search of a 
problem that opens many other doors to the dangers of marijuana.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Louisiana, Dr. Fleming.
  Mr. FLEMING. May I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FLEMING. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, Mr. Wolf.
  Look, first of all, let's be clear, marijuana is an addicting 
substance. It is schedule I, it is against Federal law, it was passed 
that way into the CSA in 1970.
  What this amendment would do is, it wouldn't change the law, it would 
just make it difficult, if not impossible, for the DEA and the 
Department of Justice to enforce the law.
  Members on my side have been criticizing President Obama for 
selective enforcement of ObamaCare and for immigration and other laws 
like that. So now we are going to start going down the road of 
selective enforcement for our drug policy.
  Medicinal marijuana, what is it exactly? Folks, I can tell you it is 
nothing more than the end run around the laws against the legalization 
of marijuana. There is nothing medical or medicinal about it. It is not 
accepted by physicians. Oh, somebody claims it may do something for 
glaucoma, perhaps. Well, maybe it will, maybe it won't. But there are a 
lot more drugs that do a much better job than that and they are much 
safer.
  But the most important thing I want everybody to know, Mr. Chairman, 
today is the fact that marijuana is highly addicting. It is the most 
common diagnosis for addiction in admissions to rehab centers for young 
people. Why in the world do we want to take away drug enforcement and 
leave our young people out there vulnerable? Yes, you say it can only 
be used by adults. Well, if it is sitting around on shelves at home the 
kids are going to get into it. We are already hearing about Colorado 
fourth-graders dealing with it. We hear about more poisonings in the 
emergency room.
  If you look at other places that have gone down this road like 
Alaska, they retracted from their legalization. So I don't think we 
should accept at all that this is history in the making and that we are 
never going to go back. You look at Amsterdam, they put a lot more 
restrictions back in the control even in that very, very liberal 
nation.
  So for that and many reasons I would just say tonight from a legal 
standpoint this amendment would not be constitutional. Our laws are 
currently constitutional, as found so in 2005 by the Supreme Court. And 
this is an extremely dangerous drug for our children and future adults 
and future generations.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is this the close of the debate?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is correct.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this is the most incredible debate we 
have had. Over half the States have already gone through every argument 
that was presented and decided against what you just heard. There are 
doctors

[[Page 9240]]

at every one of those States that participated in a long debate over 
this and found exactly the opposite of what we have heard today.
  Some people are suffering and if a doctor feels that he needs to 
prescribe something to alleviate that suffering, it is immoral for this 
government to get in the way, and that is what is happening. The State 
governments have recognized that a doctor has a right to treat his 
patient any way he sees fit, and so did our Founding Fathers.
  I ask for support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Grayson

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec._. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used by the Federal Bureau of Prisons to solicit, offer, or 
     award a contract in which the federal government is required 
     to provide a minimum number of inmates to a private 
     correctional institution or a private detention center.

  Mr. GRAYSON. For avoidance of data, I would like to have the first 
few words of the amendment read, please.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It prohibits the 
Federal Bureau of Prisons from soliciting, offering, or awarding a 
contract--and by the way, I am talking about a new contract, not an 
existing contract--to a for-profit prison that guarantees the number of 
prisoners that will be housed there.
  I believe it is not only bad policy but fundamentally immoral to 
guarantee that our government will incarcerate a specific number of 
people so that a for-profit entity can guarantee its profit margin. 
Whether or not we agree on the main impetus for incarceration--
punishment, rehabilitation, or some combination of both--I would hope 
that we can all agree that a perverse conflict of interest, such as the 
one that this amendment addresses, should not be allowed to exist to be 
able to guarantee a profit on human bodies.
  This amendment seeks to eliminate any potential for a repeat of the 
``kids for cash'' scandal that unfolded in 2008. In that instance, two 
judges from Pennsylvania accepted money from the builder of two private 
for-profit juvenile facilities in return for imposing harsh sentences 
on juveniles brought before their courts. All told, those two 
individuals received $2.6 million in payments from the managers at that 
company.
  American citizens' freedom and the length of a convicted person's 
prison sentence should never be a line item on a business sheet. I 
would hate to imagine a world in which certain segments of our society 
could honestly question whether or not they are being targeted purely 
for filling an incarceration quota guaranteed to a for-profit prison.
  Let me be clear. I may not like for-profit prisons, but this 
amendment would not ban them nor would it have any effect on existing 
contracts that the Federal Government has already entered into. What it 
does do is it bans a practice of guaranteeing under new contracts a 
specific number of human beings that will be jailed or imprisoned in a 
given year. I think that is wrong. I hope that you do too.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned what this means for the Bureau 
of Prisons. I am inclined to maybe take the amendment. I think that is 
one of the concerns, somebody comes in without knowing.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. The author of this amendment, namely me, is open to 
whatever ameliorating second order amendments the gentleman may care to 
offer. I think we may be on the same wavelength here, and I would not 
oppose a second order amendment if the gentleman so sought one.
  Mr. WOLF. Well, we may be, and I think that is probably not a bad 
idea.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), 
the chairman of the full Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I have reservations about this that are 
very significant. I would oppose this amendment very strongly in its 
current form.
  All private prison contracts provide for a guaranteed population. 
Without this, the contractors would operate at a significant risk which 
could only be addressed by significantly raising their annual operating 
cost, and also such language would adversely impact competition. Would 
contractors be willing to propose a 1,000 bed facility without 
guaranteed minimums for private prison services? Lack of competition 
would likely result in higher costs.
  But here is the thing. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has both prisons 
operated by the government and prisons that they privately contract 
for. So there is never an instance where they are going to house 
somebody just for the purpose of meeting the obligations here. If the 
prison population declines and they have a contractual obligation to 
house them in the private prison, they will reduce the population in 
the government-operated facility.
  The Bureau of Prisons certainly wants to retain the ability to 
strategically prepare and issue solicitations which allow for 
guaranteed population minimums.
  Also, with regard to children, there are so few children in the 
Federal prison population because we don't want to put them in a 
Federal-operated prison with adults, we usually contract out for the 
incarceration of juveniles. To pass this amendment would make that 
increasingly more difficult.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Will the gentleman yield for a question again?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Would the gentleman agree that the gentleman's 
principles of guaranteeing a contract to the prison companies can be 
achieved by simply giving them a certain dollar amount in the contract, 
which I will concede my amendment does not prohibit? All my amendment 
prohibits is guaranteeing a certain number of bodies. Would the 
gentleman concede that allowing them to get their guaranteed contract 
through dollar amounts would achieve the same purpose, and would the 
gentleman concede that this amendment allows that?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. First of all, let me say that it would not achieve the 
purpose of having a competitive bid process for the operation of 
prisons. Because if you would accept that premise you would have the 
Federal Government offering contracts; then if they are not utilizing 
those contracts the taxpayers are going to suffer the loss as a result 
of that.
  As long as the Federal Government, which operates a very large prison 
system, has both publicly-run facilities and privately contracts you 
are not going to have the problem that the gentleman's amendment is 
concerned

[[Page 9241]]

about addressing, and that is somehow people being incarcerated simply 
for the purpose of meeting the contractual obligations.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I am going to rise in opposition to the 
amendment. There are just so many questions. I think Chairman Goodlatte 
raises them.
  We are open to work with you as we go through it. It is quarter after 
9. Nobody is there at the Bureau of Prisons. We are not going to get a 
constructive answer, and we don't want to do something that causes 
damage.
  One, I am going to oppose the amendment. Mr. Goodlatte was so 
convincing.
  And secondly, we will be willing to work with you though to see. 
Because I understand what you are trying to do, and I am sort of 
sympathetic to it. But for now with the way it is drafted I will oppose 
the amendment and ask for a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but 
the prison system that the Federal Government is operating, which has 
been growing exponentially over the last decade, will have gobbled up--
by the time we pass this bill--about a fourth of the DOJ's budget. This 
is like the Pac-Man arcade game that keeps eating money.
  Now, there are very interesting things going on in the land. There 
are Democrats and Republicans. There are the most conservative people 
in our country and the most liberal who are saying things that are 
fascinating, like we need to stop incarcerating so many people, that 
America really should not be the leading nation in the world in the 
percentage of people that we put in jail and that maybe we need to 
rethink part of what we are doing.
  We have the problem of having very violent criminals we don't seem to 
have enough prison space for because we are locking up nonviolent 
people for things that we should probably find some way to have 
diversions for.
  We have had multiple amendments today for diversion programs. You 
might not want to call them that, but that is what they are--drug 
courts, veterans courts. These are vehicles by which to divert people 
from the prison system because we know something about the prison 
system.
  We know that, if you put people in there, the most likely 
circumstance is that they are going to go back again and again and 
again and that they are going to go back for increasingly more serious 
and more violent activities because the one thing that is happening in 
the prisons is that they are becoming involved in a vocation that is 
essentially antisocial.
  I am not dealing with the amendment itself because the chairman is 
right, in that we need to know what it says, and we need to act in a 
responsible way, but we should not be, in any way, under some illusion 
that we are going to continue, as a country, to just put more and more 
people away.
  It doesn't make sense, and as politicians who are supposed to be 
leading the most powerful nation in the world, we need to start to make 
some sense on this point.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. That is why, last year, we 
launched an overcriminalization of Federal law task force. We are 
looking at prison overpopulation and who is getting sentenced and what 
kind of alternative sentencing should be looked at and what kind of 
attention should be given to prisoners when they are in prison, so that 
we reduce the recidivism rate, which also can reduce the prison 
population.
  As to one of the things I think we should do, there are a number of 
States that are seeing declining populations in their prisons, and they 
are not getting high recidivism rates. We should be looking at those 
States and finding out what they are doing.
  Mr. FATTAH. In reclaiming my time, I can tell you that those are 
States that the chairman and the former ranking member, Mollohan--and 
now myself--have been investing in, in the Justice reinvestment 
programs, that help States think through how to do just that and 
operate a more safe environment for their people.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope that the gentleman will withdraw his amendment 
and work with the chairman and me, and we will see to what degree we 
might be able to meet his concerns.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, based upon the kind representations of the 
Chair and based upon the kind representations of the ranking member, I 
ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Holding

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, add the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to transfer or temporarily assign employees to the 
     Office of the Pardon Attorney for the purpose of screening 
     clemency applications.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds from this 
bill from being used to transfer or to detail employees to the Office 
of the Pardon Attorney.
  The President possesses the constitutional authority to grant 
reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States. However, 
in the first 5 years of this President's administration, President 
Obama granted fewer pardons and commutations than any of his recent 
predecessors.
  Earlier this year, the Deputy Attorney General took the unprecedented 
step of asking the defense bar for assistance in recruiting candidates 
for executive clemency, specifically Federal drug offenders.
  The Justice Department intends to beef up its pardon attorney's 
office to process applications for commutations of sentence for Federal 
drug offenders. This is clear, and this amendment would prohibit that.
  The Constitution gives the President the pardon power, but the fact 
that the President has finally chosen to use that power and to use it 
solely on behalf of drug offenders shows that this is little more than 
a political ploy by the administration to bypass Congress yet again.
  This is not as the Founders intended, an exercise of the power to 
provide for exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, but the use of 
the pardon power to benefit an entire class of offenders who were duly 
convicted in a court of law and is serving a sentence. It is also just 
the latest example of executive overreach by this administration.
  I am urging the support of this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, this is impractical. If there were a 
resignation in the office and if you needed to have a temporary 
detailee, it would be prohibited from this amendment. The last thing we 
would want is the President using such extraordinary power without the 
benefit of proper staff and due diligence.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the full 
committee.

[[Page 9242]]


  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, no one denies the constitutional power of the President 
to grant clemency. The question here is whether this power is being 
used by the President of the United States as a way around the 
enforcement of the law as passed by the Congress when you invite mass 
representations of defense attorneys that thousands of their clients 
are entitled to have clemency granted to them. That is not a proper use 
of this power, and the Congress should not fund that office for that 
purpose.
  I think the gentleman's amendment is well-advised, and I strongly 
support it, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Holding 
amendment.
  Mr. HOLDING. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Flores

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement Executive Order 13547 (75 Fed. Reg. 
     43023, relating to the stewardship of oceans, coasts, and the 
     Great Lakes), including the National Ocean Policy developed 
     under such Executive Order.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer a simple amendment to 
address an overreach by the executive branch of our government.
  My amendment bans the use of Federal funds for the implementation of 
Executive Order No. 13547. Executive Order No. 13547, signed in 2010, 
requires that 63-plus bureaucracies essentially zone the ocean and the 
sources thereof.
  This amendment addresses a critical executive branch encroachment 
into the powers of Congress as set forth in our Constitution. The 
activities being conducted under E.O. 13547 have not been authorized by 
Congress, nor have appropriations been made by Congress to fund these 
activities.
  Mr. Chair, since 2010, this body has voted several times in support 
of this amendment in a bipartisan manner. Today, I am offering this 
amendment, again, because concerns have been raised that the effects of 
the recently created National Ocean Policy may extend well beyond 
restricting the ocean and inland activities.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from California 
(Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this harmful 
amendment. This amendment would cripple the important ocean planning 
efforts supported by the National Ocean Policy.
  Our oceans are not just important to coastal regions, like the one I 
represent on the central coast of California, but they are important to 
our Nation as a whole, and the many uses of the ocean, such as tourism, 
shipping, fishing, and construction, are increasingly complex and 
require a cohesive decisionmaking process.
  That is why I support funding for the National Ocean Policy, which 
simply aims to coordinate marine activities in harmony with existing 
laws. By reducing redundancies and conflicting government actions, we 
can remove burdens on ocean stakeholders and better focus our efforts 
on the more serious issues jeopardizing ocean health, and we can give 
our local communities the ability to make informed choices about how 
they use their marine environments.
  A vote against the National Ocean Policy is a vote against government 
efficiency through smart ocean planning.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this.
  I was around when this National Ocean Policy was before Congress and 
was heard in the committee. In fact, the commission that created it was 
created by Congress, and the members were appointed by President George 
Bush, and those members included members of the oil and gas industry.
  They came up with recommendations that we need to do the conflicts of 
sea resolution, and that is what the National Ocean Policy does. It 
gets all of the Federal agencies together, and because they are 
together and can talk about what they each do when they are in 
conflict, the priorities it supports are consistent with the Gulf of 
Mexico Alliance, which is supported by Governor Perry and the Gulf 
State Governors.
  It supports activities at Texas A&M, as they have signed a letter 
opposing any legislation that would undermine the National Ocean 
Policy. It affects the Texas coastal programs based in Houston, and 
they have also signed a letter in opposition to this amendment.
  A local example of National Ocean Policy work is with the Army Corps 
of Engineers, the Navy, NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey, and NASA. 
They have all worked on sensitive shorelines just north and south of 
Houston, which are key destinations for birders and beachgoers. They 
were able to resolve the critical conflicts between these agencies. 
Also, it would have an impact on the Port of Houston.
  So there are reasons you want to avoid a conflict of interest. This 
is a great one with which to do it. We do it in law enforcement, we do 
it in firefighting, and we ought to do it with our conflicts in the 
oceans. Oppose this amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from the great 
State of Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you for yielding me the time and for 
recognizing that it is the great State of Maine.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, which would block funding for 
the implementation of the National Ocean Policy.
  This important policy seeks to improve the coordinated management of 
our oceans and coasts to address the most pressing issues facing our 
oceans, our resources, and our coastal communities. I happen to live on 
an island 12 miles off the coast of Maine, so I am well aware of the 
need for the improved coordination between Federal agencies and the 
inclusion of stakeholders in the policymaking process.
  The National Ocean Policy brings together a variety of agencies at a 
single table, and it improves government efficiency and decision 
outcomes.
  The work and research conducted under the National Ocean Policy 
supports tens of millions of jobs, which, in turn, generate billions of 
dollars for our coastal communities.

                              {time}  2130

  For example, in Maine, working waterfronts are critically important 
to Maine's coastal economy. These working waterfronts are critical for 
a variety of water-dependent activities, like ports and fishing docks, 
that are at the heart of our coastal culture and economy.
  These water-dependent businesses, many of which are icons in Maine, 
are struggling to maintain their access to water in the face of 
increasing development pressure.
  The National Ocean Policy will provide a framework to preserve 
waterfront access to traditional groups like fishermen. It is an 
extremely important issue for fishermen and the residents of Maine.

[[Page 9243]]

  One of the constituents in my district, Richard Nelson, a lobsterman, 
says: ``The ocean is our workplace, our cultural heritage, and it 
economically sustains us and our extended communities.''
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting wise stewardship of our 
Nation's oceans and our ocean economy by opposing this amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming the balance of my time, without oceans that 
are alive and healthy, we are going to be challenged ourselves to live.
  Our Nation has the responsibility for the greatest amount of oceans 
anywhere in the world. It is tough being the United States of America. 
We have some responsibility.
  We now, for the first time ever, have an ocean policy, and the 
gentleman offers a proposal to prohibit the implementation of a policy 
to create better health for our coastal communities and for our oceans.
  I reject the amendment, and hope that the House would do likewise.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 3\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I think now that you have 
heard the arguments against my amendment, it is important to set the 
record straight as far as what the real history was.
  Congress did pass an act to establish a National Ocean Commission. 
That Commission was appointed by President Bush. And it made 
recommendations, but it did nothing else.
  Those recommendations were considered by the 108th, 109th, 110th, and 
111th Congresses, and Congress elected to take no action on those 
recommendations. Therefore, it is the intent of Congress that no 
further activity take place.
  The President has wired around Congress by signing this executive 
order to establish a commission to empower 63 agencies to go spend 
money for which no funds have been appropriated and under which it has 
no statutory authority.
  I have got 93 interests that include fishing, agricultural, farming, 
energy, and other industries that are concerned about the impact of 
this Federal overreach.
  Again, this is a simple amendment that just stands up for the 
constitutional rights of this Congress to create the statutes under 
which this activity can be conducted.
  We may not be against ocean planning. What we are for, though, is for 
the Constitution and to stand up for our congressional rights to enact 
the statutes related to this activity.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 541.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce section 221 of title 13, United States 
     Code, with respect to the American Community Survey.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the American Community Survey, first 
of all, is not the Census. What it is is a survey conducted by the 
Census Bureau of a portion of the American population every year. It 
has 48 questions, and those questions are intrusive.
  There is, in my opinion, intimidation by the Community Survey workers 
to get this information from citizens.
  A single mother in my district told me one of the workers came by her 
house and started peeping in the window, knocking on the door, and sat 
in the street waiting for her to come home from work to get this 
information from her.
  The information is intrusive. It violates the right of privacy, in my 
opinion. It asks questions like: How many times have you been married? 
Does anyone in your household have a mental problem? What time do you 
go to work? And: How many toilets do you have?
  It is 48 very intrusive questions.
  My amendment is very simple. It prohibits the Federal Government from 
enforcing a potential fine against a person for failure to fill out 
this information. Right now, if a person doesn't fill out this 
information, Community Survey workers tell the citizen that they can be 
fined $5,000.
  Do we really want to fine Americans $5,000 for not telling the 
government how many toilets they have in their home?
  There are other ways this information can be gathered by the 
government without being intrusive and without violating the right of 
privacy.
  I would ask Members to support my amendment to prohibit a fine being 
imposed on the American Community Survey, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I will not take more than 50 seconds.
  Simply put, the notion that we as a country are better off having 
less information defies most logic that I can think of at this hour of 
the night.
  I think more information is probably good, and I would ask that we 
vote against this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would make this simple comment. 
This information can be gathered by other means without violating the 
right of privacy of citizens, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition 
to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.
  As a longtime supporter of the Census Bureau's work and the American 
Community Survey, I urge the Committee to keep this survey as current 
law provides.
  The ACS is a vital resource for all of us in Congress, the federal 
agencies, and private businesses.
  The accurate, timely data collected through this survey is the basis 
for over $415 billion allocated by the federal government to states and 
localities--over two-thirds of all federal grant funding.
  Accurate data ensures that these federal dollars go where they are 
needed--and where Congress intended. This amendment would undermine the 
accuracy of the ACS and deprive our agencies of this vital information.
  But it's not just government. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its 
members know the value of census data. The Chamber stated that ``ACS 
data points are critical for business decision-making and long range 
planning.''
  Businesses from restaurants, to retailers, to developers know that 
accurate information about our population is critical for their 
marketing and expansion activity. This amendment would remove a crucial 
recourse that helps businesses expand and create jobs.
  What's more, we know what would happen if this amendment passes.
  In 2003, the Census Bureau tested a voluntary ACS to disastrous 
results. Response rates plummeted by at least 20 percent, and in 2012, 
the Bureau estimated that a voluntary survey maintaining the current 
reliability would cost taxpayers an additional $120 million each year.
  A voluntary response survey would especially undermine our 
information about rural areas and low-income households. The Census 
Project estimates that with the change proposed by this amendment, the 
Bureau could not publish data for up to 40 percent of all counties in 
the country.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to look beyond the quick headline or 
talking point, and truly understand the importance of the American 
Community Survey.
  For policymakers, for researchers, for businesses--this data set 
helps answer our most pressing questions.
  This misguided amendment will undermine the ACS and deprive all 
Americans of this critically important information.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 10 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page 9244]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of bill, before the short title, add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act for 
     the ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--administrative review and 
     appeals'' may be used in contravention of sections 509 and 
     510 of title 28, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. 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. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple amendment, as 
well, that I can imagine nothing more than bipartisan support for.
  First of all, I want to again thank the chairman, Mr. Wolf, and the 
ranking member, for their steadfastness and leadership on this 
appropriations bill, and to again acknowledge Mr. Wolf in his service 
and tenure not only to his district, but to the Nation.
  I believe that we all have come for the common understanding that 
this Nation is founded on principles of due process and justice, and as 
well the recognition that we have a system of criminal justice laws 
that there are people who will be incarcerated.
  I am very glad that I serve on the Judiciary Committee, where my 
chairman, Chairman Goodlatte, along with Ranking Member Conyers, 
established an overcriminalization task force.
  With that in mind, it is to discuss how you look at laws and be fair 
to the individual that may be the victim, but also the person that was 
the perpetrator, or to look at the different charges and various 
offenses and determine whether or not today, in 2014, they are still 
appropriate.
  My amendment is an amendment that addresses the question of the 
existing authority of the Attorney General to manage executive 
responsibilities under 28 U.S.C. 509 and 28 U.S.C. 510 as relates to 
authorizing the performance by any other officer and as it relates to 
all functions of agencies and employees.
  It speaks to the question of prison overcrowding. It is 
straightforward, as I indicated. It makes a positive contribution to 
the problem.
  The United States incarcerates nearly 25 percent of the world's 
inmates, even though it only has 5 percent of the world's population. 
Thirty years ago, there were less than 30,000 inmates in the Federal 
system. Today, there are nearly 216,000--an increase of 800 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I have worked on this issue for almost two decades. In 
the early 1990s, I offered an amendment for good time, early release 
legislation, to look at providing relief to inmates who had been in the 
Federal system and reached the age of 45, had in fact not been engaged 
in any violent crime with a weapon, and had no violent incidents while 
they were incarcerated. We made the recommendation that we would have 
the opportunity to release those older inmates.
  I am very glad to say that Senator Kennedy had the same kind of 
legislation. Over the years, we managed to get it into the 
authorization bill.
  But, as I indicated, no other country imprisons a larger percentage 
of its population. The prison system costs $6.5 billion. That is part 
of the appropriations today.
  My amendment will alleviate this overcrowding by clarifying that 
nothing in this bill prohibits the Attorney General from exercising his 
statutory authorities to expand the use of executive clemency to 
address prison overcrowding and redress sentencing injustices, so long 
as he does so in a manner consistent with the law and the Constitution.
  Much of the overcrowding of our Federal prison system is a direct and 
proximate result of a proliferation of offenses carrying mandatory 
minimums. That is the basis of the Over-Criminalization Task Force. 
Again, I applaud the Judiciary Committee for that.
  Heretofore, we had the 100 to 1 disparity between crack and powder 
cocaine. We in the Judiciary Committee changed that, along with the 
Senate. The President signed that legislation.
  We now know the cost of imprisoning so many nonviolent offenders is 
fiscally unsustainable and morally unjustifiable. Remember, my emphasis 
has been that which is within the context of the law. And the 
legislation that I offered for the good time, early release was for 
nonviolent offenders.
  It will take the combined efforts of policymakers, reform advocates, 
legal professionals, and private citizens to solve the problem. I can 
assure you there is a bar of lawyers that are interested in making sure 
that their clients come under the law and are treated fairly under the 
law.
  My amendment gives life to this question by allowing the Attorney 
General, whoever it might be, to act within the law.
  Just quickly, I give an example of Clarence Aaron of Mobile, Alabama, 
who was arrested in 1992 with 20 kilograms of power cocaine and 
distributed it as crack cocaine. It was in 1992. He received an 
enormous sentence. He was a first-time offender, and received a life 
sentence.
  These are the kinds of issues that can be addressed if we are acting 
within the law.
  My amendment simply says to act within the law using the authority 
that is given and to be able to address these questions of the 
overincarceration of persons and to give people a second chance.
  I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Thank you for this opportunity to briefly explain my amendment.
  Let me offer my appreciation and thanks to Ranking Member Fattah and 
to Chairman Wolf for their work on this legislation and decades long 
commitment to the administration of justice and to developing sensible 
reforms to make our criminal justice system better.
  Thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, which is 
simple, straightforward, and makes a positive contribution to the 
problem of overcrowding in our federal prisons.
  The United States incarcerates nearly 25 percent of the world's 
inmates, even though it only has 5 percent of the world's population.
  Thirty years ago, there were less than 30,000 inmates in the federal 
system; today, there are nearly 216,000, an increase of 800 percent!
  No other country imprisons a larger percentage of its population than 
the United States or spends anywhere near the $6.5 billion that we 
spend annually on prison administration.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment will help alleviate this overcrowding by 
clarifying that nothing in the bill prohibits the Attorney General from 
exercising his statutory authorities to expand the use of executive 
clemency to address prison overcrowding and redress sentencing 
injustices so long as he does so in a manner consistent with law and 
the Constitution.


                           Text of Amendment

       At the end of bill, before the short title, add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act for 
     the ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND 
     APPEALS'' may be used in contravention of sections 509 and 
     510 of title 28, United States Code.

  Much of the overcrowding of our federal prison system is the direct 
and proximate result of proliferation of offenses carrying mandatory 
minimums and the prior unjust and discriminatory 100 to 1 disparity 
between crack and powder cocaine sentences in federal law.
  We now know the cost of imprisoning so many non-violent offenders is 
fiscally unsustainable and morally unjustifiable and it will take the 
combined efforts of policy makers, reform advocates, legal 
professionals, and private citizens to solve the problem.
  There is no shortage of stories about the damage done to the lives of 
thousands of individuals and their families by the draconian sentencing 
laws passed by Congress and state legislatures beginning in the late 
1980s in the ``War on Drugs.''
  An example is Clarence Aaron, of Mobile, Alabama who was arrested in 
1992 by federal law enforcement officers and charged with conspiring to 
process 20 kilograms of powder cocaine and distribute it as crack 
cocaine.
  Even though this was his first offense, Clarence was sentenced to 
life in prison without the possibility of parole because the judge was 
powerless to adjust the punishment to fit the crime because he was 
required by law to impose the sentence called for by the then-mandatory 
federal sentencing guidelines.
  The case of Clarence Aaron is not an aberration. The sad fact is that 
half of all inmates

[[Page 9245]]

in the federal system (52%) were incarcerated for drug offenses, a rate 
more than three times as great (17%) as found in the state penal 
system.
  And the racial and ethnic composition of federal inmates incarcerated 
for drug offenses is equally troubling because while whites and African 
Americans use drugs at similar rates, African Americans are much more 
likely to be arrested and sentenced for drug offenses.
  Indeed, African Americans and Hispanics comprise more than 6 in 10 
federal inmates incarcerated for drug offenses.
  And African American offenders receive sentences that are 10 percent 
longer than white offenders for the same crimes and are 21 percent more 
likely to receive mandatory-minimum sentences than white defendants 
according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission.
  In 2010, after years of working to reform our drug sentencing laws, 
our efforts finally bore fruit when the Congress passed and President 
Obama signed into law the ``Fair Sentencing Act of 2010'' (P.L. 111-
220), which finally ended the discriminatory 100:1 sentencing ratio.
  But since the provisions of the ``Fair Sentencing Act'' are not 
retroactive there is still much work left to be done.
  We need to keep working for reform until all federal inmates 
sentenced under the old regime are afforded the opportunity to have 
their sentences reconsidered under the provisions of current law.
  Fortunately, Clarence Aaron will not be one of those who still must 
wait because after serving more than 20 years in federal prison, he was 
freed on April 17 because he was one of eight persons granted executive 
clemency, or a reduction in sentence, by President Obama on December 
19, 2013.
  The power to grant a reduction in sentence is among the powers vested 
exclusively to, and committed to the sound discretion of, the President 
by the Pardon Clause (Art. II, Sec. 2, Clause 1) of the U.S. 
Constitution.
  In exercising clemency powers under the Constitution, the President 
typically relies upon the counsel and recommendations of the Attorney 
General.
  President Obama's grant of executive clemency to Clarence Aaron and 
seven others was an act of simple justice and a welcome development.
  So too is the announcement by the Department of Justice that it 
intends to be more aggressive in identifying and recommending to the 
President additional candidates for executive clemency consideration.
  Let me emphasize that executive clemency is not amnesty. These 
inmates have been incarcerated for many years.
  Applications for executive clemency that are most likely to receive 
favorable consideration are those submitted by non-violent, low-level 
drug offenders who were not leaders of, or had any significant ties to, 
large-scale organizations, gangs, or cartels.
  Mr. Chair, until and unless the provisions of the ``Fair Sentencing 
Act of 2010'' (P.L. 111-220), are made retroactive, the need for 
innovative and effective measures to reduce prison overcrowding and 
bring greater fairness to federal sentencing policy will remain great.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment ensures that the Attorney General retains 
the latitude to develop and implement policies relating to requests for 
executive clemency for deserving petitioners, which will help reduce 
prison overcrowding and save the taxpayers millions of dollars.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment.

                          [From Justice News]

Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs--Announcing New Clemency 
  Initiative, Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole Details Broad New 
                        Criteria for Applicants

       As part of the Justice Department's new clemency 
     initiative, Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole announced 
     six criteria the department will consider when reviewing and 
     expediting clemency applications from federal inmates.
       Under the new initiative, the department will prioritize 
     clemency applications from inmates who meet all of the 
     following factors:
       1. They are currently serving a federal sentence in prison 
     and, by operation of law, likely would have received a 
     substantially lower sentence if convicted of the same 
     offense(s) today;
       2. They are non-violent, low-level offenders without 
     significant ties to large scale criminal organizations, gangs 
     or cartels;
       3. They have served at least 10 years of their prison 
     sentence;
       4. They do not have a significant criminal history;
       5. They have demonstrated good conduct in prison; and
       6. They have no history of violence prior to or during 
     their current term of imprisonment.
       ``For our criminal justice system to be effective, it needs 
     to not only be fair; but it also must be perceived as being 
     fair,'' said Deputy Attorney General Cole. ``Older, stringent 
     punishments that are out of line with sentences imposed under 
     today's laws erode people's confidence in our criminal 
     justice system, and I am confident that this initiative will 
     go far to promote the most fundamental of American ideals--
     equal justice under law.''
       In December 2013, President Obama commuted the sentences of 
     eight individuals who were sentenced under an outdated 
     regime--many of whom would have already paid their debt to 
     society if they had been sentenced under current law. Since 
     that time, President Obama has said he wants to consider more 
     applications for clemency from inmates similarly situated.
       28 U.S.C. Sec. 509: The Attorney General may from time to 
     time make such provisions as he considers appropriate 
     authorizing the performance by any other officer, employee, 
     or agency of the Department of Justice of any function of the 
     Attorney General.
       28 U.S.C. Sec. 509: All functions of other officers of the 
     Department of Justice and all functions of agencies and 
     employees of the Department of Justice are vested in the 
     Attorney General except the functions--
       1. vested by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 in 
     administrative law judges employed by the Department of 
     Justice;
       2. of the Federal Prison Industries, Inc.; and
       3. of the Board of Directors and officers of the Federal 
     Prison Industries, Inc.

  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment. I understand it says 
you must follow the law.
  I accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Massie

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 7606 (``Legitimacy of 
     Industrial Hemp Research'') of the Agricultural Act of 2014 
     (Pub. L. No. 113-79) by the Department of Justice or the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with four of my colleagues to 
offer a bipartisan amendment that simply requires the DEA to comply 
with Federal law.
  Despite clear language in the recently passed farm bill that 
specifically allows State agricultural agencies and universities to 
grow industrial hemp for research, the DEA decided to ignore the plain 
text of a Federal statute.
  Officials in my home State of Kentucky were recently forced to file a 
lawsuit in Federal court to compel the DEA to release industrial hemp 
seeds intended for a university research pilot program. What a waste of 
time, money, and the court system's limited resources.

                              {time}  2145

  States cannot launch industrial hemp pilot programs if the DEA seizes 
the seeds before they reach their destination, and although the DEA did 
recently agree to release the seeds, my amendment ensures that this 
type of DEA action won't happen again.
  If this were simply about seeds, I wouldn't be here. We have got that 
resolved, but there are further issues. There are more issues.
  For instance, the DEA has been very ambiguous on whether they are 
going to assert authority to say that hemp can't be grown on private 
property. Listen, where else are you going to grow it? It is not like 
the government has farms.
  The farm bill is clear on this language. The farm bill says that the

[[Page 9246]]

State authorities shall register these sites, not the DEA; yet the DEA 
refuses to acknowledge that.
  Furthermore, with regard to the seeds, the DEA requires--and this I 
find ridiculous--that the seeds--and these are industrial hemp seeds 
with no active THC--must be kept under lock and key, with only three 
keys available.
  The way we have got these stored in Kentucky now is you put your 
handprint on the door and you can get into these hemp seeds. You want 
to know how ridiculous that is?
  By the end of this growing season, we are going to have thousands of 
pounds of hemp seeds, not 250 pounds of hemp seeds. The question is: 
What is the DEA going to do going forward?
  We just want them to simply obey the law. The fact is that growing 
hemp for research purposes has always been legal. So why hasn't it been 
done? Because it required interfacing with the DEA, and the DEA 
purposely used regulations to stop any of this research.
  The farm bill that I cosponsored was to clear the way for hemp 
industrial research, not to perpetuate a broken process where the DEA 
obfuscates and delays, but to give that freedom to State and local 
governments.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, this is where I came in a little while 
ago. The gentlewoman was correct, that I was speaking earlier about 
this amendment and not hers. However, I oppose both these amendments. 
The principle is the same.
  With regard to this amendment, I would say to the gentleman that the 
gentleman's amendment in the farm bill is new law, and it is being 
implemented, but it does not exclude the role of the DEA.
  Your amendment here today would strip funds from the ability of the 
DEA to be involved, and the involvement is as described in your 
amendment with regard to the confiscation, seizure, and otherwise 
impeding the importation, transfer, and movement in interstate or 
interstate commerce of seeds intended for the purpose of growing or 
cultivating industrial hemp.
  Mr. MASSIE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. MASSIE. That is not my amendment that you just read.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay. What is your amendment then?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. MASSIE. The Clerk read it, but if you may, it says:

       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in 
     contravention of section 7606 (``Legitimacy of Industrial 
     Hemp Research'') of the Agricultural Act of 2014 by the 
     Department of Justice or the Drug Enforcement Administration.

  My amendment at the desk says nothing about seeds.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Okay. Well, seeds or hemp, you have to still have the 
involvement of the DEA because seeds and hemp can be used to grow 
marijuana, as well as to grow hemp.
  So if you don't have the ability to determine, just by looking at it, 
whether or not it is something that is going to be used for research 
purposes for hemp or whether it is going to be used to grow illegal 
marijuana to be sold to whoever, you need to have the DEA involved in 
that process.
  If you take the DEA out of the process, which your amendment in the 
farm bill did not do and which I would strongly oppose having occur 
now, you are going to have a situation where this law will be honored 
in name only and will not be used for the purpose for which I presume 
you intended it, which is to do research with regard to the growing of 
hemp.
  That is not what you are going to have here because you cannot 
determine, for example, the THC limits of cannabis plants simply by 
looking at them. You have got to have this examined, you have got to 
have it licensed, and that is a proper thing to do since the law 
requires it to be done.
  The DEA needs to fulfill the role that the law requires them to do 
for that very purpose. As a result, I must strongly oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman be willing to share a minute of that 
with our side?
  Mr. MASSIE. Yes. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the bipartisan 
amendment I am proud to cosponsor with Mr. Massie of Kentucky.
  This amendment simply says that none of the funds in the CJS bill can 
be used by the Department of Justice or the DEA in contravention of the 
section of the farm bill--the duly-enacted farm bill, which I supported 
for many reasons, one of which was that it had an industrial hemp 
research program, that authorizes industrial hemp research.
  This is very simple. We passed a bipartisan farm bill. Its provisions 
are law. In Kentucky, one of the States conducting research, the DEA 
intervened. Only when Kentucky sued did the DEA get out of the way.
  The amendment restates a law that is already on the books, but maybe 
the DEA needs to hear it twice. Remember, it is rope, not dope.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. MASSIE. I hope the chairman will vote for my amendment. 
Basically, it just says that we are going to enforce the farm bill, the 
language of the farm bill, and the farm bill is very clear in its 
language. It says no other Federal law withstanding.
  Isn't it ironic that thousands of pounds of cocaine and heroin are 
somehow passing our borders every week? Yet the DEA thinks that seizing 
industrial hemp seeds in Kentucky is worthwhile use of its time and 
resources.
  Furthermore, what are they going to do this fall when we harvest the 
hemp seeds?
  There is no import-export there. These are Kentucky hemp seeds once 
they are grown in Kentucky. There is no Federal nexus this fall, so I 
hope that the farm bill and the language in the farm bill will be 
honored. We voted for it. It was signed by the President.
  Our amendment is simple. It states that no funds may be used by the 
Department of Justice or Drug Enforcement Administration to violate the 
clear language of the farm bill, which says: States are allowed to grow 
and cultivate industrial hemp if the industrial hemp is grown or 
cultivated for the purposes of research conducted under an agricultural 
pilot program or other agricultural or academic research.
  The DEA is not above Congress. It is not above the law. Executive 
branch agencies like the DEA must follow the laws passed by the 
legislative branch.
  Please join us in support of this commonsense, reasonable amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Huffman

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to assess or collect the fee established by section 
     660.115 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations.


[[Page 9247]]


  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking two of my colleagues, Mr. 
DeFazio and Ms. Herrera Beutler, for their hard work. I have been 
collaborating with them on this and related efforts to bring relief to 
our west coast fishermen.
  This is a simple amendment. It would defer for 1 year the collection 
of a cost recovery fee in the west coast trawl program and provide some 
relief to groundfish fishermen who are facing mounting costs at a time 
when they can ill afford it.
  The west coast groundfish industry has been rebuilding its stocks for 
several years. They have made hard decisions and taken hard cuts to 
ensure the long-term sustainability of that fishery, and they should be 
commended for that.
  One aspect of that rebuilding plan was the adoption of a catch share 
program which, under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, required the collection 
of a fee to cover costs of managing the program, and that was 
implemented this year.
  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUFFMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. We accept the amendment.
  Mr. HUFFMAN. I thank the gentleman. I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague from California, 
Representative Huffman for his leadership on this issue. I also want to 
thank Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Fattah for working with us on 
this important amendment.
  West Coast fishermen are in a tough spot, and in a very unique spot. 
Unlike other regions of the country where fishermen had their buyouts 
funded by taxpayers, our fishermen took on the loan willingly and 
knowing they would have to pay it back. And they are paying it back--
but at an interest rate that is two points above prime and therefore 
costing them 5 percent of their landings.
  Representative Huffman, Representative Herrera Beutler, and I are 
working to legislatively refinance this loan. In fact, today, that 
refinance bill passed out of the House Committee on Natural Resources 
and it has already passed the Senate Committee. But it's going to take 
some time to implement.
  West Coast fishermen are facing increased observer costs. We are 
transitioning to electronic monitoring, but that's going to take time--
too much time in my opinion. But until electronic monitoring is adopted 
by the Council and NOAA, fishermen will have to pay for 100 percent 
observer coverage--which can be as high as $350-$450 per day.
  And now, fishermen are bearing an additional cost--$2.4 million this 
year to help pay for the management of the fishery--known as the ``cost 
recovery fee.'' West Coast fishermen are willing to pay this fee. They 
knew the fee was coming. But, right now, with the mounting costs of the 
buyback loan, the observer costs, and pending trailing amendments that 
will make the fishery more economically viable--this additional 
financial burden is too much.
  This amendment would provide one year of relief to West Coast 
fishermen. It would mean the difference for many fishermen of selling 
their boats and trying to find a different livelihood in already 
distressed coastal communities, or staying in business.
  This amendment is bipartisan. It does not score. And it might not 
seem like a lot of money to people in this body, but it's a huge deal 
for my fishermen, their families, and small businesses that depend on 
the fleet to make a living. I urge my colleagues to adopt this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Southerland

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to develop, approve, or implement a new limited 
     access privilege program (as that term is used in section 
     303A of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 
     Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1853a)) that are not already 
     developed, approved, or implemented for any fishery under the 
     jurisdiction of the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New 
     England, or Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today in support of the Southerland-Tierney-Jones amendment, a 
bipartisan provision that reaffirms, for the third time, the House's 
intent that no funding under the underlying bill should be allocated 
for new limited access privilege programs, also known as catch shares 
in the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico fisheries.
  Catch shares is a fishery management tool that allocates a portion of 
a once-open public fishery to a select group of fishermen, forcing the 
others off the water and out of business. Put more simply, it is cap-
and-trade for the oceans.
  Our bipartisan amendment takes a big step towards halting the 
perpetuation of economic harm on our coastal communities, one of which 
my family has lived in for 200 years.
  Let me be clear, our amendment has zero impact on catch shares 
already in place. If you have catch shares now, you will have them 
tomorrow, but we owe our fishermen a voice in addressing these issues 
through the House and Senate reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Management Act before we consider funding for the development, 
implementation, or approval of new catch share programs. That is proper 
process. It is common sense.
  I encourage all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to 
support this bipartisan Southerland-Tierney-Jones amendment and 
preventing the funding of development, implementation, and approval of 
new catch share programs going forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. We accept the amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. If the chairman would yield, we have a member of the 
committee who wanted to say a few words on this and had some concerns. 
She is only going to take a minute.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Chairman, I want to oppose the amendment 
offered here tonight because I think we shouldn't be prohibiting any 
new catch share programs because it is such an important tool to manage 
our Nation's fisheries. This effectively supersedes the Regional 
Fisheries Management Council process that was already set up by 
Congress.
  We have a lot of families in Maine who have very deep ties to the 
ocean, generations of Mainers who have worked in the fishing industry, 
but fisheries are facing a crisis.
  Every year, our fishermen struggle to make a living on fewer fish and 
fewer trips going out fishing. The New England Fisheries Management 
Council is working very hard to develop solutions for these challenges 
by implementing catch share programs as an effective way to manage the 
fisheries.
  This results in success stories, many that we have seen in Maine. 
Take a look at Port Clyde, one of our largest inshore fisheries 
communities. The fishermen in this sector have developed a fishermen's 
cooperative, Port Clyde Fresh Catch, as a way to market their fish 
using environmentally conscious fishing methods.
  The result is sustainable fish, better quality fish, better prices 
for the fishermen. Membership in the sector has led to a profitable and 
sustainable on and offshore fishing industry.
  I just want to say that fishermen in New England are not being forced 
into enrolling in the catch share programs.

[[Page 9248]]

They can choose to stay in the common pool fishery or join a sector, 
but if we remove catch share as a management option, we would only be 
hindering fisheries management efforts around our Nation, stifling the 
creativity and innovation within the fishing industry, and preventing 
fishermen from working in an industry that is safer and more 
profitable.

                              {time}  2200

  Catch shares work. I have seen the benefits firsthand in Maine. I 
don't think we should be denying fishing communities the chance to 
improve their industry by removing a management option.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Fattah).
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I respect Chairman Wolf's ability to accept 
the amendment. I just wanted to register my opposition to it.
  And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WOLF. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Mr. Chairman, I also want to remind my colleagues 
that no one was a greater champion of my amendment than former 
Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank. He is definitely a stalwart in 
New England fisheries. So though he is not here, his spirit in favor of 
this amendment rings true.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Austin Scott).
  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland) for his work on this issue and 
his leadership on it, and I would like to thank the Democrats for 
allowing us to have this.
  I want to just tell you, as a father who spends time in the Gulf of 
Mexico, in 2007, we were allowed to fish, as a family, 194 days out of 
the year. For 194 days, I could go out with my son and we could catch 
snapper, and we could catch up to four fish apiece. Today, we have now 
been reduced to 9 days. We have lost 95 percent. Mr. Chairman, 95 
percent of the time that a family could spend on the water fishing 
together has been taken from us as sportsmen in the Gulf of Mexico with 
regard to red snapper.
  So I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland) for 
his work on this. I want to thank the other Members of the House for 
understanding us and how important this issue is to those of us who are 
the recreational anglers.
  Mr. SOUTHERLAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to start by saying that I 
want every father and son to be able to fish year-round in our Federal 
waters. Nine days is a problem--it absolutely is a problem--and I look 
forward to working with both the gentlemen from Florida and Georgia to 
ensure open access to our Federal waters.
  I am also upset with NOAA and their continuously low stock assessment 
and flawed assessment methods.
  My opposition to this amendment comes from the negative impacts that 
it will have on head boat captains in the EFP. This is a pilot program.
  The Texas gulf coast, the area that I proudly represent, has a strong 
fishing heritage. Recreational and commercial fishing supports nearly 
40,000 jobs in my State and generates $4.2 billion in sales.
  I have talked to fishermen in my district, Mr. Chairman, and they are 
against this amendment. They don't believe that the bureaucrats in 
Washington, D.C., should be telling--I agree with the gentlelady from 
Maine--regional fishing councils and local fishermen how to manage 
their fishery.
  The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is comprised of local 
fishermen and folks that have lived on the gulf their whole life. This 
council is developing and testing a very successful pilot program, 
where head boat captains have access to the water year-round--not just 
9 days, year-round.
  Under this program, they catch the same amount of fish but have the 
flexibility and freedom to go out when it is most convenient for their 
customers. I have heard from my constituents, and they want this 
program to grow, like the gentlelady said. This amendment would gut 
that pilot program and kick people out of the water.
  Mr. Chairman, as a proud conservative, I believe that fishery 
management decisions should be made at the local level. Given the 
challenges our fishermen face, Congress should ensure local councils 
have all the tools in the fishery management toolbox available to them.
  I will vote against this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Southerland).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of any of the following:
       (1) The fifth and 14th amendments to the Constitution of 
     the United States.
       (2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (relating to 
     nondiscrimination in federally assisted programs).
       (3) Section 809(c)(1) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (relating to prohibition of 
     discrimination).
       (4) Section 210401(a) of the Violent Crime and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (relating to unlawful police pattern 
     or practice).

  Mr. ELLISON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ELLISON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I have read that amendment. It says that you 
are to follow the law. I agree with that, so I accept the amendment.
  Mr. ELLISON. I will take ``yes'' for an answer, Mr. Chairman.
  So with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Perry

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

       Page 100, after line 17, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 541.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration's Advanced Food Technology Project.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Wolf for 
offering me this opportunity.
  This amendment prohibits the funding for NASA's Advanced Food 
Technology project, the AFT. The AFT project is responsible for 
providing spaceflight crews with a food system

[[Page 9249]]

that is safe, nutritious, and acceptable to the crew while efficiently 
balancing appropriate vehicle mass, volume, waste, and food preparation 
time for exploration missions to Mars. The problem is we are not going 
to Mars anytime soon.
  Since we have accepted as a fact that other nations such as Russia 
will be taking the lead on space exploration and we have no plans to go 
back into space over the next fiscal year--at least to Mars--there is 
no reason to waste taxpayer money on food research for a mission to 
Mars.
  This project has been highlighted as a source of waste for years by 
my colleagues in the United States Senate, starting with NASA's use of 
taxpayer money to develop pizza and hundreds of other recipes for, 
again, a mission to Mars, which NASA has no plans to undertake. I want 
to ensure that taxpayer funding is not wasted on projects that are not 
going to happen.
  I urge passage of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I accept the amendment and yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, with brevity, I reject the entire predicate 
of the amendment, that we are not going to Mars or that Russia is 
leading space exploration or any of the other things.
  However, I understand the gentleman would not like to not waste the 
taxpayers' money, and, therefore, he has offered this amendment. The 
chairman has accepted it. But the idea that our country is not the 
leading premier nation in the world in space exploration, I do not 
accept.
  And with that point, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to 
     enter into a contract with any person whose disclosures of a 
     proceeding with a disposition outlined in 48 CFR 52.209-
     7(c)(1)(i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) in the Federal Awardee 
     Performance and Integrity Information System include the term 
     ``Fair Labor Standards Act.''

  Mr. ELLISON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, no hardworking American should ever have 
to worry about whether her employer will refuse to pay her when she 
works overtime or take money out of her paycheck, especially if she 
works for a Federal contractor. This practice is known as wage theft.
  Right now, Federal contractors who violate the Fair Labor Standards 
Act are still allowed to apply for Federal contracts. My amendment 
would deny Federal contracts to those who violate the Fair Labor 
Standards Act to deny workers the pay they have earned. The amendment 
ensures that those in violation of the law do not get taxpayer support. 
We should only reward good actors.
  Taxpayer money must be spent wisely, and as the largest purchaser of 
goods and services, the Federal Government must find a way to make sure 
that funds are going to companies that treat their workers fairly and 
according to the law and that give every American family a chance to 
succeed. More importantly, it signals to working Americans around the 
country that wage theft will not be tolerated.
  Low-wage workers are fighting back. They are demanding that they be 
treated fairly. And now it is time for Congress to stand with these 
low-wage workers and say clearly that wage theft is not anything that 
we are willing to tolerate.
  So we may not agree on the minimum wage or we may not agree on a lot 
of other things, but I believe Americans on both sides of the aisle 
believe that a penny earned is a penny that must be paid. Any time a 
Federal contractor is found to have violated a worker's rights and is 
found to have been guilty of that, according to the law, that Federal 
contractor should not benefit from the money in this particular bill.
  So with the remainder of my time, I would like to just add that this 
is a very serious problem. A recent report by the Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions Committee in the United States Senate reveals that 
32 percent of the largest Department of Labor penalties for wage theft 
were levied against Federal contractors. There should be a consequence. 
Similarly, the National Employment Law Project study found that 21 
percent of Federal contract workers were not paid overtime, and 11 
percent have been forced to work off the clock.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I do hope that we can get cooperation from all 
Members on this.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment and will add the point that many of these Federal workers are 
women who are the head of their household, and, therefore, the 
undermining of their compensation based upon overtime and the theft of 
wages because they are not paid fully for their work and hours really 
undermines the family.

                              {time}  2215

  So I believe that this is a very important amendment, and I ask my 
colleagues to support the gentleman.
  Mr. ELLISON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. No one 
knows what the amendment does. If you know what this amendment does, 
you should vote for it because nobody else seems to know. And that is 
one of the problems of these things coming rolling in at 10:15. I don't 
know what it does, and I wouldn't want to vote for it since I don't 
know what it does. So if you know what it does and you are for it, you 
can vote for it. But no one knows what it does.
  So I strongly urge, in the interest of making sure that this place 
does not mess up, a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for a loan guarantee for Innovative Technologies in 
     Manufacturing under the heading ``Economic Development 
     Administration, Economic Development Assistance Programs.''


[[Page 9250]]

  Mr. BROUN of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit 
funds from being used for the loan guarantee program created by the 
America COMPETES Act of 2010, a program which is essentially an $84 
billion science experiment in stimulus spending.
  The America COMPETES Act directed the Commerce Department to 
establish loan guarantees within the Innovative Technologies in 
Manufacturing program of the Economic Development Administration, or 
EDA.
  These government-backed loans are meant to provide small or medium-
sized manufacturers with new opportunities to use, manufacture, or 
commercialize any innovative technology. However, authorization for 
America COMPETES ran out in 2013 with little passing interest from 
industry. In fact, not one loan has been issued under this program to 
date--not one, not the first one.
  In July of 2013, the Government Accountability Office found that the 
EDA had done nothing with its appropriated funds outside of 
establishing a staffing budget and a timeline for executing the 
program. At the same time, GAO noted that EDA officials had reached out 
to the Small Business Administration for technical assistance on how to 
run a loan guarantee program.
  Mr. Chairman, think about this for a moment. If one government agency 
needs to consult another government agency about how to run a program 
which is similar to a program that is already established elsewhere, is 
the new program really necessary?
  There are similar programs sprinkled throughout the Federal 
Government, yet we keep authorizing more and more. Congress needs to 
seriously reevaluate this approach and instead focus on real innovation 
in manufacturing. I would submit that if the Federal Government simply 
stopped taxing small and medium-sized businesses out of the country--or 
out of business--we would see an immediate increase in growth and new 
jobs, no new programs needed.
  The America COMPETES loan guarantee program is a wasteful, 
duplicative attempt to spur innovation in manufacturing by creating 
more bureaucracy, and we should not allow it to go any further. Not one 
loan has been put out by this program.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. So we have had about 30,000 small and medium 
manufacturers close their shop in our country over last 20 years. We 
have 11 million Americans who go to work every day making things with 
their hands. We still lead the world as the number one manufacturer, 
but what used to be an absolute lead is now relative. Part of the 
challenge is technology.
  This Congress has provided writeoffs for new machinery and other 
types of write-downs on capital equipment. We need to fortify our 
manufacturing base, and we also need to provide technical support. We 
provide billions of dollars to our National Laboratories. I went out to 
visit Oak Ridge in Tennessee. They have a manufacturing center there 
that helps small manufacturers think through their challenges. And the 
last thing we need to do is to retreat on this battlefield on 
manufacturing.
  So the gentleman from Georgia is headed in the wrong direction. I 
hope that the Congress does not follow him. I will be voting against 
this amendment, and I support this technology loan guarantee program. 
In fact, I authored it in this bill, and, yes, it has been built up 
over the last couple years to make sure that before they do anything 
that they do it correctly because we want to get it right.
  But the one thing we should be certain about is that small and medium 
manufacturers, which are at the heart of our manufacturing industry in 
our country, they need our support, and this is a way to help them. It 
is not a handout, it is a loan, and it is actually a loan guarantee.
  It is a way to go to help manufacturers across our land, and I hope 
that even at this late hour that we not fall victim to the suggestion 
that we can't do what we should do to make sure that this country can 
continue to lead in this critical area.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, during the public comment period, 
there was absolutely zero interest in this program--zero. The SBA 
already does this. I am all for manufacturing. I am all for small and 
medium businesses. But we do not need this program. It is an $84 
billion program with no interest in it within small or medium 
businesses. Not one loan has been given out. All it has done is fund 
the bureaucrats that are established to do this program, and no loans 
have been made since 2010. In 4 years, zero loans, zero interest. We 
need to eliminate it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to negotiate an agreement that includes a waiver of 
     the `Buy American Act'.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this concerns the Buy American Act and how 
it interacts with the work of the Trade Representative under this bill.
  The Buy American Act dates back to every Republican's favorite 
President, President Hoover, who signed it into office on his last day 
in office in 1933. It requires the U.S. Government to prefer U.S.-made 
products in its purchases, and there already is precedent for this in 
the trade organization agreement called the WTO 1996 Agreement on 
Government Procurement. The Buy American Act was specifically excluded 
from the government procurement agreements program.
  We are coming up upon a time when, according to news reports, the 
President may be presenting us with trade agreements. He may be 
presenting us with a fast track procedure for those trade agreements. 
The fast track procedure would basically give us a take-it-or-leave-it 
situation on these principles. Obviously, these trade agreements that 
have been negotiated are complex, but I think that we shouldn't be 
throwing out the baby with the bath water.
  This is an 80-year-old law. It requires that the American Government 
give preference to American-made products when making procurement 
decisions. This is a commonsense principle that guides purchasing 
throughout the Federal Government, as it should.
  Hard-earned American taxpayer dollars should be reused here at home. 
They should be going back into our economy and putting Americans back 
to work. I would hate to see this fundamental principle of government 
procurement slurred or undermined in any way by any agreement that is 
now being negotiated by the Trade Representative or anybody else in 
this administration or any future administration.

[[Page 9251]]

  Therefore, I submit this amendment to make certain that the 
agreements now being negotiated, the ones being negotiated in the 
future, respect this basic, fundamental principle that American dollars 
and American jobs are what the American Government is all about.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member seek recognition on the amendment? 
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Salmon

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

       Page 100, after line 17, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 541.  None of the funds made available to the National 
     Science Foundation by this Act may be used to examine climate 
     effects on tea quality and socioeconomic responses under 
     award number 1313775-CNH.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to cut all 
funding for the National Science Foundation's program to study the 
climate effects on tea quality and socioeconomic responses in China and 
other locations. In fact, I find it deeply troubling that while our 
country is facing fiscal challenges of gigantic proportions, staring 
down over $17.5 trillion in debt, that I can quickly find programs such 
as this that are being funded on the back of the American taxpayer.
  To date, this program has already received about $1 million in 
funding. Regardless of whether or not you believe that we must get our 
national debt under control, I believe we can all agree that these are 
difficult times for American families. With this in mind, how can we 
seriously look our constituents in the face and assure them we are 
looking out for their best interest when we allow their money to be 
spent like this?
  While I certainly understand the value of predicting agricultural 
trends for tea, I believe that that is a task that ought to be left to 
the private sector, the ones that benefit from this kind of 
information.
  Now, amendments like this are a high watermark. If we can't make the 
easy choices to eliminate these kinds of programs, how are we going to 
do the tough cuts? In a time where things are tough enough for the 
average American family, we certainly don't need to add another burden 
such as programs like this. And I might just say, finally, that our 
history has shown us that government getting involved in tea policy, as 
Great Britain did, can lead to a very, very slippery slope. I think 
government needs to stay out of tea policy.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Reed). The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I will take about 50 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this amendment. I think intruding on 
the National Science Foundation and the work that is based on merit and 
peer-reviewed science, we should not be using politics in the political 
process as a substitute for it.
  I hope that Congress would in its wisdom vote against the amendment 
offered by my friend, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for bringing 
this amendment forward. I rise in strong support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we are talking about appropriations bills, and, of 
course, people across the country are concerned, as we are, about the 
fact that our country is spending money we don't have. Washington 
spends almost 40 cents of every dollar with borrowed money. This is 
money we are borrowing from countries like China, ironically, and then 
here you have an amendment that highlights the fact that we are 
spending money through the National Science Foundation on grants to 
study the effects of global warming on tea grown in China.
  I mean, is this part of the deal that we cut with China when they 
loan us money to continue deficit spending? This is ludicrous. This is 
a classic example of wasteful Washington spending. And I commend, 
again, the gentleman for bringing this amendment because there are 
opportunities we have to highlight areas of wasteful Washington 
spending where we should at least be able to agree, as Republicans and 
Democrats, that every single dollar we are looking at we ought to ask 
the first question: Is this program--is this program worth borrowing 
money not only from countries like China, but borrowing money from our 
children? Our children are going to have to pay for these bills. And 
does this really rise to that level that it is worth borrowing money 
from our children, who are going to be getting that credit card bill, 
$931,000 of tax payer money, to study the effects of climate change on 
tea grown in China?

                              {time}  2230

  This is ludicrous. This is ludicrous spending. We ought not be doing 
it. We ought to at least be able to set priorities and agree, as 
Republicans and Democrats, that we are going to get serious about 
fiscal responsibility, and it starts with the little things.
  This is not billions and trillions that we are talking about, but 
this is how you get to billions and trillions of dollars of debt. So 
while China holds maybe over a trillion dollars of our debt, I don't 
think it is going to cause any kind of international relations problem, 
that fact that we are going to say we should not spend $931,000 of 
money we don't have that is being borrowed from countries like China to 
study the effects of global warming on tea grown in China.
  This is ludicrous. This doesn't pass the laugh test. When they say it 
is not all of the tea in China, this is a place where we should agree 
to stop spending taxpayer money on something that is incredibly 
wasteful.
  Again, this is money borrowed from our children and borrowed from 
countries like China. We ought not be doing it.
  Again, I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment. It is a 
great example where we should be able to agree and say enough is 
enough.
  Mr. SALMON. I will just say in summation, I think the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) said it very well, and that is: How in the 
world are we going to get to the serious cuts to try to get our budget 
balanced if we can't even cut a million dollars to give to China to see 
how China's tea is going to grow with climate change?
  This is ridiculous. If we can't do an easy thing like this, I fear 
for America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec._. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to compel a journalist or reporter to testify about 
     information or sources that the journalist or reporter states 
     in a motion to quash the subpeona that he has obtained as a 
     journalist or reporter and that he regards as confidential.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, I regret bringing this up at 10:30 at night. 
I

[[Page 9252]]

apologize for that because this is a weighty matter, and I think it 
deserves fair consideration. I hope we are not all too tired to deny 
this question the attention that it deserves.
  The purpose of this amendment is to raise the possibility of a 
Federal shield law that corresponds to shield law already in place in 
49 States, but not at the level of the Federal Government.
  A shield law is legislation designed to protect a reporter's 
privilege or the right of news reporters to refuse to testify as to 
information and sources of information obtained during a news gather 
and dissemination process. In short, a reporter should not be forced to 
reveal his or her source, and that is in fact the law in 49 States, the 
only exception being Wyoming.
  This has come up in court cases at the Federal level and at the 
Supreme Court level, beginning with the 1972 case Branzburg v. Hayes, 
which I think poses this question in the microcosm.
  In that case, a reporter wanted to inform his readers about the 
nature of the drug hashish, and he realized the only way to go about 
that was to find and interview people who had actually used the drug 
hashish, and so he did that.
  After he published his article, relying upon these two confidential 
sources, at that point, he was subpoenaed to provide those sources, 
compromising their identity and compromising the principle of 
protecting your sources.
  This is an issue that comes up from time to time, often at the State 
level, occasionally at the Federal level.
  Some of us may remember the case of the Plame affair, the CIA leak 
scandal. A reporter was asked to release the name of the person to whom 
he had been perceived to leak regarding Valerie Plame. Reporters were 
asked, in general: Who are your sources with regards to this leak?
  One reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, was jailed for 85 
days in 2005 for refusing to disclose her source in the government 
probe.
  At this point, under current law, journalists are in a quandary. They 
realize the need to protect their sources. That right is recognized in 
49 States, but it is not codified at the Federal level, so what I seek 
to do at this late hour today is to do just that.
  I think this is a very important principle, as Branzburg pointed out, 
that springs from the foundation of our law. The Constitution and the 
First Amendment provide for freedom of speech and of the press. It is 
completely incongruous to say we have freedom of the press, but the 
Federal Government can subpoena your sources and put them and you in 
prison--you, if you don't comply.
  This is something that should have been handled perhaps years, if not 
decades ago. It falls upon us tonight, at this late hour, to try to 
handle it ourselves. I respectfully submit this amendment as being a 
much-needed and long-delayed clarification that the Federal Government 
treats this matter no differently than 49 States now do, and therefore, 
I ask for support on this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is significant 
change. The authorizers should be looking at this. This is not 
something to put on an appropriation bill at 10:35 at night.
  I listened to the gentleman, and a lot of what he said, I seem to 
agree with, but you have to really look at this and have hearings, and 
for those reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I share the 
gentleman from Florida's interest and support for shield laws as well, 
but I don't believe this has been carefully vetted. There are 
implications here about exactly who has the right to make the 
determination about whether or not funds could or could not be used. 
The way the language reads suggests that maybe the reporter would have 
that right, rather than a court.
  To me, this is not the best way to go about doing this. We will 
continue to work on shield law legislation in the House Judiciary 
Committee, which has passed out forms of shield law in the past, and we 
will continue to work on it.
  I must oppose this amendment in these circumstances. I don't think 
this is the right place to legislate something as complicated as this 
issue.
  Mr. WOLF. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments 
and think he is exactly right.
  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. Without claiming my own time, I just want to support the 
thrust of this proposed amendment, which is that we should provide a 
shield law. The idea that, in 2005, a reporter was jailed for over 85 
days is wrong, and we do want to have the freedom.
  We have a constitutional responsibility to protect the freedom of 
press, but I agree with the chairman, we don't want to do it on an 
appropriations bill at 10:30 at night. We want to make sure it is clear 
what we are doing, so I oppose the amendment under those circumstances.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that the Supreme Court 
decision that we are talking about here was decided in 1972. There have 
already been hearings. There has been plenty of draft legislation. It 
is hard enough to get anything voted on around here. It is time to vote 
on this.
  After 42 years since the Supreme Court first addressed this, we don't 
have this body on record saying whether or not there should be a 
Federal shield law. I understand the reservations that have been 
expressed, but the time is now.
  The reporters in this country have waited long enough. It is time to 
be fair and show fealty to the First Amendment and to pass this 
amendment tonight.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chair, with regard to my votes on the Commerce, 
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act:
  I voted for and helped pass the Grayson amendment, confident that as 
the bill proceeds, a sophisticated, nuanced, and balanced reporter 
shield provision will be inserted in lieu of the current text of the 
amendment. The rules and traditions of the House require that 
amendments to appropriations bills offered on the floor conform to 
strict rules that preclude balanced and detailed formulation. The 
Conference Committee will have the latitude needed to insert a balanced 
reporter shield provision and I will urge such an approach.
  Additionally, I voted for final passage with the assumption that 
certain problematic provisions would be removed in Conference 
Committee.
  I am pleased that we can move forward with the Commerce, Justice, 
Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act and expect that upon 
passage in the Senate, the Conference Committee will improve the bill.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Chair, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 (H.R. 4660) is an appropriations bill 
that funds various Federal Government programs and entities, including 
the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  My amendment reads as follows, ``None of the funds made available by 
this Act may be used to compel a journalist or reporter to testify 
about information or sources that the journalist or reporter states in 
a motion to quash the subpoena that he has obtained as a journalist or 
reporter and that he regards as confidential.''
  For purposes of this amendment, the definition of a ``reporter'' 
includes: any person, natural person, or entity who releases, reports 
on, or provides information of a classified or unclassified nature to a 
public audience or on the internet, does so on a regular basis, and 
receives compensation for doing so. The term ``reporter'' is a 
description of a profession.
  For purposes of this amendment, the definition of a ``journalist'' 
includes: any person, natural person, or entity who releases, reports 
on, or provides information of a classified or unclassified nature to a 
public audience or on

[[Page 9253]]

the internet, and does so on a regular or an irregular basis. The term 
``journalism'' describes an act, not a profession. A person, entity, or 
natural person is a journalist so long as he or she is engaged in the 
act of journalism. An act of journalism involves the collection, 
analysis, description, dissemination, and/or publication of 
information.
  James Risen, Julian Assange, Wikileaks, and Glenn Greenwald meet the 
definitions of reporters and journalists under these definitions.
  This amendment also prohibits the use of any funds made available by 
this Act to compel testimony from any individual who is engaged in 
journalism in any supporting role, such as assisting a journalist with 
analysis, collection, description, dissemination, and/or publication of 
information to a public audience.
  Funds appropriated under this Act may not be used to compel testimony 
by journalists or reporters to reveal confidential sources.
  This amendment mirrors the language supplied in other federal 
statutes defining journalism. For instance, the Freedom of Information 
Act defines a ``representative of the news media'' as ``any person or 
entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of 
the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a 
distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.'' 5 U.S.C. 
Sec. 552(4)(A)(ii)(IIII).
  This amendment also follows the spirit of the United States Supreme 
Court and Circuit Court precedents, which have widely and historically 
protected the vital newsgathering function performed by journalists. 
The patriot pamphleteers had no corporate affiliations, no professional 
societies, and no journalism degrees. The key test is whether 
individuals are engaged in news-related activities. Former Chief 
Justice Warren Burger observed that adopting a narrower definition 
would be ``reminiscent of the abhorred licensing system of Tudor and 
Stuart England--a system the First Amendment was intended to ban from 
this country.'' First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 
765, 801 (1978) (Burger, C.J., concurring).
  Early Supreme Court jurisprudence recognized a broad definition of 
journalism, noting that the function of the press is ``performed by 
lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic researchers, and 
dramatists.'' Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 705 (1972) (Powell, J., 
concurring); see also Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1932) 
(``The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and 
periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These 
indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the 
pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly 
attest. The press in its connotation comprehends every sort of 
publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.'')
  This amendment is consistent with the holdings of several federal 
appellate circuits which take a functional view of journalism, defining 
a reporter as an individual who engages in news-related activities to 
disseminate information to an audience. For example, the First Circuit 
Court of Appeals has held that reporters should be protected based on 
function, rather than credentials or status. Glik v. Cunnille, 655 F.3d 
78, 84 (1st Cir. 2011) (``Changes in technology and society have made 
the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult 
to draw [and] news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a 
blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such 
developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First 
Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.''); see 
also Von Bulow v. Von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1987) (``The 
individual claiming the privilege must demonstrate, through competent 
evidence, the intent to use material--sought, gathered or received--to 
disseminate information to the public and [] such intent existed at the 
inception of the newsgathering process.'').
  The Second Circuit's standard, based on newsgathering function 
articulated in Von Bulow, was reiterated by the Ninth and D.C. Circuit 
Courts. See Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1293 (9th Cir. 1993); 
Alexander v. FBI, 186 F.R.D. 21, 50 (D.D.C. 1998). A similar bar is set 
in the Tenth Circuit. Silkwood v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 563 F.2d 433, 436-
37 (10th Cir. 1977) (concluding that a documentary filmmaker was not 
precluded from the privilege because his mission was investigative 
reporting for use in preparing a documentary film, regardless of the 
fact that he was ``not a salaried newspaper reporter'').
  Finally, this amendment is consistent with the views of First 
Amendment scholars, who agree that a functional definition is most 
appropriate. See generally Sonja R. West, Awakening the Press Clause, 
58 UCLA L. Rev. 1025, 1065-66 (2011) (``[The functional] approach 
avoids some of the pitfalls of the definition-by-affiliation 
approach.''); see also Linda L. Berger, Shielding the Unmedia: Using 
the Process of Journalism to Protect the Journalist's Privilege in an 
Infinite Universe of Publication, 39 Houston L. Rev. 1371, 1407 (2003) 
(``[N]o patriot printer or colonial pamphleteer had a journalism 
degree. Certification by a government agency or by a professional group 
carries the possibility of de-certification based on value judgments or 
viewpoints.'').
  This amendment was passed in an environment in which the Department 
of Justice has increased pressure upon journalists and their sources. 
Many of the nation's most respected reporters have characterized this 
as an assault on press freedom that chills investigative reporting and 
the public's right to know.
  Recent revelations that the Department of Justice secretly subpoenaed 
twenty phones lines at the Associated Press, and a legal brief filed by 
the Justice Department calling a Fox News journalist a ``co-
conspirator'' for simply protecting a source, have provoked widespread, 
bipartisan criticism. Many are concerned that the Department of Justice 
is actively impeding newsgathering activities protected by the First 
Amendment. The House of Representatives intends, by passing this 
amendment, to reject this harassment of journalists by the Department 
of Justice.
  Moreover, recently-disclosed digital surveillance activities by the 
United States government have had an inherent chilling effect on the 
act of journalism and the exercise of the First Amendment. This 
amendment is intended to ensure that the rights and newsgathering 
activities of reporters and journalists are not chilled when uncovering 
information involving or implicating the United States government or 
associated institutions. Furthermore, both Congress and the President 
have recognized the problem of `over-classification' of documents by 
agencies across the Federal Government. If journalists are prevented 
from publishing classified information, and the government classifies 
enormous quantities of information that should rightfully be in the 
public domain, the public is prohibited from knowing the workings of 
its government. Using Federal Government resources to undermine 
legitimate news-related activities or chill journalism, particularly 
when those activities aim to disclose the workings of government 
because that information is classified, constitutes a threat to the 
self-government of the American public. Federal government attempts to 
undermine legitimate news-related activities and/or chill journalism, 
are prohibited by this amendment.
  Finally, the act of journalism has been transformed by the internet. 
New methods for uncovering and publishing newsworthy information, and 
for financing such newsgathering and dissemination, are now available. 
This amendment protects the ability for those who may not have 
traditionally been considered journalists to engage in journalism. It 
is further intended to allow for experimentation in publication and 
dissemination of news without the threat of the Department of Justice 
using its resources to compel the revelation of journalistic sources 
through legal coercion.
  This amendment is to be construed liberally and broadly, to 
effectuate its purpose of protecting journalists and their sources from 
any coercive action taken by the government and the legal system. Its 
spirit applies to other government agencies, and to litigation between 
private parties. The terms ``information or sources'' and 
``confidential'' are to be given the widest possible construction. The 
limitation applies not only to the quashing of subpoenas, but also to 
every form of discovery, civil and criminal contempt, arrest and 
imprisonment, and any form of coercion within the legal system.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to create or maintain a national firearm registry.
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to study the social effects of online interactive games.

[[Page 9254]]

       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to study how humans react to popular baby names.
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to study how humans react to trends in popular culture.
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to study any facet of professional or collegiate sports, 
     their games, or their playoff systems.
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to study whether or not humans are more or less 
     racially-focused when seeking love online.
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to study the effects of romance novels on human 
     activities.
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to study whether or not any social media application is 
     able to predict trends in the stock market or any global 
     trading market.
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to study how rumors are started.
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to study how much housework a member of one household 
     creates for the rest of such household.
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to study the relationship between online virtual world 
     users and their avatars.
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to study how long animals can run on treadmills.
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to study how humans ride bikes.
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to study robot rodeo hoedowns (defined as assemblies of 
     robotic devices brought to central locations for the purposes 
     of being programmed to move in unison for no other purpose 
     than entertainment, record-setting, or to generally recreate 
     or attempt to recreate any form of dance) or what they look 
     like.
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to study how dog became man's best friend.
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to continue to withhold from the Treasury undisbursed 
     grant balances for grants which were initiated before January 
     1, 2013.
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to instruct any financial institution to designate a 
     firearms dealer as a ``high-risk'' merchant customer for the 
     purposes of restricting or regulating commerce.

  Mr. GOSAR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a multifaceted 
amendment to limit funds within the Commerce, Justice, Science, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act to programs that are 
constitutional, appropriate, and sane.
  For the sake of time, I will just highlight some of the provisions 
within my amendment.
  My amendment protects Second Amendment rights and individual 
liberties. It does so by prohibiting a Federal firearm registry from 
being created with funds in this bill. Similar language has previously 
passed the House.
  I also want to bring the House's attention to some of the ludicrous 
studies that taxpayers have funded via the National Science Foundation.
  First, I appreciate the National Science Foundation's mission and its 
work. The National Science Foundation grantees and funds have been 
instrumental in advances in the Internet, astronomy, energy, chemistry, 
and many other important aspects of scientific scholarship; but, like 
our well-funded government operations, the bureaucracy begins to grow 
and proper oversight of the grant process begins to wane.
  In 2011, Senator Tom Coburn released a publication titled ``The 
National Science Foundation: Under the Microscope.'' In that document, 
he outlined a litany of wasteful, superfluous, and seemingly idiotic 
studies, some of which I will outline here.
  There was a study on human reaction to popular baby names. There was 
a $580,000 grant to study racial preferences in online dating. There 
was nearly $1 million in multiple grants to study how rumors are 
started.
  There have been nearly two decades of grants awarded to a certain 
panel in which the National Science Foundation has granted about $60 
million. One of the panel's studies covered how much housework a man 
creates for a wife in his household. There was a $90,000 grant to study 
the relationship between a researcher and their online avatar in 
virtual worlds and differences in their behaviors.
  Since 2000, grants provided by the National Science Foundation have 
been used to study crustaceans running on tiny treadmills after being 
exposed to different microbes.
  These little shrimp were also given tiny backpacks to weigh them 
down, so researchers could study test variables such as weight and 
resistance. In 2011, the lab said it planned to build treadmills and 
create studies for lobsters and blue crabs as well. This amendment 
would prevent these types of abuses.
  There was a 2009 grant disbursed to the tune of $300,000, to study 
how humans ride bicycles. There was another $300,000, which actually 
came from the stimulus funds, that was disbursed to a married couple to 
travel to seven countries around the world to study stray dogs in an 
effort to discover how dogs became man's best friend. Sounds like a 
heck of a honeymoon to me.
  Possibly the most ridiculous grant highlighted by Senator Coburn's 
report was a National Science Foundation grant to support a robot rodeo 
hoedown. Let me repeat that: a robot rodeo hoedown. I would like to 
point out how laughable it was to my staff to work with legislative 
counsel to define what a hoedown is for the purpose of this amendment.
  The project involved programming small robots to dance to ``Chicken 
Coop Shuffle,'' but I suppose the event wasn't a total loss. It 
produced hundreds of YouTube views.
  I want to, again, thank Senator Coburn and his staff for producing 
these reports that shed light on these issues. My amendment will not 
prohibit all future ridiculous taxpayer-funded studies, but hopefully, 
I can take part in shedding a little bit of light of those that are the 
most egregious.
  The hope is that those people awarding these moneys wake up and use a 
little more discretion with hard-earned taxpayer money, but I have a 
feeling I will be back here next year offering a similar amendment. I 
urge passage of this commonsense amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment 
because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation 
in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment requires new determinations.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
determination. The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and 
the amendment is not in order.

                              {time}  2245


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, add the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to obtain the contents of wire or electronic 
     communications in a remote computing service as described

[[Page 9255]]

     in section 2703(b)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment which seeks 
to correct a serious injustice against U.S. citizens and the United 
States Constitution.
  As many of us learned from the intelligence disclosures last year, 
the Federal Government is engaged in a wide variety of surveillance 
practices. These practices, though mostly focused internationally, also 
encompass domestic communications on a regular basis.
  I hear many in the executive branch--and the legislative branch, no 
doubt--making excuses as to why this happens or how that is not all 
that bad, but I say that it is. It is an absolute violation of our 
basic civil liberties and the Fourth Amendment.
  I could go on and on about the different practices that violate our 
Constitution and the trust of the people, but my amendment focuses on 
one simple statute, one simple statute I believe almost everyone will 
agree needs to be changed. Section 2703 of title 18, U.S.C., United 
States Code, allows the Federal Government to obtain your personal 
emails in your email account if they are 180 days or older. It is 
essentially a carte blanche authority to do so.
  What is it about a piece of email being 180 days old that suddenly 
makes it the business of the government? What is it about a piece of 
email being 180 days old that suddenly makes it no longer your 
property? After 6 months, are those emails suddenly a threat to 
national security? Moreover, if these personal emails do discuss plots 
against the Nation, in many cases it is a little too little, a little 
too late to do anything since the government is 6 months behind the 
ball.
  I do not know anyone who can make a legitimate argument to keep this 
provision of law. I know of no real justification.
  To put support for this amendment in perspective, I will point out 
that there are a handful of bills in the House that abolish or 
significantly alter this provision of law.
  One of these bills is H.R. 1847, introduced by my friend and 
colleague Congressman Matt Salmon of Arizona. The other is H.R. 1852, 
introduced by my friend Congressman Kevin Yoder of Kansas. If you add 
up all the Republicans and Democrats cosponsoring these two bills 
alone, the number is 217, just about enough to pass this amendment. I 
can tell you that our constituencies certainly do not accept this gross 
violation of privacy and abuse of power.
  We saw a good bill in the U.S. Freedom Act get watered down and 
mutilated last week, which was a disgrace. I supported the original act 
because it made real reforms. I voted against the version that came to 
the floor because it extended section 215 of the PATRIOT Act for 
another 2 years.
  But can we not agree on this one simple change?
  Must the NSA or the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security have 
access to our emails that are several years old with no other 
justification than an arbitrary date? I think not.
  I urge passage of my commonsense amendment.
  With that, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) of 
the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Gosar) for raising this important issue.
  The Electronic Communications Privacy Act was written long before the 
Internet was in common use. It is out of date. It needs to be 
modernized. It needs to have some of the requirements that not only the 
gentleman has noted, but also some of the courts of appeals have noted.
  However, the particular way this amendment works on the particular 
section of the Stored Communications Act, which is a part of the 
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, has implications beyond what I 
think the gentleman intends would have a significant impact on not only 
Federal, but also State and local law enforcement ability to carry out 
their job.
  If the gentleman would agree to work with me, as have the two 
individuals that you referred to have introduced bills and many others 
in this Congress who know that this needs to be modified--I have had 
conversations with Senator Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
in the Senate, and we have agreed that this is a priority for both of 
us to significantly reform this law and address some of the very 
concerns that the gentleman raises. If he would agree to withdraw the 
amendment, I would look forward to working with him and others to 
accomplish that goal in what I think would be a better setting. We have 
already held two hearings on this issue, and we will be continuing to 
work on this in an expeditious manner in the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, with the understanding that the chairman has 
given, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Arizona?
  There was no objection.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Perry

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to design, implement, 
     administer, or carry out the U.S. Global Climate Research 
     Program National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental 
     Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report, the United 
     Nation's Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the May 
     2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for 
     Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866.

  Mr. PERRY (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to 
dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, it is my understanding the chairman accepts the 
amendment. If that is the case, I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. WOLF. I accept the amendment.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Duffy

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to relinquish the responsibility of the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration with 
     respect to Internet domain name system functions, including 
     responsibility with respect to the authoritative root zone 
     file and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, I think most Americans are aware that the 
President has recently stated that he intends to transfer the core 
functions of the Internet to an international or foreign body. What my 
amendment does today will prohibit the President from using any of 
these funds to relinquish control of those core functions to the 
Internet.
  I think this is an incredibly important amendment because America and

[[Page 9256]]

our zest for freedom of speech has made sure that the Internet is an 
open forum for dialogue, an open forum for ideas. By relinquishing 
these rights or core functions to a foreign body, I don't think we will 
retain the current system of the Internet and the current rights of 
freedom of speech that the Internet currently enjoys.
  If you look at stakeholders, you have a say in how the Internet is 
run. I think when we use the term ``stakeholders,'' what we are really 
referring to are foreign governments and corporations. I think we have 
to ask the question: Do we think that China, that Russia, that Iran, 
who have a say in the core functions of the Internet, have the same 
concern for the freedom of speech that we Americans do?
  I think it is important that this institution use its control of the 
purse strings to limit the President's authority to transfer those core 
functions to this foreign body.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chair, I strongly support the gentleman's amendment, 
and I appreciate him offering it.
  Have you seen how difficult it is to get sanctions in Syria from 
Putin? sanctions against the Sudanese with regard to the genocide from 
China?
  The gentleman is right. I accept the amendment and urge all Members 
to accept the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Mr. Duffy's amendment.
  The current way the Internet is governed is soon set to change, as we 
all know, and the question remains: Who will take over? The answer will 
have consequences for human rights, for the global economy, as well as 
Internet security and stability.
  We must get it right. It is important to the future of our economy. 
It is important to the type of world we want to live in. We need to 
ensure the continuation of an open and accessible Internet which can 
serve to fulfill people's aspirations for freedom and for democracy. 
And when it comes to Internet policy, the administration has botched 
consultations over the transition of the duties at the NTIA.
  We cannot allow countries to use their influence to stifle speech and 
commerce on the Internet. This amendment will give us more time to 
ensure we get this right.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin has 
expired.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, the process that the gentleman seeks to 
intervene in with this amendment started some 16 years ago. And I would 
like the Congressional Record to reflect this, that apparently if a 
Presidential election doesn't go in the right direction, the other 
team's notion is to yank all of the authority away from the person who 
did win.
  Unfortunately in our democracy, it doesn't work like that. When they 
are not calling for some Member of the Cabinet to resign or doing 
something else to intervene in the President's authority, they have 
these theories. Well, this new theory is that Obama has concocted some 
strategy to turn over the Internet to our enemies.
  This is a process that started 16 years ago, and through the Bush 
administration and the Clinton administration. It is a process having 
to do with what we might want to call the yellow pages for the 
Internet, the domain names and how people can create their addresses on 
the Internet.
  The theory of the Internet was to have no government in control. The 
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America has been one of the 
major proponents of this. I don't believe that anyone on the other team 
would suggest that somehow they have concocted this scheme with the 
President to have us empower the Syrians or someone with control of the 
Internet.
  So it is hard for me to focus on this as a substantive matter, 
because the truth is so far from what has been stated it is hard to 
reconcile the two things. But the point here is that one of the things 
that we have tried to say to the rest of the world is that the Internet 
is not controlled by government, that it is an opportunity for people 
to enjoy an American ideal, which is freedom of speech, freedom of 
association.
  There were those on the other team who were happy when, during the 
Arab Spring, people were using social media and Twitter to interact 
against oppressive regimes around the world. So we have this kind of 
selective amnesia on these issues. It seems to come into play having 
anything to do with the Obama administration. There is nothing I can do 
about it this evening. Maybe it is covered under the Affordable Care 
Act. But I oppose this amendment, and I oppose the knee-jerk, 
irresponsible actions that would suggest to countries like China and 
others that we want to control the Internet versus we want it to be an 
opportunity for people to gather information, speak freely, and 
associate freely.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Justice to enforce the Fair 
     Housing Act in a manner that relies upon an allegation of 
     liability under 24 C.F.R. 100.500.

  Mr. GARRETT (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
stops the Justice Department from using one of the most dangerous and 
illogical legal theories of all times: the theory of disparate impact.
  In short, disparate impact liability allows the government to allege 
discrimination on the basis of race or other factors based solely on 
the statistical analysis that finds disproportionate results among 
different groups of people.
  In recent years, the Justice Department has increasingly used this 
dubious theory in lawsuits against mortgage lenders, insurers, and 
landlords, and forced these companies to pay multimillion dollar 
settlements.
  What is wrong with this, one might ask? Well, under disparate impact, 
one could never intentionally discriminate in any way, and even then 
have strong antidiscriminatory policies in place, and still be found to 
have discriminated.
  If, for example, a mortgage lender uses a completely objective 
standard to assess the credit risk, such as the debt-to-income ratio, 
they can still be found to have discriminated if the data show 
different loan approval rates for different groups of consumers.
  Some of these statistical differences and outcomes may actually be 
due to

[[Page 9257]]

discrimination, but others may not be. It is impossible to tell which 
is which from the statistics alone. Under disparate impact it doesn't 
matter though. All statistical differences are considered by themselves 
discrimination.
  To be clear, none of us have a tolerance for intentional 
discrimination. If there is intentional discrimination, we must 
prosecute it to the fullest extent of the law. The Justice Department's 
use of disparate impact, however, tries to fight one injustice with 
another.
  On a more practical level, disparate impact will make it difficult, 
if not impossible, for lenders to make rational economic decisions 
about risk. Lenders will feel the pressure to weaken their current 
standards to keep their lending statistics in line with whatever the 
Justice Department bureaucrats consider nondiscriminatory.
  We have seen what this discriminatory and damaging risky lending can 
do to our economy. It is truly reckless for our government to be 
encouraging those dangerous and short-sighted practices to continue.
  Ironically, disparate impact forces lenders, insurers, and landlords 
to constantly take race, ethnicity, gender, and other factors into 
account or risk running afoul of the Justice Department.
  You and I both know, Mr. Chairman, that even an accusation of 
discrimination could have a devastating impact on a small business.
  I quote Roger Clegg, who is the president and general counsel for the 
Center for Equal Opportunity. He said:

       The disparate impact standard for antidiscrimination law 
     pushes people to do one of two things: Get rid of legitimate 
     selection criteria, or use a racial double standard to ensure 
     that the numbers come out right.

  On balance, Mr. Chairman, disparate impact will make it more 
difficult and expensive for families to buy a home, and will result in 
more discrimination not less.
  For these reasons, both philosophical and practical, I ask my 
colleagues to reject this misguided theory by supporting my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Conaway). The gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I want to know whether I can raise a point 
of order against this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The amendment is already pending.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I won't waste the Congress' time going 
through a great deal of debate. But as brief as I can, what the 
gentleman's amendment says is no matter what the result, if whole 
classifications of people are discriminated against based on a set of 
policies, the DOJ can do nothing about it. That is the America he 
wants, and I hope the Congress would register our opinion on it when we 
get a chance to vote. We will be seeking a roll call vote on this 
matter.
  Mr. GARRETT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT. You just said something. You said that the Justice 
Department will not go after them if a whole set of policies result in 
discriminations.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, what I said is what the gentleman 
offers to the House is an opportunity where no matter what the result, 
if whole classifications of people are left out, i.e., there is a 
disparate impact, that DOJ can't go after it. That is what you offered 
to the House.
  I appreciate your offering, and we will see what kind of America we 
would like to have when we cast a vote on this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I think what America wants is to only be 
able to bring lawsuits against discrimination when there was, in fact, 
intentional discrimination, not just because, at the end result from 
some statistics, some may believe that there was discrimination. If 
there was intentional discrimination, this amendment does not do 
anything that would prevent the Justice Department from proceeding.
  I would like to enter into the Record support for legislation from a 
number of organizations, including the Consumer Mortgage Coalition, 
Credit Union National Association, National Association of Federal 
Credit Unions, and also NAMIC, PCI, and American Insurance Association, 
which in part states:

       All 50 States have a strong and comprehensive 
     antidiscrimination regulatory regime, including definitions 
     of unacceptable conduct and full panoply of enforcement tools 
     that includes rate approval, license revocation, and fines. 
     There is no evidence that these regimes are insufficient.

  Furthermore, they state:

       Under the disparate impact theory, even when a lender takes 
     every step to prevent discrimination and treats all consumers 
     fairly and equally, a neutral policy can serve as a basis for 
     very serious and harmful results.

  And ``could increase the cost and undermine the availability of 
credit throughout the economy.''
         American Bankers Association, American Financial Services 
           Association, Consumer Mortgage Coalition, Credit Union 
           National Association, Independent Community Bankers of 
           America, Mortgage Bankers Association, National 
           Association of Federal Credit Unions
                                                     May 29, 2014.
       Dear Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     undersigned organizations support Representative Garrett's 
     amendment to H.R. 4660, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015. The 
     amendment would prohibit any funds made available by the Act 
     from being used for litigation in which the Department of 
     Justice (DOJ) seeks to prove illegal discrimination based on 
     the ``disparate impact'' theory.
       All of our organizations and their member companies view 
     illegal discrimination in housing and lending as morally, 
     ethically, and legally abhorrent and do not tolerate it in 
     any size, shape or form. They are committed to providing 
     financial services to American consumers in full compliance 
     with all lending laws.
       Recently, the Department of Justice, along with the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), entered into a 
     $98 million settlement with Ally Financial and Ally Bank over 
     allegations that it discriminated against minority borrowers 
     in its indirect auto lending program. The order represents 
     the federal government's largest auto loan discrimination 
     settlement in history. The CFPB and DOJ based their 
     allegations solely on a disparate impact theory of 
     discrimination. They do not allege that Ally intentionally 
     discriminated against any consumers. This settlement was only 
     a part of a larger joint effort between the CFPB and DOJ to 
     address disparate impact in the auto lending market.
       Disparate impact claims also have been brought under the 
     Fair Housing Act pursuant to rules issued by the Department 
     of Housing and Urban Development. This is notwithstanding 
     that the basis for such claims under the Act is in 
     considerable dispute.
       Under the disparate impact theory, even when a lender takes 
     every step to prevent discrimination and treats all consumers 
     fairly and equally, a neutral policy can serve as a basis for 
     very serious and harmful claims in the absence of intentional 
     discrimination. Smaller lenders, in particular, will find it 
     difficult to manage this type of litigation risk. Left 
     unchecked, disparate impact enforcement could increase the 
     cost and undermine the availability of credit throughout the 
     economy.
       We ask the Members of the House of Representatives to vote 
     in favor of Representative Garrett's amendment.
         National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, 
           Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, 
           American Insurance Association
                                                     May 29, 2014.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: The 
     undersigned insurance trade organizations strongly support 
     Rep. Scott Garrett's amendment to H.R. 4660 to prevent the 
     Department of Justice (DOJ)

[[Page 9258]]

     from using funds to litigate in order to prove illegal 
     discrimination based on the ``disparate impact'' theory. In 
     particular, we are concerned about the use of the ``disparate 
     impact'' theory in relation to a Housing and Urban 
     Development (HUD) rule (24 C.F.R. 100.500) issued on February 
     15, 2013. The new rule would allow HUD and DOJ to hold 
     insurers liable for discrimination when a housing-related 
     practice has a discriminatory effect based on ``disparate 
     impact'' theory.
       We individually and collectively abhor any unfair 
     discrimination in any aspect of insurance. However, 
     application of the rule to the provision and pricing of 
     homeowners insurance as HUD intends is impractical and 
     contrary to existing State and Federal law. All 50 States 
     have a strong and comprehensive anti-discrimination 
     regulatory regime, including definitions of unacceptable 
     conduct and a full panoply of enforcement tools that includes 
     rate approval, license revocation, and fines. There is no 
     evidence that these regimes have been insufficient.
       The rule could be used to challenge common and regulator-
     approved factors used for risk-based pricing--including an 
     applicant's claims history, construction materials, the 
     presence or absence of a security system, and distance from a 
     firehouse--if they were found to result in a statistical 
     disparity for a class defined by race, ethnicity, or gender. 
     However, accurate risk classification is essential to the 
     business of insurance and treating similar risk profiles in a 
     similar manner is a form of reasonable and fair underwriting 
     that is at the very heart of the business of insurance. The 
     rule ignores this and under it, an insurance company acting 
     in full compliance with a State rating law standard could see 
     itself challenged under the ``disparate impact'' theory.
       Accordingly, the rule is impractical and contrary to 
     existing law. Therefore, we support passage of Mr. Garrett's 
     amendment to H.R. 4660 to prevent DOJ from funding litigation 
     to prove illegal discrimination based on the ``disparate 
     impact'' theory.
           Sincerely,
       American Insurance Association, National Association of 
     Mutual Insurance Companies, Property Casualty Insurers 
     Association of America.
  Mr. GARRETT. In the end, Mr. Chairman, what we are intending to do 
here is to allow for the Justice Department to proceed when there is 
evidence of intentional discrimination. But when there is no evidence 
whatsoever, when it is purely on statistics, then it should not proceed 
under that theory of law.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I want to make just one other point here.
  Every single Federal appellate court has upheld a way to proceed in 
terms of looking at the impact of policies.
  What the gentleman offers is that if American baseball looks like it 
looked prior to Jackie Robinson, that that is just perfectly fine. I 
happen to think that American baseball is a little bit as a pastime 
more enjoyable for all of us after the Jackie Robinson decision, which 
was to take into account those who have been left out and to take an 
affirmative action to include them in. That is the America I want my 
children to grow up in.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Luetkemeyer

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to carry out Operation Choke Point.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Chairman, how does the Federal Government get 
rid of an industry it simply doesn't like? Easy. It cuts that industry 
off from the financial services it needs to operate.
  Sound impossible? Sure, it does. However, that is exactly what the 
Department of Justice is doing in conjunction with the FDIC. This 
program even has a name: Operation Choke Point. It is designed to force 
legally operating and licensed entities out of business by choking them 
off from the financial services they need.
  What started with nondepository lenders is spreading to other 
industries. Media reports indicate that DOJ is now pressuring financial 
institutions that service the gun and ammunition industries. As a 
former bank examiner and banker, I know how they are using the power of 
their position to intimidate the banks and undermine the banks' ability 
to serve their customers who are doing a legal business. It is just 
plain wrong, Mr. Chairman.
  However, I want to be very clear. I strongly support DOJ's authority 
to go after the bad actors. Those actions should be commended and 
should not be inhibited. But what cannot be tolerated is the Federal 
Government using its authority to broadly target entire industries, 
including those that obey the law and are living within the rules.
  The staff report just released in the Oversight Committee summarizes 
853 pages of internal DOJ documents. Many of these internal documents 
show that even DOJ officials question the legality of their actions, 
and yet they continue.
  This isn't a Republican or Democrat issue. This isn't a conservative 
or liberal issue. This is an issue of DOJ stepping outside the law.
  We have worked on a bipartisan basis to inform DOJ and other 
regulators of the unintended consequences of Operation Choke Point, but 
those concerns have fallen on deaf ears.
  As a result, this bipartisan amendment is an important step to 
ensuring that DOJ can continue to do its job, but makes clear the 
Department must not abuse its authorities.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), my good friend.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Luetkemeyer.
  I supported the original intent of Operation Choke Point, which 
sought to restrict online payday lenders, usually operating from 
overseas, from lending in States that prohibit payday lending, but the 
program expanded and is now being pushed well beyond its stated 
objective.
  Eliminating fraud and illegal transactions from our Nation's payment 
system should continue to be a priority for the Department of Justice 
and other Federal regulators, but employing a ``dragnet'' on companies 
engaged in legitimate business activities is wrong.
  State banking commissioners have also expressed concerns the Federal 
agencies are attempting to deny essential banking services to lawful 
State-licensed firms.
  Operation Choke Point pressures banks to close accounts and stop 
processing payments for those businesses that pose a reputational risk.
  What is happening here is this approach, this dragnet approach, 
causes a chilling effect on legitimate businesses and legitimate 
banking services. As a consequence, going after bad guys, the 
Department of Justice needs to do that, but not in such a broad, all-
inclusive way to chill legitimate business.
  That is why I support this amendment, and ask for an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. LUETKEMEYER. With that, Mr. Chairman, I just want to close by 
saying I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's support.
  This is an agency that has gone well beyond the scope of its 
authority. It even questions its own authority in its internal memos. 
The original intent is questionable, but at this point it has gone well 
beyond even the original intent. There is now even a list of other 
industries to go after.
  I think that this is a situation where we need to stop what is going 
on, and I think my amendment clearly sets out what needs to be done.

[[Page 9259]]

  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
Consumer and financial fraud are major crimes in the country, and fraud 
investigations are a matter of high priority for the FBI.
  I just think this issue ought to be addressed by the committee of 
jurisdiction. In this case, the Judiciary Committee, also the Financial 
Services Committee.
  We do hear stories of, outside of military bases, veterans being 
exploited.
  I am just concerned about what it actually means, and I think it 
ought to be looked at by the committee of jurisdiction and not by the 
Appropriations Committee at 11:15 at night. So for that reason I oppose 
the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I concur with the chairman. Maybe it will get approved, 
but not in our bill and not at this time because we don't completely 
understand it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     under the heading ``Department of Justice--Office of Justice 
     Programs--State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance'' may be 
     used in contravention of section 642(a) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.

                              {time}  2315

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits any of the 
funds used within this portion of the bill from going to cities that 
have passed and enacted what we call sanctuary cities or sanctuary 
political subdivisions. The section of the code that we refer to, 8 
U.S.C. 1373, reads this way:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or 
     local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or 
     official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any 
     government entity or official from sending to or receiving 
     from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which would 
     now be ICE, information regarding the citizenship or 
     immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

  This is current law. We have multiple cities in the country that are 
violating current law, and they are doing so with impunity, and when we 
send funds out of this appropriations bill to those cities, it simply 
ignores an opportunity that we have to restrain these cities, which is 
for them to come back and comply with Federal law.
  I was brought up in a law enforcement family. I had the Constitution 
waved at me on a regular basis. It was expressed to me clearly that it 
is the supreme law of the land, and the enumerator powers in it, which 
this Congress does assert and defend, are included within 8 U.S.C. 
1373.
  In other words, Mr. Chairman, if these cities and if these political 
subdivisions disagree with Federal law, they can come here and ask 
Congress to change the law, but to defy it and to do so with the level 
of impunity that they have cannot be accepted by the United States 
Congress. We have a responsibility to assert our constitutional and 
statutory authority.
  That is what my amendment does. It says any cities that have 
sanctuary policies and that implement those sanctuary policies are not 
going to receive funds out of this section of the bill, and the dollar 
figure we are dealing with here is from a fund of $1.235 billion.
  I would point out that, today, the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
Jeh Johnson, testified before the Judiciary Committee. He was speaking 
specifically of Secure Communities, the act that allows for 
fingerprints to be transferred back and forth between the Department of 
Homeland Security, the FBI, or the NCIC.
  He said:

       Even with the Secure Communities issue, we have mayors and 
     Governors pursuing laws that limit the effectiveness of 
     Secure Communities.

  This addresses Secure Communities in this way, and it addresses 
sanctuary city policies, of which the Secure Communities policy, 
according to Secretary Jeh Johnson, is a very worthy one.
  So this supports at least the tone of the message delivered today in 
the Judiciary Committee, and it supports what this Congress has done 
multiple times in the past. I urge the adoption of my amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, obviously, between the Garrett amendment on 
disparate impact and this, this is, I guess, not actually part of their 
effort to reach out for a greater fan base--the idea that local 
communities can't make decisions in their own interests and that we 
need the heavy hand of the Federal Government to herd them into some 
particular set of responsibilities that are actually our 
responsibilities.
  Immigration law is our responsibility. It is not a local community's 
responsibility. When the fire department shows up, it is supposed to 
put the fire out, not worry about where someone's papers are. I just 
think that it is somewhat contradictory of what we hear from the other 
team about where they are headed, but this might be representative 
thereof, rather than doing comprehensive immigration reform.
  We must do our job as the United States Congress. Now, the Senate has 
done its job. The President has said that he wants to sign a 
comprehensive bill. The Chamber of Commerce and all of the various 
religious and faith-based groups in our country have come forward, but 
rather than the Congress taking up a bill--any bill--on immigration 
reform, what we have is this constant effort to get at local 
communities that are just trying to make the best of a very tough 
situation that the Federal Government is creating.
  Now, we will burden them because we don't want to take our 
responsibility and enact a comprehensive immigration program.
  I am opposed to this amendment, but I am pleased that the gentleman 
has reminded us that this is, in essence, the immigration program that 
has some currency from the majority party. We should do something 
different than this, and we can.
  There are 218 votes on this floor that would do comprehensive 
immigration reform if we would bring it, then we wouldn't have to deal 
with these kinds of amendments year in and year out, bill in and bill 
out, because we would have dealt with the problem.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that these 
political subdivisions, particularly in the cities, are contravening 
and ordering their officers not to cooperate with Federal immigration 
officers, refusing to allow them to collaborate with or to transport or 
to otherwise cooperate with our Federal immigration officers.
  We simply cannot have a law enforcement structure in the United 
States where you don't have local and State and Federal officers 
cooperating with each other. It is not good for our communities' 
security, and it is not good for our national security.
  This is in defiance with and in contravention of Federal law that 
directs that they cannot do this. They write these ordinances anyway in 
defiance of

[[Page 9260]]

the law, and this Congress must assert its primary authority over the 
funding that flows to those communities.
  If we fail to do that, we shouldn't be surprised if there are many 
other Federal laws that are contravened or defied, so I would urge its 
adoption.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Meadows

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to negotiate or enter into a trade agreement that 
     establishes a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. The 
     limitation described in this section shall not apply in the 
     case of the administration of a tax or tariff.

  Mr. MEADOWS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, I have a very simple amendment. Currently, 
there are negotiations going on with the USTR. This amendment would 
prohibit funding to have any of the negotiations to enter into a trade 
agreement that would establish a limit on greenhouse gas emissions.
  The 110th Congress--Democratically-controlled Congress--rejected the 
cap-and-trade in 2009. It would be very clear in supporting this 
amendment that we would carry on the will of the House in terms of 
making sure that we wouldn't use any funds to circumvent the will of 
Congress.
  Additionally, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce came out recently with 
proposed rules from the EPA, which are set to come out next week, that 
would indicate that these types of rules could cost anywhere in the 
neighborhood of 3.5 million jobs over the next 15 years.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to seek time in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment?
  Seeing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hudson

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the amounts made available by this Act 
     may be used for any program not authorized by law as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to offer an amendment 
to the CJS appropriations bill that would prohibit the funding for any 
program that is not authorized by law.
  For far too long, Congress has continued to appropriate spending on 
government programs with little or no oversight. Our country has 
essentially been on autopilot towards a cliff of fiscal and economic 
disaster.
  This has resulted in a massive and out-of-control, bloated 
bureaucracy. In this bill alone, there are 141 unauthorized programs. 
Some of these programs were last authorized in 1993, and there are 
others that have never been authorized.
  In total, these unauthorized and unchecked programs in this 
legislation receive $57 billion. With over $17 trillion in debt, it is 
time for us to say: enough is enough.
  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUDSON. Yes, I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania when 
I get a second.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funding in the bill for 
unauthorized programs. It parallels my Sunset Act of 2014, H.R. 3847, 
which would force Congress to actually do oversight and evaluate each 
individual program.
  This type of sweeping reform would dramatically overhaul the way 
Washington budgets and spends hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and it 
would allow Congress to finally take back control, scale back our 
bloated bureaucracy, and provide accountability for the Federal 
Government.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thought the gentleman would yield for a 
second.
  My question was that a large swath of our bill has not been 
authorized, including NASA, so we have to deal with transport back and 
forth to the International Space Station.
  Even though it has not been reauthorized, your amendment, as written, 
would seem to prohibit NASA from being able to conduct life-sustaining 
activities relative to the space station.
  That was my question. The gentleman neglected to yield, but I will 
have it stand as a rhetorical question for the moment, and I oppose the 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.


           Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Collins of Georgia

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide assistance to a State, or political 
     subdivision of a State, that has in effect any law, policy, 
     or procedure in contravention of immigration laws (as defined 
     in section 101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))).

  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the 
opportunity, and it looks like I am probably bringing up the boots. I 
think I am on a boat, as they say. I am the last one coming in.
  I just want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for the 
time. I have been watching all night, and I

[[Page 9261]]

just want to thank you all for the work you have done on this bill, and 
I look forward to offering this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment to ensure that no funds 
appropriated under H.R. 4660 are used to assist States and localities 
whose laws and policies are in direct contradiction to Federal 
immigration law and enforcement efforts.
  State and local jurisdictions are implementing policies that directly 
contradict U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's statutorily-
mandated mission to identify and ultimately remove illegal aliens who 
are currently incarcerated.
  Not only do these policies go against the spirit and the letter of 
the laws enacted by this body, but they ultimately do a disservice to 
the very communities that they are designed to protect.
  Local jurisdictions are increasingly implementing policies that bar 
State and local officials, including law enforcement officials, from 
asking people about their immigration statuses, from reporting them to 
Federal immigration authorities, or otherwise cooperating with or 
assisting Federal immigration authorities.
  Some jurisdictions are even going farther to defy Federal law by 
implementing antidetainer policies that restrict local and State police 
from cooperating with Federal authorities that are seeking to remove 
aliens who have been arrested and charged with other crimes, and when 
local sheriffs choose to follow the Federal law and honor ICE 
detainers, some have been slapped with a lawsuit for cooperating with 
these detainers.
  In response to a number of local jurisdictions for their refusing to 
honor ICE detainers in all or in many cases, former ICE Director John 
Morton warned of what would occur.
  He said that:

       The approach of one particular county is ultimately going 
     to lead to additional crimes that would have been prevented 
     had we been able to enforce the law as the law is presently 
     written.

  I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment and send 
a clear message that, if localities and jurisdictions refuse to honor 
ICE detainers and implement policies in contradiction to Federal 
immigration law, they should not be eligible to receive funds under 
this act, specifically Federal reimbursement grants under the State 
Criminal Alien Assistance Program.
  With that, Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2330

  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in direct opposition to 
the amendment, and I rise with mixed emotions. I am very pleased this 
is the last amendment. But, nonetheless, I am opposed to it--not in the 
main. That is to say, of course, none of the funds in this bill should 
be used to operate contrary to our laws, but some of the vagueness of 
the language as it intersects with State and local communities and 
decisions they may make.
  So, for instance, a local community may say that in an emergency 
situation public safety officers should not engage in questions about 
whether you have papers or not. Or, when you are seeking information 
about a child that has been kidnapped, and you go to a certain home or 
family, you shouldn't be questioning them about their immigration 
status when you are trying to save a child who could be in imminent 
danger.
  There could be circumstances in which this apparent language would 
create a real problem.
  I reluctantly oppose the amendment. I thank the gentleman for joining 
the party and closing us out tonight, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the ranking 
member's opinion on that. As the son of a Georgia State trooper, I 
think the descriptions that you have just made are basically a little 
bit of hyperbole in the sense that when an officer or others go in an 
emergency and have this situation in which they would not act in the 
best interest of the situation which they are in.
  All we are simply saying is we are not going to give Federal funds to 
cities and localities and States who want to directly contradict 
immigration local law in the normal course of business. That is exactly 
what this amendment does, and will continue to do so.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the minority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, first, let me briefly say I rise to speak on this bill 
which directly impacts our economy, our competitiveness, and our 
ability to create jobs that pay well and open doors of opportunity.
  While there are many positives to this bill--not limited to the 
strong support of NASA and the Goddard Space Flight Center, which is in 
my district, as well as robust funding for the National Science 
Foundation--this bill nonetheless makes two deep cuts to vital programs 
that protect against crime, promote innovation, and facilitate exports.
  But the reason I wanted to come to the floor is because I wanted to 
take a moment to congratulate my friend, Representative Frank Wolf of 
Virginia, the chairman of the subcommittee who is managing this bill on 
the Republican side.
  Frank was elected in 1980. I was elected a few months later in a 
special election in 1981. We served together for 23 years on the 
Appropriations Committee. We served all that time until I left when I 
was elected majority leader.
  We served on the Helsinki Commission together, which fought for human 
rights while the Soviet Union existed and so many were enslaved behind 
the Iron Curtain.
  Frank Wolf has chaired this subcommittee for many, many years. He has 
done so with honor, with honesty, and with fairness.
  He and I have served together in this House for 33 years. We sat 
together on the Appropriations Committee, as I said, for 23. When he 
retires at the end of this Congress, it will be a significant loss to 
the people of his district and to this House, which he has served so 
well.
  We may sit, Frank, on opposite sides of the aisle, but that has done 
nothing to diminish the friendship and alliance we have forged over the 
course of our service together, and the level of respect I have for him 
as a legislator and as a human being.
  He has been indefatigable, Mr. Chairman, in his work on behalf of his 
constituents, on behalf of our Federal employees, and on behalf of the 
interests of the Washington metropolitan area.
  This is his final Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill, 
at least as being initiated on this House floor.
  I know his passion and professionalism when it comes to these issues 
will be greatly missed, not only by the many outside groups that 
provide input to him and the subcommittee each year, but to his 
Democratic colleagues on the subcommittee, including Ranking Member 
Chaka Fattah, with whom he has worked so well, and previous ranking 
members who have worked well with him. I applaud them for their work.
  Frank Wolf is a principled, courageous, tenacious advocate for human 
rights in every corner of the Earth. I have traveled with him 
frequently behind the Iron Curtain to argue for those who were 
discriminated against, whose human rights were undermined, and whose 
civil rights did not exist.
  Frank Wolf is always prepared to go anywhere, anytime, in the 
toughest of circumstances, by himself and yes, with others, to advocate 
on behalf of those who had no advocate.
  I have had the privilege of working with Congressman Wolf on many 
issues over the years. I have always

[[Page 9262]]

found him focused on the merits of issues and not on their politics.
  Mr. Chairman, I join all my colleagues in thanking him for his 
service to this House, to the subcommittee, to the Nation he served in 
the uniform of the United States Army, and to the people of his 
district.
  I look forward, Frank, to working with you the balance of this year 
as you continue your focus and advocacy on behalf of the issues which 
you so ably support.
  The 113th Congress will come to an end, and Frank Wolf will leave us. 
He will still have many things to accomplish. He will still make many 
significant and important contributions to his country and to his 
community.
  I know that all the Members join me, Frank, in thanking you for your 
service, your dedication, and your friendship.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I think we all owe thanks to Frank Wolf and 
Mr. Fattah for all of the work that they have done today.
  This has been a long, hard slog. There has been dozens of amendments 
and almost endless debate, but they have stayed at the chore and they 
have guided us through this maze that we have been coming through--and, 
I think, done really well.
  So I want to thank both of them for the hard work they have done on 
this bill yesterday, last night, and today and tonight.
  In addition to what the minority leader has said about Frank Wolf, I 
want to say that he and I came here together in the same class. There 
are only three of us left out of 54 now; two after he leaves.
  Frank Wolf, as the leader has said, never fails in compassion and 
honesty and transparency. He is above board. What you see is what you 
get. They say that character is when you do the right thing when no one 
is watching. Certainly, that is true of Frank Wolf.
  He is a patriot. He served his State, his district, his Nation, and 
the people of the world, for that matter, in an exemplary way. I can 
think of no one in this body that I have served with in these years 
together who better exemplifies honesty, integrity, and devotion to his 
country and family as has Frank Wolf.
  So, Frank, we are going to miss you dearly. This is the last time 
that you will chair this bill on the House floor. You have been a great 
chairman of this subcommittee which I had the pleasure and honor of 
serving as chairman of for several years, and as a member of that 
subcommittee for many, many years. No one has done it better.
  Our hearts are open when it comes to our love of Frank Wolf. We wish 
him the very best in the next chapter of his life.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Walberg

  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my request 
for a recorded vote on my amendment be withdrawn to the end that the 
amendment stand adopted by the earlier voice vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the request for a recorded vote 
is withdrawn, and the amendment stands adopted in accordance with the 
earlier voice vote thereon.
  There was no objection.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Moran of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 14 by Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.
  Amendment No. 15 by Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.
  Amendment by Ms. Bonamici of Oregon.
  Amendment No. 25 by Mr. Rohrabacher of California.
  Amendment by Mr. Holding of North Carolina.
  Amendment by Mr. Massie of Kentucky.
  Amendment No. 24 by Mr. Southerland of Florida.
  Amendment by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
  Amendment by Mr. Grayson of Florida.
  Amendment by Mr. Duffy of Wisconsin.
  Amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
  Amendment by Mr. King of Iowa.
  Amendment by Mr. Meadows of North Carolina.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Moran

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169, 
noes 230, not voting 32, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 254]

                               AYES--169

     Amash
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Welch
     Yarmuth
     Yoho

                               NOES--230

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bentivolio
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry

[[Page 9263]]


     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--32

     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Campbell
     Capito
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Duckworth
     Flores
     Green, Al
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hurt
     Lankford
     Lewis
     McAllister
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (PA)
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall

                              {time}  0008

  Ms. JENKINS, Messrs. GRAVES of Missouri and McKINLEY changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. JONES, STOCKMAN, and LARSON of Connecticut changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148, 
noes 253, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 255]

                               AYES--148

     Amash
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Capps
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Cotton
     Daines
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--253

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Cantor
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Richmond
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--30

     Benishek
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capito
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Duckworth
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Kaptur
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis
     Maloney, Carolyn
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman
     Woodall

                              {time}  0011

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 255, I was 
unexpectedly detained and therefore missed the vote. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''


               Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs.

[[Page 9264]]

Blackburn) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198, 
noes 208, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 256]

                               AYES--198

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

                               NOES--208

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

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Benishek
     Campbell
     Capito
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Duckworth
     Green, Al
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Lankford
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman
     Woodall

                              {time}  0015

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


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Bonamici

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, 
noes 170, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 257]

                               AYES--237

     Amash
     Amodei
     Barber
     Barr
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibson
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Reed
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen

[[Page 9265]]


     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--170

     Aderholt
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Cook
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Issa
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lynch
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Benishek
     Campbell
     Capito
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Green, Al
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Lankford
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman
     Woodall

                              {time}  0018

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


              Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219, 
noes 189, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 258]

                               AYES--219

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barber
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSantis
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (SC)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Garrett
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hunter
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Reed
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--189

     Aderholt
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bilirakis
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Long
     Lucas
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Benishek
     Campbell
     Capito
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Green, Al
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Lankford
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  0022

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Holding

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Holding) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page 9266]]

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219, 
noes 189, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 259]

                               AYES--219

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

                               NOES--189

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

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Benishek
     Campbell
     Capito
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Green, Al
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Lankford
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  0025

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Massie

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246, 
noes 162, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 260]

                               AYES--246

     Amash
     Barber
     Barr
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibson
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Massie
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Reed
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tipton

[[Page 9267]]


     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--162

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan (SC)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hensarling
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Issa
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Levin
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lynch
     Marino
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Pearce
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Scalise
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Williams
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Benishek
     Campbell
     Capito
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Green, Al
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Lankford
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  0029

  Ms. PELOSI changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


              Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Southerland

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 223, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 261]

                               AYES--185

     Amash
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Heck (NV)
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Keating
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Pallone
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Ribble
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--223

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Capps
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Hurt
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Benishek
     Campbell
     Capito
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Green, Al
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Lankford
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  0033

  Messrs. PALLONE and AMASH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

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

[[Page 9268]]

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 211, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 262]

                               AYES--196

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

                               NOES--211

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

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Benishek
     Bishop (GA)
     Campbell
     Capito
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Green, Al
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Lankford
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  0036

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 262, I intended to vote 
``no'' rather than the recorded vote of ``yes.'' I would have voted 
``no.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 183, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 263]

                               AYES--225

     Amash
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Flores
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gosar
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harris
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Reed
     Richmond
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walz

[[Page 9269]]


     Wasserman Schultz
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--183

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Connolly
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tonko
     Turner
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Benishek
     Campbell
     Capito
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Green, Al
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Lankford
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  0039

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


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Duffy

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229, 
noes 178, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 264]

                               AYES--229

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

                               NOES--178

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

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Benishek
     Campbell
     Capito
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Green, Al
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Lankford
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  0042

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 264, I missed the vote. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett

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

[[Page 9270]]

  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes 190, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 265]

                               AYES--216

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

                               NOES--190

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

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Benishek
     Campbell
     Capito
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Green, Al
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Lankford
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Neal
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  0045

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Chair, during rollcall vote No. 265 on H.R. 4660, I 
mistakenly recorded my vote as ``aye'' when I should have voted 
``nay''.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, 
noes 194, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 266]

                               AYES--214

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

[[Page 9271]]



                               NOES--194

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

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Benishek
     Campbell
     Capito
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Green, Al
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Lankford
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  0048

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Meadows

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226, 
noes 179, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 267]

                               AYES--226

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

                               NOES--179

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

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Benishek
     Campbell
     Capito
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Fattah
     Green, Al
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Kaptur
     Lankford
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Nolan
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  0051

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read the last two lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Commerce, Justice, Science, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015''.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise and report 
the bill back to the House with sundry

[[Page 9272]]

amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to 
and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Westmoreland) having assumed the chair, Mr. Conaway, Acting Chair of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4660) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and 
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, directed him to report the 
bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted in the Committee 
of the Whole, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to 
and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under House Resolution 585, the previous 
question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. MOORE. Yes, sir, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Moore moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4660 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:
       Page 38, line 2 (relating to amounts made available for 
     Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs), 
     after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by 
     $1,000,000)''.
       Page 38, line 8 (relating to amounts made available for 
     grants to combat violence against women), after the dollar 
     amount, insert ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 44, line 6 (relating to amounts made available for 
     State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance), after the dollar 
     amount, insert ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 47, line 21 (relating to amounts made available for 
     grants to address backlogs of sexual assault kits at law 
     enforcement agencies), after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 52, line 18 (relating to amounts made available for 
     Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Programs), after 
     the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 53, line 6 (relating to amounts made available for 
     grants for the hiring and rehiring of additional career law 
     enforcement officers under the COPS Program), after the 
     dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $3,000,000)''.
       Page 70, line 17, after the first dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.

  Ms. MOORE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment of this bill. 
This amendment will not kill the bill nor will it merely send it back 
to committee, but rather, if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed 
to final passage as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is straightforward and simple. 
It would increase funding for three critical priorities: first, our 
chronically underfunded Violence Against Women Act programs; second, 
for grants to process the backlog on rape kits; and, third, for our 
Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, grants program, which was 
slashed deeply in the appropriations bill before us tonight.
  Now, given the limited time that I have and the late hour that I have 
to discuss all these issues, I just want to focus my remarks on one of 
the Nation's staggering backlogs that we haven't talked about. We have 
talked, and importantly, about the backlog at the Veterans 
Administration, but we have been silent about the backlog of the sexual 
assault kits that have not been analyzed. We have not seen a similar 
amount of attention paid to the crisis in these rape kits that have 
been backlogged.
  We have all heard these harrowing tales from our communities from 
young women and men who have waited so long for justice--and waited, 
and waited, and waited, and waited some more. These victims have not 
only endured the initial assault, but they have also endured an 
invasive exam to collect DNA shortly after the attack.
  Mr. Speaker, these exams last for over 4 hours in some cases. It is 
unimaginable how difficult this is to bear. It takes so much courage 
for a victim to come forward and endure in hopes that the perpetrator 
will be caught. You know, it is the very least we owe to these victims 
to process all of the evidence, yet thousands of victims across the 
country never hear anything ever again.
  Police already possess the evidence that is needed to identify and 
convict the perpetrators of these crimes, yet criminals remain at large 
primarily because these unprocessed kits remain in back rooms, 
warehouses, and labs. And given the sad reality that most sex offenders 
are recidivists, it is imperative that we close the loop on these old 
cases so offenders don't seek out new victims.
  Part of the terror of being raped is knowing that the perpetrator is 
still out there, he can come back to get you, someone else, you don't 
know who he is, and it puts not only that individual in terror, but 
puts the whole community in terror.
  On the aggregate level, the Department of Justice has tallied about 
400,000 rape kits that remain sitting in evidence lockers, largely 
because local authorities can't afford the $500 to $1,500 it costs to 
test these kits. Some of these kits go back to the 1980s. And even 
though this evidence is old, Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't assume that they 
are meaningless.
  In Detroit, law enforcement personnel, as an example, are currently 
analyzing 11,000 abandoned kits they found in a warehouse. Six years, 
these kits have been sitting there for 6 years. After processing only 
10 percent of these rape kits, they have identified 46 serial rapists 
that they have identified.

                              {time}  0100

  In New York City, they showed that after they processed their backlog 
of 17,000 kits, the arrest rate for rape kits increased from 40 percent 
to 70 percent.
  The overwhelmingly scourge of backlogged kits require nothing less 
than a national commitment, Mr. Speaker, including a dedicated response 
from the United States Congress.
  I am pleased that the bill before us tonight fulfills the request 
from the Obama administration to provide funding for a new grant 
program to inventory and test rape kits, develop units to pursue new 
investigative leads, and offer support to victims during the process.
  The new investment through this bipartisan bill is an important first 
step.
  However, through simple addition, we can tally the pending cost of 
clearing the backlog.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, we have now spent more than 15 hours debating 
and amending this bipartisan bill--and I appreciate Mr. Fattah's help 
in it--that sufficiently and responsibly funds Federal programs that 
provide for our safety and economic well-being.
  This legislation ensures that our laws are enforced, that our 
businesses have the tools needed to succeed, and that uncertainty 
doesn't hinder progress.
  This bill already provides targeted increases for counterterrorism 
and cybersecurity, fights the scourge of drug abuse, and bolsters 
American scientific innovation and manufacturing.

[[Page 9273]]

  This is also a landmark bill for reducing violence against women. It 
strengthens services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, 
and stalking by funding above the current level and above the 
President's request for these programs.
  In addition, it increases funding for victim assistance and programs 
that will address human trafficking.
  After amendments, the bill includes $41 million for the Community 
Response Teams to address the sexual assault kit backlog program.
  This is $6 million--17 percent--above the President's request.
  The bill also includes $125 million for core DNA programs, including 
the Debbie Smith program.
  This is $25 million above the President's request.
  Moreover, we do all this while staying within our allocation for this 
bill--$400 million less than last year. Making commonsense reductions 
and eliminating waste wherever possible helps make a more efficient 
government that won't create undue doubt about the fiscal future of the 
Nation.
  The bill has had bipartisan support throughout the process, and I 
believe it deserves bipartisan support today.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this motion to recommit and pass H.R. 
4660 tonight, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 185, 
noes 220, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 268]

                               AYES--185

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

                               NOES--220

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

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Johnson, E. B.
     Lofgren
       

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Benishek
     Campbell
     Capito
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Gardner
     Green, Al
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Lankford
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  0108

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 321, 
nays 87, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 269]

                               YEAS--321

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Beatty
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capps
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chu
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner

[[Page 9274]]


     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kilmer
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matsui
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                                NAYS--87

     Amash
     Bass
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Franks (AZ)
     Gabbard
     Gingrey (GA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Heck (WA)
     Holt
     Huffman
     Jeffries
     Jones
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Labrador
     Lee (CA)
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lummis
     Massie
     Matheson
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Pallone
     Payne
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Quigley
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Tierney
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Velazquez
     Welch

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Benishek
     Campbell
     Capito
     Chaffetz
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cramer
     Dingell
     Green, Al
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Lankford
     Lewis
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Palazzo
     Rangel
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Vela
     Waters
     Waxman

                              {time}  0114

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________