Amendment Text: H.Amdt.1092 — 112th Congress (2011-2012)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (05/09/2012)

This Amendment appears on page H2539 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H2515-H2551]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2013

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 643 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. 5326.
  Will the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) kindly resume the chair.

                              {time}  1803


                     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. 5326) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, with Mr. Price of 
Georgia (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Flores) had been postponed and the bill had been read 
through page 101, line 10.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will

[[Page H2516]]

now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  An amendment by Mr. Chaffetz of Utah.
  An amendment by Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts.
  An amendment by Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.
  Amendment No. 38 by Mr. Duncan of South Carolina.
  An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
  An amendment by Mr. Schweikert of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 46 by Mr. Webster of Florida.
  The first amendment by Mr. Flores of Texas.
  The second amendment by Mr. Flores of Texas.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any 
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Chaffetz

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Chaffetz) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 381, 
noes 41, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 226]

                               AYES--381

     Ackerman
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clay
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly (VA)
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heinrich
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Olver
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quayle
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Webster
     Welch
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                                NOES--41

     Andrews
     Becerra
     Butterfield
     Carson (IN)
     Chu
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Edwards
     Fudge
     Hahn
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     Meeks
     Moran
     Pascrell
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rothman (NJ)
     Schakowsky
     Scott, David
     Stark
     Waters
     Watt
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Costa
     Donnelly (IN)
     Filner
     Garamendi
     Kucinich
     Pelosi
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1829

  Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois, ROTHMAN of New Jersey, BECERRA, Ms. CLARKE 
of New York, Ms. WATERS, Mr. HONDA and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Messrs. 
BRADY of Pennsylvania, COFFMAN of Colorado, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. DEUTCH, Ms. 
CASTOR of Florida, Messrs. ACKERMAN, RICHMOND, KEATING, ELLISON, Ms. 
WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Ms. BASS of California, Mr. GONZALEZ and Ms. JACKSON 
LEE of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 226, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded that remaining votes in this 
series will be 2-minute votes.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tierney

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) 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 160, 
noes 260, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 227]

                               AYES--160

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Camp
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Chandler
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clay
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crawford
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Dent
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellison
     Farr
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy

[[Page H2517]]


     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Harris
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pence
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (SC)
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Waters
     Watt
     Welch
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--260

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Barletta
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Clarke (NY)
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cravaack
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     DeLauro
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (PA)
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Renacci
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sutton
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walberg
     Walsh (IL)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Cleaver
     Donnelly (IN)
     Filner
     Garamendi
     Kucinich
     Miller (FL)
     Pelosi
     Slaughter
     Sullivan


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1832

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 227, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chair, due to being unavoidably detained, 
I missed the following rollcall vote: No. 227 on May 9, 2012. If 
present, I would have voted ``no.''


                  Amendment 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 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 194, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 228]

                               AYES--229

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--194

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee

[[Page H2518]]


     Kind
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Donnelly (IN)
     Filner
     Kucinich
     McCaul
     Schmidt
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1836

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 228, I made an 
error voting. It was my intention to vote ``aye'' on the Blackburn 
Amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 228, I was away from the 
Capitol due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''


        Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Duncan of South Carolina

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Duncan) 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 232, 
noes 192, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 229]

                               AYES--232

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Long
     Lucas
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--192

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Donnelly (IN)
     Filner
     Kucinich
     Schmidt
     Slaughter


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. SCHILLING changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 229, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                    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.
  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 238, 
noes 185, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 230]

                               AYES--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei

[[Page H2519]]


     Austria
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--185

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Donnelly (IN)
     Filner
     Kucinich
     Schmidt
     Slaughter
     Sullivan


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1844

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 230, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Schweikert

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Schweikert) 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 232, 
noes 190, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 231]

                               AYES--232

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amodei
     Austria
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--190

     Ackerman
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah

[[Page H2520]]


     Forbes
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rigell
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Donnelly (IN)
     Filner
     Kucinich
     Miller (NC)
     Schmidt
     Slaughter
     Welch


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1847

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 231, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Webster

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Webster) 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 232, 
noes 190, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 232]

                               AYES--232

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--190

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner (OH)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Donnelly (IN)
     Filner
     Kucinich
     Olver
     Schmidt
     Slaughter
     Welch


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1850

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 232, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Flores

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the first amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Flores) 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 250, 
noes 173, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 233]

                               AYES--250

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash

[[Page H2521]]


     Amodei
     Austria
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--173

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Donnelly (IN)
     Filner
     Kucinich
     Schmidt
     Slaughter
     Welch


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1854

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 233, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Flores

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the second amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Flores) 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 246, 
noes 174, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 234]

                               AYES--246

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Barletta
     Barrow
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Critz
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Hochul
     Holden
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kissell
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Rahall
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (AR)
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--174

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Bass (CA)
     Bass (NH)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch

[[Page H2522]]


     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dold
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Stearns
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bishop (UT)
     Donnelly (IN)
     Filner
     Kucinich
     Napolitano
     Schmidt
     Slaughter
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1857

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chair, on rollcall 234, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The gentleman from 
Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. I rise today for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy 
about the importance of computer science in a balanced program of 
science, technology, education, and math. I thank the chairman for 
including extensive language in the committee report on STEM education, 
but I would like to highlight today some specific needs in the critical 
area of computer science.
  More than 1.5 million high-wage computing jobs will be created by 
2018--the largest growth area across science, technology, engineering, 
and math. Yet few computer science classes are available to students; 
and when they're offered, they're typically only electives. Many States 
don't have proper teacher certification programs for K 12 computer 
science and don't clearly connect the certification to content. In 
recent years, the number of computer science bachelor degrees in the 
U.S. actually fell from 60,000 to 38,000, even as computer science 
breakthroughs are transforming our economy.
  I have legislation--the Computer Science Education Act--that focuses 
on this issue, but there are other steps as well. First, I believe it's 
important that Federal STEM education programs explicitly incorporate 
the broad definition of science, technology, engineering, and math 
reported by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and 
Technology. This definition helps make sure that STEM is sufficiently 
interpreted and not too narrowly to cover just math. Second, to ensure 
that there's a comprehensive pipeline for science from K 12 all the way 
through to the workforce, it's essential that NSF and other Agencies 
identify our Nation's highest STEM-related workforce needs and use that 
information to prioritize STEM-related subjects in our schools.
  I very much look forward to working with the chairman to address 
these issues as this bill continues to move forward through the 
appropriations process. I'm grateful to the chair for this conversation 
and his perspectives on all these critical issues, and I yield to the 
gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman for his comments and for his active 
support of STEM education in all forms. We'll be happy to work with the 
gentleman as we move forward to ensure that NSF and other Agencies in 
this bill are getting the most appropriate direction on STEM education 
needs and priorities.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McKINLEY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of a colloquy with 
the chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to discuss one of my top 
priorities with you today: NOAA's Comprehensive Large-Data Array 
Stewardship program, otherwise known as CLASS. This program has been 
funded at the same base level of $6.5 million for each of the past 10 
years, despite an increase in their mission.
  This is NOAA's enterprise system for handling all of its 
environmental data critical for weather predictions. Simply put, CLASS 
therefore must rely on programs within the satellite program to 
overcome their $24 million funding shortfall. We should be creating 
certainty, Mr. Chairman, for the NOAA CLASS program, instead of 
expecting them to rely on these other satellite programs to transfer 
funds for their own budget to CLASS.
  Under last year's budget, CLASS fell short of the necessary funding 
to sustain core mission values. Mission failure of CLASS will continue 
if we don't provide CLASS with funding certainty this year and not 
depend on transfers from other satellite programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Appropriations Committee consider the 
importance of the CLASS mission in conference, and encourage the 
chairman to adequately fund their mission--a mission defined as a level 
of funding equal to last year and no job losses.
  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McKINLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. I want to thank the gentleman for speaking on this issue. 
Funding the weather satellites is a very high priority in this bill, as 
well as the data systems used to store and process data from the 
satellites. We will work with you and also our other colleagues in the 
body to ensure that the CLASS program is adequately funded.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with 
you on this matter.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Landry

  Mr. LANDRY. 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 a proposed rule for turtle excluder 
     devices as described in the Southeast Fishery Bulletin 
     published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration on May 8, 2012.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  NOAA and the fishing industry have had a long history of working 
together. Since the 1990s, NOAA has worked with the fishing industry to 
develop a regulatory system that provides meaningful protection to 
turtles, while at the same time not economically harming our fishermen. 
Under the system, fishermen had agreed that they would periodically 
remove their nets from the water, allowing any turtles trapped in the 
net to escape. By offering to do so, they would not have to use the 
turtle exclusion devices.
  Now NOAA intends to regulate these shrimpers and force them to use 
TEDs. The recent rulemaking negates this partnership and places the 
whims of environmentalists ahead of the scientific data or economic 
well-being of the fishermen in the coastal communities. There is no 
scientific data that's proving that the lack of the use of TEDs by 
shrimpers is causing any additional deaths in the turtle population.

                              {time}  1910

  Over 60 percent of the shrimp landed in Louisiana is by the inshore 
and near-shore fleet, which is primarily

[[Page H2523]]

skimmers and butterflies. This regulation, if implemented, will affect 
thousands of fishermen in Louisiana. Fishermen will lose money due to 
the cost of TEDs equipment and also the money lost from loss of catch.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. 
Turtle-excluder devices are already required in other shrimp trawl 
fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic to reduce sea turtle 
bycatch.
  In many cases, fishermen have reported actually preferring the use of 
TEDs in their trawl nets because when they are used properly, TEDs 
allow up to 98 percent of turtles to escape from trawl nets while 
retaining up to 97 percent of target shrimp catch. TEDs also provide 
other economic benefits to fishermen. Again, when installed properly, 
they can prevent other species bycatch and unwanted marine debris from 
entering the trawl nets, thereby increasing shrimp catch efficiency and 
the quality of their shrimp catch.
  TEDs can also cut down on unwanted debris which can damage and 
increase the drag in fishing nets, causing fishermen to incur other 
costs. At this stage, NMFS is merely proposing this rule and will 
provide ample opportunity for public comment, including public meetings 
before any final regulation is in place; and, therefore, I urge defeat 
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 Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LANDRY. 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 Louisiana 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Gardner

  Mr. GARDNER. 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 pay the salary of any officer or employee of the 
     Department of Commerce who uses amounts in the Fisheries 
     Enforcement Asset Forfeiture Fund of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration that consists of the sums 
     described in section 311(e)(1) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
     Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1861(e)(1)) for any purpose other than a purpose specifically 
     authorized under such section.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee, 
as well, for his work and leadership on this bill today and yesterday. 
We voted long into the morning this morning, and certainly appreciate 
his time and consideration.
  The appropriations bills before us present an opportunity to provide 
oversight that is one of the most important duties and functions of 
this Congress, to make sure that we are looking at the ways our Federal 
Agencies, our administration is spending money and making sure that it 
is carried out properly.
  One of the areas where I believe this Congress needs to further its 
oversight and step up its oversight concerns the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration's asset forfeiture fund. This is money that 
is comprised of fines paid by individuals who violate the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The act, as many 
Members know, is the primary law governing fish management in our 
Federal waters, and it is responsible for managing fisheries, promoting 
conservation, producing bycatch, and ending overfishing.
  The money in NOAA's asset forfeiture fund can only be used for 
express purposes that are laid out in statute, such as paying costs 
associated with providing any temporary storage of property seized 
during civil or criminal proceedings, paying off valid liens or 
mortgages against forfeited property, or reimbursing any Agency that 
assisted NOAA in enforcing the law.
  Unfortunately, what we have seen is a pattern of unaccountability, a 
pattern of abuse of this money, including a purchase of a $300,000 
yacht that was used for personal use by certain officials within NOAA.
  This amendment simply says that the law, the money in the asset 
forfeiture fund should only be used for those express purposes as 
defined in statute, making sure that these abuses do not continue and 
making sure that this Congress steps up its role in oversight when it 
comes to funds of the United States.
  With that, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the amendment to make sure 
that we are accountable for the funds from the taxpayer, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARDNER. 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 Colorado 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Engel

  Mr. ENGEL. 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. 542.  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. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ENGEL. On May 24, 2011, President Obama issued a memorandum on 
Federal fleet performance which requires all new light-duty vehicles in 
the Federal fleet to be alternate-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 appropriations bill from being used to 
lease or purchase new light-duty vehicles except in accord with the 
President's memorandum.
  Last year, I introduced similar amendments to four different 
appropriations bills--Agriculture, Defense, Energy, and Homeland 
Security. All were accepted and passed by voice vote.
  Our transportation sector is by far the biggest reason we send $60 
billion per year to hostile nations to pay for oil at ever-increasing 
costs. But America doesn't need to be dependent on foreign sources of 
oil for transportation fuel. Alternative technologies exist today that 
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, with over 41,000 being used by the Department of 
Justice and another 2,400 with the Department of Commerce.
  By supporting a diverse array of vehicle technologies in our Federal 
fleet, we will encourage development of domestic energy resources--
including biomass, natural gas, agricultural waste, hydrogen, and 
renewable electricity.
  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. So I ask that you support the Engel 
amendment.
  On a similar note, I have worked with my colleagues John Shimkus, 
Roscoe Bartlett, and Steve Israel to introduce the bipartisan Open Fuel 
Standard Act, H.R. 1687. I have particularly worked with Congressman 
Shimkus on this bill in this Congress. Our bill would require 50 
percent of new automobiles in 2014, 80 percent in 2016, and 95 percent 
in 2017 to be warranted

[[Page H2524]]

to operate on nonpetroleum fuels in addition to or instead of 
petroleum-based fuels.
  Compliance possibilities include the full array of existing 
technologies--including flex fuel, natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel, 
plug-in electric drive, and fuel cell--and a catchall for all new 
technologies.
  In conclusion, I encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and 
the open fuel standard as we work toward breaking our dependence on 
foreign oil.
  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 think this amendment has been adopted on other bills. We 
accepted the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Walsh of Illinois

  Mr. WALSH of Illinois. 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 for 
     the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program under the heading 
     ``Department of Justice--State and Local Law Enforcement 
     Activities--Office of Justice Programs--State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Assistance'' may be used in contravention of 
     section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
     Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

                              {time}  1920

  Mr. WALSH of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, immigration enforcement--whether 
issuing or revoking a visa, deportation, and even providing 
citizenship--is a Federal responsibility and should remain so. However, 
our law enforcement in cities and States is sometimes the first line of 
defense in these Federal courts.
  In 1996, almost 20 years ago, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. This bill not only required 
localities to communicate with Federal agencies when legal and illegal 
aliens may have been picked up for crimes but also provided money to 
help them do so. Since then, additional programs such as the State 
Criminal Alien Assistance Program and Secure Communities have been 
implemented to ensure further that localities have the resources they 
need to meet their responsibilities.
  The Federal Government has stated time and again that participation 
in these programs is not optional. Yet despite that, some cities and 
even whole States blatantly ignore Federal requirements. What is even 
worse is that these sanctuary cities still receive money for their so-
called ``immigration efforts'' under the State Criminal Alien 
Assistance Program. In fact, one city received $1.1 million at the same 
time it designated itself as a city and county of refuge. And one State 
has even passed laws that prohibit law enforcement agencies from 
detecting or apprehending those in violation of U.S. immigration laws.
  For this reason today, I am offering an amendment that would prohibit 
the Department of Justice from providing funds to these sanctuary 
cities for immigration enforcement efforts. This is a smart amendment 
that will require America's local law enforcement officers to do just 
that--enforce the laws we pass to receive the money we provide them to 
do so. I urge the House to vote in its favor.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
which provides that none of the funds in the SCAAP program can be used 
in contravention of existing law.
  This amendment is like several others we've considered today that 
simply say either the obvious, which is, Federal funds can't be used in 
violation of Federal law, in which case the amendment is unnecessary 
and accomplishes nothing; or, the amendment seeks to go beyond existing 
law and set new policy, in which case the policy that it would set is 
one that is disadvantageous to States and local law enforcement.
  State and local community safety policies prioritize budgetary and 
law enforcement resources according to community needs while still 
permitting Federal immigration enforcement to take place. In many 
cases, such local laws support community safety by encouraging citizens 
who are crime victims or witnesses to come forward and work with police 
regardless of their immigration status.
  These local policies don't interfere with Federal enforcement. In 
fact, a 2007 Justice Department audit of such laws found that in each 
instance where cities were so-called ``sanctuary cities,'' the local 
policy either didn't preclude cooperation with ICE, or else included a 
policy to the effect that those agencies and officers must assist ICE 
or share information with ICE as required by Federal law. That year, 
DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff testified before Congress:
  I'm not aware of any city, although I may be wrong, that actually 
interferes with our ability to enforce the law.
  The amendment, if it went beyond the mere statement that you can't 
spend Federal funds in contravention of Federal law, might deny funding 
to already cash-strapped police departments.
  For these reasons, we urge a ``no'' vote on 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 Illinois (Mr. Walsh).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. 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 to 
     the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the 
     States of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, 
     District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, 
     Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode 
     Island, Vermont, and Washington, to prevent such States from 
     implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, 
     distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical 
     marijuana.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, along with Mr. Hinchey, 
Mr. McClintock, and Mr. Farr, in support of a commonsense amendment 
that would prohibit the Department of Justice from using funds to 
prevent States from implementing their own State laws that authorize 
the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. 
This amendment would take a step in the right direction of respecting 
States' rights and individual liberties, and it would help the Federal 
Government prioritize its very scarce resources and show compassion for 
those thousands of ailing patients across our country.
  To date, 17 States, including the District of Columbia, have passed 
laws allowing for the medical use of marijuana, and the list continues 
to grow. Connecticut is in the process of passing a similar law as 
well. Many of these State laws, including in my own home State of 
California, have passed these statutes through the initiative process--
meaning that a majority of California voters specifically decided that 
sick individuals ought to have the right to use this herb for medical 
purposes. Why the Federal Government continues its hard-line 
prohibition, then, is completely beyond me.
  As far as the medical marijuana is concerned, individuals ought to 
have a right and ought to be able to act in accordance with their 
respective State laws without the Federal Government coming in and 
interfering. Neither should the Federal Government threaten to 
prosecute State employees who are carrying out the implementation of 
their State laws. Indeed, the Founding Fathers wanted criminal law to 
be the domain of local and State government. Unfortunately, however, 
this is not the approach that recent administrations

[[Page H2525]]

have taken, including the current administration. For example, the 
Governor of Washington State received a letter from the Department of 
Justice and was warned that:
  State employees who conducted activities mandated by the Washington 
legislative proposals would not be immune from liability under the CSA.
  Additionally, the DEA has conducted numerous raids on medical 
marijuana dispensaries that are in full compliance with State law. 
Businesspeople and cooperatives who are licensed and certified within 
these States to function as legitimate medical marijuana dispensaries 
have seen their businesses locked down, assets frozen, businesses 
driven away, and in some cases the victims of a SWAT squad coming into 
their operation. It is simply outrageous that we are spending scarce 
Federal dollars to interfere with the medical needs of individuals, 
especially when it's been recommended by a physician and approved by 
the voters of a State.
  Importantly, this amendment does nothing to prevent the Federal 
Government from being able to go after drug traffickers. In fact, it 
makes it easier because it prioritizes and gives those people a chance 
to go after drug traffickers rather than sick people.
  Under this amendment, the DEA would still have the power to arrest 
anyone selling marijuana for recreational use or engaging in any 
activity that is not expressly allowed under State law. But they will 
have more time to go after the drug traffickers if they are not going 
after people who are providing medical marijuana to people who are 
sick.

                              {time}  1930

  It is time that we respect States' rights, get serious about 
prioritizing our Federal Government's activities, and show some common 
sense and compassion when dealing with the sick among us.
  I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' for the Rohrabacher-Hinchey-
McClintock-Farr amendment to prevent the Department of Justice from 
continuing to engage in activities that it has no business engaging in.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. What does this amendment say if a young person, 15, at a 
high school in whatever State is watching the House at 7:30, and they 
say the United States Congress is ready to make it easy to get 
marijuana, and their mom or dad--what is going on?
  This amendment hurts law enforcement. Our law enforcement people are 
jeopardizing their lives.
  Marijuana is one of the most widely abused drugs in the United 
States. According to the DEA, more young people are now in treatment 
for marijuana dependency than for alcohol or all other illegal drugs 
combined.
  This amendment does not address the problem of marijuana abuse and 
possibly makes it worse by sending a message to young people that there 
can be health benefits.
  The Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, describes marijuana as 
``the top revenue generator for Mexican drug trafficking organizations, 
a cash crop that finances corruption and the carnage of violence year 
after year.''
  All you have to do is look at the news. That's why we put money back 
in here for the National Gang Intelligence unit to keep the Mexican 
gangs from coming into the United States. The Mexican gangs are being 
funded and they have a marijuana operation.
  I don't understand. I mean, I respect that maybe for medical use at a 
time. And I will tell you, the first time this issue came up, I voted 
for it, but it was on a narrow basis. But this is wide open.
  And then you're going to tell your 15-year-old or 16-year-old don't 
use drugs. Well, we've got the marijuana center downtown, and 
everybody's going in.
  The FDA has stated that ``smoked cannabis has no acceptable medical 
use and treatment in the United States.''
  I could go on, but I think that the message that this amendment would 
send to young people is that Congress wants to aid and abet, if you 
will. And we all know. We've watched ``60 Minutes.'' We've watched all 
these shows.
  If somebody purely, really--my mom died of cancer. So many people in 
my family died of cancer. It's so narrow. But this is just wide open. 
And we've seen it where they're coming in and they're pouring over. In 
essence, I think this would be bad for the country.
  In our hearings, we heard that more young people are dying from 
overdose of drugs. Then marijuana, then do we go into heroin, and then 
we go into OxyContin. You just saw today's Washington Post where some 
of the drug companies were promoting these pain operations which are 
basically moving and pushing OxyContin, hiring some really prominent 
lawyers in this town to represent them.
  This would not be a good amendment for the country; it would be a bad 
amendment for the young people, and I urge defeat of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HINCHEY. I rise today in strong support of this amendment, and I 
thank, particularly, my friend from California for offering it with me 
and for what he said about it just a few minutes ago very clearly.
  This amendment is very simple. It directs the Federal Government to 
respect the laws enacted by States that have legalized marijuana for 
medical use.
  The Constitution of the United States is very clear. It authorizes 
States' rights in every other area that is not specifically designated 
to the Federal Government. Currently, 16 States and the District of 
Columbia have legalized medical marijuana, benefiting over 730,000 
patients nationwide. In addition, the State of Connecticut will soon 
sign a similar bill into law.
  President Obama has made it clear that the Justice Department should 
not prioritize medical marijuana arrests, especially when there are so 
many other more significant issues that need attention. Unfortunately, 
some in the DEA clearly didn't get the memo. That's why we're here 
today.
  According to Americans for Safe Access, since October 2009, the 
Justice Department has carried out an estimated 170 raids of medical 
marijuana dispensaries and cultivation centers in nine States that have 
legalized medical marijuana. Without a doubt, these raids are clearly a 
waste of taxpayer dollars, but they are also fundamentally wrong.
  Medical marijuana is proven to reduce pain and increase quality of 
life for patients suffering from debilitating diseases, including 
cancer, multiple sclerosis, and HIV/AIDS. Medical marijuana is a safe 
and effective treatment for many of the symptoms that accompany these 
diseases. However, the DEA wants to deny patients medicine that can 
dramatically improve their lives or reduce their suffering. This is 
wrong, and it needs to stop.
  This amendment does not do anything to advocate any violations of the 
law. It just says those States that have approved medical marijuana 
ought to be able to determine how to take care of their own people 
effectively.
  This amendment does not affect States that have not approved medical 
marijuana. It does not require or encourage other States to adopt 
medical marijuana laws.
  This amendment does not stop law enforcement officials from 
prosecuting the illegal use of marijuana.
  This amendment does not encourage drug use in children. Studies 
actually suggest that teen use of marijuana has declined in States that 
have passed medical marijuana laws. That, in and of itself, is very 
interesting and important.
  The purpose of this amendment is to allow these 16 States to give 
relief to people suffering from horrific diseases without fearing 
Federal intervention or prosecution.
  I urge Members to support this amendment and support States' rights 
and compassion. Doctors in these 16 States know what is best for their 
patients. The DEA should not stand in the way of these doctors and 
their patients.
  All of this is serious for the health and safety of many, many people 
in these 16 States. And, in fact, other States are coming into this as 
well. This is something that really needs to be enacted because it is 
safe and secure and reasonable.

[[Page H2526]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rohrabacher-Hinchey-
Farr and now McClintock amendment.
  It is obvious from the votes that we've been casting here, yesterday 
and tonight, this afternoon, that this body insists on protecting the 
rights of States to define marriage. This body insists on protecting 
the rights of States to set abortion policies. This body insists on 
protecting rights of the States to determine education curricula and 
standards. Just yesterday this body decided that certain States get to 
enforce Federal immigration laws however they see fit.
  But when it comes to protecting the rights of States to set medical 
scope of practice laws, this body balks. All of a sudden States no 
longer have the right to determine what is best for their citizens and 
when those rights include medical marijuana.
  The Rohrabacher-Hinchey-Farr-McClintock amendment doesn't change 
Federal law. It doesn't change drug policy. However, it does protect 
States' rights.

                              {time}  1940

  For those of you who come from States that do not have medical 
marijuana laws, nothing in this amendment will impact your States. 
Everything in your States remains exactly status quo. For those of you 
who come from States that do have medical marijuana laws, which means 
the States of Alaska, Arizona, California, which is my own State--it's 
interesting what we have done in California. We've decriminalized the 
possession of medical marijuana. It's an infraction, not a felony. 
We've also legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes, but the 
voters at the same time have turned down an intensive legalization use. 
So it's very controlled. The laws are tight and they are enforced.
  The other States that have passed laws are Colorado, Delaware, the 
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, 
Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and 
Washington. For your States, very little in this amendment will impact 
your States except that you will now have a State that will be able to 
implement the laws without fear of retribution or of retaliation from 
the Federal Government. I will also note that, in addition to the 16 
States I've just mentioned, the State of Connecticut just passed a 
medical marijuana bill last week, and the Governor said he'll sign it. 
So, to the list of 16 States, we soon have added No. 17, the State of 
Connecticut.
  If States' rights are not a good enough reason to pass this 
amendment, then do it because of compassion. Compassion demands it. We 
offer this amendment for terminal cancer patients, for AIDS victims, 
for persons who suffer with chronic pain. We offer this amendment not 
only to protect those people, but we offer this amendment to protect 
the States that are progressive enough to provide alternative medical 
options to those who need it. I urge all of my colleagues to support 
the Rohrabacher-Hinchey-Farr amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I 
want to share a slightly different perspective on it.
  I served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles for 6 years. In 
1987, when I started in the office, the office had a guideline where we 
wouldn't take a case for prosecution involving less than a kilo of 
cocaine. Now, that didn't mean that it didn't get prosecuted. It did 
mean that it was referred to the district attorney's office, but we 
just didn't have the resources to go after every cocaine case involving 
less than a kilogram. A couple of years later into my tenure in that 
office, we had to raise the guideline to 5 kilograms because we had so 
many 1 kilogram cases, and we couldn't even handle those prosecutions.
  I don't know what the policy is now, whether it's 10 kilograms or 20 
kilograms, but the reality is we have very finite resources within the 
Justice Department to prosecute drug cases. Then, of course, the funds 
for drug prosecutions have to compete with the funds for terrorism 
cases and carjacking cases and bank robberies and T-Chek thefts or 
whatnot. We are in a limited resource world, and I don't think it's a 
good use of our Federal law enforcement resources to be prosecuting 
medical marijuana cases in States that have legalized medical 
marijuana. On the priority list of Federal law enforcement priorities, 
that ought to be near the very bottom.
  At a time when we can't even keep up with the more serious narcotics 
cases and when we have so many other unmet needs in the Justice 
Department, this is not where we should be putting our resources, and I 
urge support for the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate and thank the 
sponsors of this amendment for introducing it. The amendment begins to 
break down the taboo in American politics about discussing drug policy 
intelligently. It also begins to, hopefully, result in the Federal 
Government having a more humane and human policy on medical marijuana.
  I heard the gentleman from Virginia say that the DEA says there is no 
medical use for marijuana. That's true that they've said it. The DEA 
has no credibility with people who have looked at this--on this 
subject, on most subjects with respect to drugs these days. One reason 
there is no proof of the successful medical use of marijuana is that 
the DEA systematically tries to make sure there is no adequate research 
on that, and it denies the use of supplies of marijuana for medical 
research.
  But we have ample proof from the 16 States which have legalized the 
medical use of marijuana. We have ample anecdotal proof. We know that, 
for people suffering pain, for people suffering nausea from AIDS and 
cancer, marijuana is the only thing that produces relief and enables 
them to eat and to get sustenance and to regain weight and to, perhaps, 
regain health. We know this. We know this from thousands of cases. The 
DEA doesn't know it because it refuses to see it and refuses to allow 
systematic research. That's wrong. It's inhumane.
  Now, I wish this amendment didn't specify the 16 States because maybe 
a 17th and an 18th will come along this year. I hope that they will. 
Certainly, the Federal Government has a better use for its resources 
than in trying to prevent the policy that 16 States have adopted, the 
humane policy of allowing the medical use of something that has been 
proven to be medically useful in many cases. Doctors and other medical 
professionals ought to determine treatment, not bureaucrats in 
Washington.
  So I support this amendment, and I hope that maybe, if it passes, and 
maybe if we have a rational policy with regard to medical marijuana, 
that two other things will happen: that maybe the DEA will get its head 
out of the sand and will permit proper research so we'll get better 
research and better results; and maybe we'll begin a discussion of our 
general drug policy toward marijuana, which is certainly a much, much 
more benign drug than alcohol, which is legal, than tobacco, which is 
legal. We have a very irrational policy toward it, a policy which 
reminds one of the policy of the 1920s, which had such deleterious 
effects with regard to alcohol and alcohol use.
  So I congratulate the sponsor of this amendment for having the 
courage to help break the taboos concerning this subject and for 
introducing an amendment that, if it passes, will result in many, many 
thousands of people being more healthful and more comfortable, and it 
will be a great thing for this country.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COHEN. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COHEN. There have been quite a few good arguments made--excellent 
arguments--as to why this amendment should pass. Justice Louis Brandeis 
is

[[Page H2527]]

one of my favorite Justices. He said the laboratories of democracy are 
the States. Indeed, 16 States, mostly through, if not entirely through, 
referenda determined that they wanted to try to find out whether 
medical marijuana laws worked.
  The Federal Government should not be infringing on what the States 
have determined and their citizens have determined in the most direct 
form of democracy that this Nation knows--State referenda. The Federal 
Government has been using its resources, which could be used in better 
ways, to police the jurisdictions that have voted it in. That's what 
this amendment does. It says there will not be any additional spending 
of Federal moneys to try to thwart the will of the people of the States 
on issues on which they have voted.
  This is the most basic democracy that we could be talking about. You 
talk about the Founding Fathers. This is the people who give us power. 
They have voted in their States to make it the law, and the Federal 
Government has taken its heavy hand and has tried to come in there--and 
has come in there--to prosecute individuals. It's for the States to 
prosecute those individuals if they want.
  As the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) has pointed out, 
Federal priorities have to be made to meet the resources available. The 
moneys that they're spending now in these States could be spent on 
border traffic and could be spent on policing against heroin and 
cocaine, which cause people, when they get hooked, to commit violent 
crimes in order to get their money to buy their drugs. That has never 
been known to be the case with marijuana, and it is not the case with 
marijuana. That's where our priorities for law enforcement should go 
and prosecution should go is to crack and cocaine and heroin, and 
they're not being used there.
  So this is a commonsense, basic, democratic proposal to tell our 
Federal Government that has gone astray to not use its resources 
against the people of this country who have made this determination.
  Now, as far as some of the other statements that have been made, I 
think the public who listens knows that this is not about legalization, 
that this is not about 14-year-olds or 15-year-olds or 18-year-olds.

                              {time}  1950

  It's about States, democracy, doctors, and people who have cancer, 
glaucoma, AIDS, MS, whatever. Montel Williams has testified how it has 
helped him with his illness. I had a Navy SEAL friend who died of 
cancer. There is no question but that marijuana, which he smoked, 
helped him with his appetite when he wasn't eating, and his pancreatic 
cancer took him from 215 pounds to 115 pounds. His grandmother said 
it's the only thing that makes Orel laugh, and it's the only thing that 
makes Orel eat. And when he was dying, I wanted my friend to have 
whatever he could have to make his illness less damaging to him and 
less difficult to deal with.
  So I rise here and assure people that it won't affect your States; it 
will just be those States where it's been voted in. It will save 
resources and be able to give our government the proper direction, the 
usage of resources to protect us against heroin, crack, and cocaine.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Actually, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I 
would strike many of the words we've heard today.
  I first want to acknowledge the leadership of my colleague from 
California. He has a characteristic that is all too rare in politics, 
an intellectual consistency. We have people on the one hand that talk 
about freedom of the individual, liberty, and respect for States' 
rights, but when it comes up against some pet project of theirs, all 
that goes out the window.
  Let's be very clear. This is not a case of people advocating that 
other people smoke marijuana. It is for me an advocacy that we allow 
people some degree of free choice. I listened to the gentleman from 
Virginia, and I admire his diligence. But I have to say, I disagreed 
with almost everything he said. There was one thing he said that I 
thought was appropriate. He said we shouldn't be debating this at 7:30. 
I agree. We should have been debating it at 4:20. That would have been 
a much better time. But other than that, he says, What about 15-year-
olds, they'll see marijuana centers.
  Well, they'll see liquor stores. They'll see many more liquor stores 
than marijuana centers. The notion that because something is 
inappropriate for a teenager or a child, adults should not be allowed 
to use it, is mindlessness. You can't run a society that says we're not 
going to let a 15-year-old see the things a 15-year-old can't do. 
Liquor stores would be a great example.
  I have been disappointed on this point with the Obama administration. 
The Clinton administration was quite sensible on this. The Bush 
administration slipped back, and I had hoped that with the Obama 
administration it would be more sensible.
  The gentleman from Virginia said, Well, this is a great source of 
money for the Mexicans. Sure, because we won't let people grow it in 
America. To the extent that people are buying medical marijuana from 
Mexican drug cartels, I think, is a somewhat overdone thing with regard 
to this. That's because we have had people refusing to allow them to 
grow it here in America for that use.
  People say--again, I'm surprised by some of my conservative friends--
there is no medical value. The Federal Government now becomes the 
arbiter and tells the States you may not make that judgment that there 
is medical value. We know an awful lot of people think it has medical 
value for them.
  As to addiction and the notion that if you get all these drugs 
together, what marijuana has in common with Oxycontin--which the 
gentleman from Virginia mentioned--and other drugs is that we treat 
them the same. They are not the same in any rational way. They're not 
the same in addictive prospects. They're not the same except we treat 
them the same. And we're the ones that by this foolish policy--that I 
regret the administration I supported is engaging in--give people the 
notion that they're the same thing. It's a very simple point.
  People in the States have voted that marijuana should be available 
for people who want to use it for medicinal purposes, and the States 
are then in charge of setting up ways to deal with it. We have people 
out of their ideological opposition announcing that they will not be 
allowed to do that, that they will tell people it has no medical use 
despite the testimony of so many who think it does. This again is a 
form that I thought we learned didn't work, and it's prohibition of the 
worst sort. And by the way, it is going to lead to very ineffective law 
enforcement because we are a free country. You cannot impose, in a free 
society like ours, a regime of law enforcement that the public rejects 
without a great deal of repression. State by State by State, the people 
of the States have voted to allow this. So when we send the Federal 
agents in to disregard what the State did, to disregard State law, of 
course you're going to engender resistance; of course you're going to 
engender people going around. And I would just close by saying after 
listening to this debate, I think tonight C SPAN has merged with Turner 
Classic Movies because ``Reefer Madness,'' that great movie from the 
thirties, appears to be being shown on both channels.
  This notion that because 15-year-olds are watching us talk about how 
people who are ill and in pain should be allowed with the vote of the 
State to get marijuana prescribed by a doctor, and that's going to lead 
a 15-year-old to go out and do it, makes no logical sense. As I said, 
if you're worried about what 15-year-olds can see, they can see X-rated 
movies that are being advertised; they can see cigarettes being sold 
widely; they can see alcohol. They can see all manner of things that we 
don't want them to do.
  This is a very sensible amendment. No one has shown, let me say 
finally--and you know the DEA, they want to do this. I have not seen 
the evidence that says that medical marijuana has led to any problem. I 
haven't seen it linked to crime. I haven't seen it linked to anything 
negative. What we have, frankly, are some prejudices being used to 
interfere with people's rights.

[[Page H2528]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
bipartisan amendment. I want to thank Mr. Rohrabacher and all of the 
cosponsors of this amendment for their leadership and for bringing this 
amendment forward.
  This amendment would prohibit the Department of Justice from using 
Federal funds to prevent the implementation of State laws authorizing 
the use of medical marijuana.
  In recent months, the Federal Government has stepped up raids on 
legally operating clinics in many States where it is permissible for 
seriously ill patients to be prescribed medical marijuana by their 
doctors. These raids are shutting down legally operating businesses and 
are putting the health and the well-being of patients with cancer, HIV 
and AIDS, multiple sclerosis, and other serious illnesses in jeopardy.
  Marijuana has proven medical uses that improve the quality of life 
and extend the lives of desperately ill people. By shutting down 
clinics, Federal agents are forcing patients who may be dying, for 
example, of cancer out into the streets to buy prescription drugs like 
narcotics, which oftentimes leads to prescription drug addiction. These 
raids also undermine the ability of States to faithfully implement the 
will of their voters.
  The people in my home State of California have voted to make medical 
marijuana legal. These laws have been enacted to allow patients safe 
and legal access to appropriately produce and dispense medical 
marijuana in the safest possible environment. Yet in the last 18 
months--for whatever reason--the Drug Enforcement Administration has 
raided and shut down many licensed and regulated dispensaries, which 
are legal, mind you, under State law. For example, the Berkeley 
Patients Group in my district, which had worked closely with the city 
of Berkeley to stay in compliance with local and State laws in order to 
serve critically ill patients in my community, has been forced to close 
its doors and turn their patients away. Complying with the State law 
and relying on a memorandum from the Department of Justice, thousands 
of small businesses across my State have invested millions in dollars 
in building their businesses, created good paying jobs, and have paid 
millions in taxes. The business owners in my home district are doing 
everything they can to comply with the law, but clinics in Oakland and 
Berkeley continue to be subject to raids by Federal authorities.
  Many of my colleagues and I have made repeated requests to the 
Department of Justice to seek clarification regarding their enforcement 
policies on medical marijuana. Mr. Chair, this is about recognizing the 
will of the voters. The Federal crackdowns ignore the will of the 
voters in 16 States across the Nation. The clinics, doctors, and 
businesses, which bring medicine--medicine mind you--to suffering 
patients need clarity, certainty, and an end to arbitrary raids.

                              {time}  2000

  We should be protecting, not undermining, our democracy by 
prosecuting small business owners who pay taxes, comply with State 
laws, and provide medicine to people in need.
  But really, and most importantly, it should be out of compassion for 
our fellow Americans suffering from a serious illness that compels us 
to vote for this amendment. It is the humane thing to do, and it is the 
right thing to do.
  So I want to thank Mr. Rohrabacher once again and the cosponsors of 
this amendment for bringing this forward tonight, and I urge an ``aye'' 
vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from California for bringing forward 
this amendment.
  This amendment is absolutely critical for Colorado. We have a legal 
regulatory structure for medical marijuana and for the many businesses 
and nonprofits that are active in providing patients with medical 
marijuana, and yet they live under a constant fear, a constant fear of 
selective enforcement from the Attorney General or from the DEA.
  I had the opportunity in the Judiciary Committee to question the 
Attorney General with regard to this issue, and he acknowledged that 
the only possible enforcement--because of the large-scale use of 
medical marijuana in the States where it is legal--would be selective 
enforcement. And that is a very dangerous precedent and a very 
dangerous power to hand an Attorney General, the Department of Justice, 
and the DEA.
  I have heard from the other side of the aisle in different contexts 
many comments critical of the current Attorney General. But regardless 
of who is sitting as Attorney General, do we want to have an Attorney 
General that has the ability at any given time to engage in selective 
enforcement against a large group of people, whomever he or she wants 
to prosecute?
  What if the select enforcement is politically motivated? What if we 
have an Attorney General that decides he or she doesn't like the Tea 
Party or doesn't like the Occupy movement? What if they then force the 
States to give the records that they keep of who has the medical 
marijuana licenses and then go after the people with whose politics 
they don't agree? It's a very, very dangerous road to go down, a 
dangerous power to give to the Federal Government.
  This is a very real and important issue. Drug abuse is a terrible 
problem that plagues our country and plagues Colorado families. We can 
reduce drug abuse and reduce access to minors of both marijuana as well 
as other drugs by making sure that we regulate them appropriately.
  In Colorado, medical marijuana dispensaries are regularly audited. 
They are required, under State law, to have video cameras keep track of 
who comes and goes. Minors are not allowed to enter the premises. It 
is, of course, the underground illegal corner drug dealer that will 
sell to the 15-year-old, not the legal State-regulated dispensary.
  We have limited law enforcement capabilities, as highlighted by my 
colleague from California (Mr. Schiff), and to go after patients and 
their caregivers rather than drug smugglers and Mexican drug cartels 
does a huge disservice, not only to law enforcement, but also to the 
many, many victims of the drug war, both from collateral damage as well 
as those who fall victim to the drugs themselves.
  It's critical, at a time when our Nation continues to battle with 
narcotic use, that our limited resources are focused on the real 
problem. The real problem is not the 68-year-old cancer patient. The 
real problem is not the business or the nonprofit that operates under a 
legal State regulatory system in providing these essential services in 
our communities in accordance with State and local law.
  This amendment is common sense. I hope that colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle will join in passing this amendment.
  And I understand that for many of our colleagues, they don't have 
legal medical marijuana in their States, and that's fine. No one is 
saying that they should or they shouldn't. It's up to the residents of 
each State to decide how they want to treat the criminal aspects of 
regulating marijuana use.
  What we're asking is, for those of you who come from States who don't 
have legal marijuana, consider that some States might think about it a 
little differently. Consider that some States have, in fact, authorized 
dispensaries and authorized a system to ensure that it stays out of the 
hands of minors, to focus their State law resources on harder drugs and 
ensuring that minors don't have access to marijuana or other drugs. And 
consider that that is their prerogative, just as it is your prerogative 
in your State to continue to approach marijuana usage as a criminal 
issue.
  I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
important amendment, to focus our limited resources and allow legal 
businesses and legal caregivers to operate without the fear of a DEA 
agent busting in their door.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

[[Page H2529]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I hear people talking about States' rights. If a State said 
sexual trafficking is okay, would we honor that and say that we're not 
going to protect? I would hope not. States, in the past, have done some 
things that have not been good in this country.
  Secondly, we know that many of these marijuana dispensaries are 
simply fronts for illegal marijuana distribution. The FDA noted in 2006 
that ``there is currently sound evidence that smoked marijuana is 
harmful''--harmful--and that ``no sound scientific study supported 
medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States, and no 
animal or human data supported the safety of efficacy of marijuana for 
general medical use.''
  As required by the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA requested a 
scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from 
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. And what was 
concluded is ``that marijuana,'' the stuff that we're saying tonight--
anybody, if you saw the ``60 Minutes'' piece, they come in, they buy, 
they take. We talk about doctors. The number of doctors that were 
ripping off people with OxyContin, the number of doctors that were 
devastating--
  You can go down to Broward County, Florida, and go into some of these 
pain clinics. There are buses coming down and planes coming down to buy 
it. And doctors are writing prescriptions. So we're going to hide 
behind and just say doctors are? The number of doctors that ruin, that 
ruin young people on OxyContin, whereby they died--they died. So to 
hide behind a doctor says that that means it's okay--but Health and 
Human Services said, ``Marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no 
accepted medical use in the United States, and lacks an acceptable 
level of safety for use under medical supervision.''
  I may be the only one in this body that feels this way, but I will 
tell you, I think if this amendment passes and this becomes the law, 
this would be a gateway to young people. This will literally send a 
message down to the Mexican cartels. There is going to be a market all 
over.
  It will also increase automobile accidents because you will basically 
be finding people that are driving while they are high versus driving 
while they are intoxicated.
  So, lastly, I would just hope and ask that we defeat this amendment.
  Why don't you have hearings in the Judiciary Committee? Why don't you 
have hearings some other place? But at 7:30--and my friend from 
Massachusetts was joking about the time. The time is now 8:05, and 
we're doing this. We're changing the law. And I think it would be bad 
for the country and urge 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 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.

                              {time}  2010


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Lewis of Georgia

  Mr. LEWIS 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 (and before the short title) insert 
     the following:
       Sec.  . None of the funds provided by this Act may be 
     obligated for the purpose of closing the regional field 
     offices of the Antitrust Division of the Department of 
     Justice.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I rise today to offer an amendment that would 
prevent the closing of four field offices of the Department of Justice 
Antitrust Division. These offices are located in Atlanta, Dallas, 
Cleveland, and Philadelphia. The Justice Department announced plans to 
close these offices with the stated goal of saving $8 million. These 
closures will not save a dime. In fact, these closures would actually 
end up costing the government money in lost criminal fines and 
restitution.
  Closing the Atlanta office does not even reduce Federal overhead. The 
Atlanta field office is located in a Federal courthouse building which 
will continue to operate. Not only will the antitrust division likely 
lose those talented lawyers who do not choose to relocate to one of the 
remaining offices, but it will also move people to some of the most 
high-cost locations in the country.
  The southern region is home to the corporate headquarters of over 100 
of the Fortune 500 companies. The Atlanta office prosecutes individuals 
and companies who engage in bid-rigging, price-fixing, and illegal 
kickback schemes. Shutting down the Atlanta and Dallas sites leaves the 
entire southern region of our Nation without any local presence to 
prosecute and deter antitrust violations and white collar criminal 
activity.
  We cannot and should not underestimate the deterrent effect that the 
presence of regional law enforcement officers has on white collar 
crime. We cannot afford to leave the Southeast and Southwest without 
vital law enforcement officials who are tasked with reducing white 
collar crime.
  I ask all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment to prevent the 
closure of these critical law enforcement offices until a more thorough 
review of the consequences can be undertaken. This is not a done deal. 
Congress should and must act.
  My amendment won't cost a cent, but it would bring in more than a few 
dollars. Over the past 11 years, the Atlanta field office alone brought 
in over $265 million in fines and restitution. Let me be clear that is 
a 600 percent rate of return on this investment. What better proof do 
you need?
  Mr. Chairman, I ask each and every one of my colleagues again to 
support the Lewis-Johnson amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Lewis for 
offering this amendment to the Commerce-Justice-Science fiscal year 
2013 appropriations bill. The amendment is designed to prevent the U.S. 
Department of Justice from closing and reducing its antitrust division 
field offices from seven to only three in a country of over 300 million 
people in 50 States.
  The Department of Justice literally and regrettably wants to, or is 
proposing to, close four of its antitrust field offices in response to 
budgetary pressures. This is partly because the Republican budget fails 
to provide the administration with the resources it has requested to 
carry out its basic mission.
  Under Republican leadership, the legal activities account, which 
funds the antitrust division, was 2.2 percent less than the 
administration requested for the fiscal year 2012, and that resulted in 
a 5.2 percent cut compared to fiscal year 2011. When we cut 5.2 percent 
out of a particular account that primarily funds salaries and expenses, 
there are consequences.
  However, congressional Republicans are not totally to blame. The 
President's budget says that the antitrust division is expecting an 
increase in caseloads and requested additional funding to administer 
the increase in caseload. Yet the administration wants to close over 
half the division's offices. What sense does this even make?
  Also, the antitrust division is a key participant on the President's 
Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. How can the division be a 
helpful participant when it is reducing its footprint across our 
country?
  In one of America's poorest cities with lingering high unemployment--
Cleveland, Ohio--that Department of Justice antitrust field office is 
scheduled to be closed. I'm concerned about the impact it will have, 
first of all, on the administration of justice in the field of 
antitrust, but also on the employees, businesses, and consumers that 
serve us in the greater Ohio area.
  I'm very concerned for the hardworking employees in the Cleveland 
field office, one of the most efficient

[[Page H2530]]

antitrust divisions in the country because its employees are so 
talented. Cleveland is a community that still endures high unemployment 
due to the economic crisis and its lingering effects. Why would we want 
to do this now?
  From my perspective, the amount of money the Department of Justice 
expects to save will not actually materialize because costs will 
increase elsewhere as a result of a reduced footprint across the 
country.
  The reality is we should be furthering our support for the antitrust 
division, not closing offices or cutting funds. As currently 
structured, the antitrust division is one of the most efficient 
Agencies within the Federal Government. Its base budget was $159 
million. Yet from 2009 to 2011 the division's efforts resulted in $2 
billion in criminal fines and antitrust violations. That's a seven-to-
one return on investment.
  In addition, over the last two fiscal years, the antitrust division 
has been estimated to have saved consumers over $650 million as a 
result of its criminal enforcement efforts. Furthermore, the antitrust 
division successfully resolved 97 percent of its criminal cases in 
fiscal year 2011.
  Without question, the antitrust division more than pays for itself 
seven times over. It has an outstanding track record. We should leave 
its current structure alone. In fact, we should seek to strengthen it 
and get greater return to the taxpayer for every dollar invested. No 
matter what happens here today or tomorrow, I'll continue to work with 
the other body to protect the antitrust division's presence across this 
country and work to ensure that the employees in communities like 
Cleveland and the other communities are treated fairly, because in the 
final analysis, the American people need a robust antitrust division at 
the Department of Justice.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Lewis amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I rise in support of this amendment which will ensure that the 
Department of Justice has the resources it needs to fight white collar 
crime. The Department is preparing to close antitrust regional offices 
in Atlanta, Cleveland, Dallas, and Philadelphia. This amendment will 
prevent the closure of these field offices during fiscal year 2013.
  As a member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, 
Competition, and the Internet, I am concerned about the impact of these 
closures. This action will seriously undermine the division's ability 
to enforce antitrust laws by limiting the number of boots on the 
ground, particularly in the Southeast and the Southwest.
  Closing these offices is very shortsighted. It puts nearly 100 jobs 
at risk in Atlanta and saves only $500,000 in fiscal year 2013. The 
proposal could end up costing money by transferring employees to 
regional offices with higher costs of living and higher salaries, like 
New York and San Francisco.

                              {time}  2020

  Further, the proposal will weaken the antitrust division as 
experienced attorneys who choose not to transfer leave for other 
opportunities. Antitrust law is a highly specialized field of law and 
the institutional knowledge of an experienced attorney is invaluable.
  The Atlanta office ranks number one in terms of the most trial wins 
of any of the eight criminal offices. In fiscal year 2008, the Atlanta 
office ranked first among all of the criminal offices in the amount of 
restitution obtained for victims. For that fiscal year, the Atlanta 
office accounted for 71.2 percent of all restitution imposed by the 
division.
  As this Nation recovers from a recession largely caused by white 
collar misdoing, I implore this House to consider the message that 
closure of these offices will send to the public. Those considering 
whether to commit white collar crime need to know that there is strict 
Federal enforcement. Closing these field offices sends the wrong 
message to criminals and the public at exactly the wrong time.
  This Congress has been consumed with debating the proper role and 
scope of government. During that debate, we have all agreed that the 
minimum role of government is to ensure an equal playing field that 
allows opportunity for all and ensures that all wrong-doers will be 
prosecuted, no matter if they are engaged in petty criminal offenses or 
white collar crimes.
  The antitrust division, which promotes and protects competition in 
the marketplace, is essential to good governance and fairness. Surely 
Tea Partyers and progressives, ALEC members and union leaders can all 
agree that government must ensure a fair and competitive marketplace 
that allows for innovation.
  The closure of these four field offices will have the effect of 
significantly eroding the division's criminal enforcement program, 
leaving U.S. consumers and businesses in at least 19 States, the Virgin 
Islands, and Puerto Rico unprotected against white collar crooks like 
Bernie Madoff who seek to rig bids, inflate prices, and otherwise 
defraud consumers and businesses.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
Lewis-Johnson amendment. This amendment ensures that none of the 
funding provided in the bill will be used to facilitate a closure of 
the Department of Justice antitrust division's regional offices in 
Atlanta, Cleveland, Dallas, and Philadelphia.
  Mr. Chairman, from our discussions in the full committee markup of 
this bill, I understand that Mr. Wolf, the distinguished chairman of 
the subcommittee, believes that this matter can be worked out and that 
Justice is perhaps willing to move on this. But I am deeply concerned 
that this action will seriously undermine the division's ability to 
enforce antitrust laws by limiting the number of boots on the ground, 
particularly in the Southeast and the Southwest. Accepting that this is 
a done deal and there is no room for negotiation by Congress will 
severely weaken our ability to enforce the antitrust laws.
  Furthermore, given the already heavy workload of the Washington, 
D.C., San Francisco, New York and Chicago field offices, the antitrust 
division will not have sufficient human resources to investigate and 
prosecute many regional and local conspiracies in the areas of 
responsibility that those four offices have, the ones that are slated 
to be closed.
  I want to ensure that the antitrust division can continue to protect 
taxpayers and preserve integrity of our free market system. The 
regional offices in Atlanta, Cleveland, Dallas, and Philadelphia help 
facilitate these efforts, and they should remain open. Closing these 
offices, I believe, is penny wise and pound foolish. It puts nearly a 
hundred jobs at risk, and it poses only a $500,000 savings in fiscal 
year 2013. In fact, the proposal could end up costing money because it 
would transfer employees to regional offices with higher costs of 
living and higher salaries, like New York and San Francisco.
  It's extremely important that we don't close these offices until a 
thorough review of the antitrust division is completed. When deciding 
to recommend these closures, the Department of Justice did not consider 
other more cost-effective options. Furthermore, if offices must be 
eliminated, all of the closures should be based on merit and 
productivity rather than on politics.
  Let me speak for a moment on the Atlanta office which does better in 
terms of overall performance and productivity than say, for instance, 
some of the other offices which are slated to remain open. The Atlanta 
office obtained over $265 million in fines and restitution between FY 
2000 and 2011. With an annual operating cost of $4 million, the 
criminal fines and restitution recovered by the office represent a 
return rate of 600 percent. Indeed, closing these offices is penny wise 
and pound foolish, and I urge adoption of the amendment for the good of 
our free market system and our capitalist economy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H2531]]

  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 and the gentlelady for 
raising this issue and standing up. This was not done by our committee. 
This was done by the Justice Department, by the administration.
  But what we will do is next week we will ask the three or four who 
spoke, that we bring the Justice Department in. We will get them to 
come up here whereby they can sit down with all of you together and 
your staffs to explain why, and see if they can justify this. But I 
just want to be clear, this was not done at the committee's request. 
This was the Justice Department.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I 
appreciate those comments. I think it is clear that this was an action 
by the Department, and it was not an action taken by the committee.
  However, several of us on the committee have grave concerns about it, 
and we appreciate the chairman's agreement and his willingness to 
discuss it with the Justice Department and see if we can't get this 
situation corrected.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank you, and with that I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. 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 Georgia will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Chaffetz

  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
  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 for the purpose of implementing section 36.302(c)(9) 
     of title 28, Code of Federal Regulations.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, a couple of short months ago, the 
Department of Justice in support of the Americans with Disabilities Act 
added a new provision. This provision said that in order to be in 
compliance with the ADA regulations, businesses must now allow service 
horses into their businesses. And you did hear right: they're talking 
about service horses to be in compliance with the ADA regulation. And I 
dare to stand and say we need to say ``nay'' to that type of effort. 
Pardon the pun. It's kind of hard to get through this without smiling 
about it, but this is the kind of regulation that has an untold number 
of consequences on small businesses.
  While I recognize the imperative and the need that some unfortunate 
Americans go through in having to deal with things, there comes a point 
where we have to stand up and say wait a sec, wait a sec, wait a sec. 
Do we really need to allow service horses into airplanes, into hotels 
and into restaurants just to accommodate a particular person?
  This amendment would prohibit funding from the implementation of yet 
another costly Federal regulation. The regulation would require 
businesses and restaurants to admit service horses in the same way they 
admit service dogs into their areas of operation. I wish I didn't have 
to bring up this amendment; but since the administration has now put 
this into a rule, we're going to have to introduce this amendment.
  Despite the difficulty--and some would say the impossibility of 
housebreaking a horse--the Obama Justice Department has ruled that 
service horses, miniature horses used to accompany people with 
disabilities, are no different than guide dogs under the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. As a result, shops, restaurants, hotels, even 
airlines, can now be sued if they do not accommodate horses in their 
place of business.
  That regulation joins a long list of rules with which small 
businesses must comply. In fact, the New York Times recently reported 
on a particularly insidious scheme in which lawyers recruit disabled 
people, pay them a fee, and use them to file lawsuits against 
businesses that fail to comply with any one of the hundreds of ADA 
rules. For small businesses, the cost of compliance with that law that 
designates, for instance, 95 different standards for bathrooms alone is 
just the beginning.

                              {time}  2030

  They must also pay attorneys' fees to the litigants in such case, 
even though many businesses say they would have complied without a 
lawsuit.
  Some 1.65 million lawsuits are filed each year over enforcement of 
Federal regulations, according to Berkeley law professor Sean Farhang, 
author of ``The Litigation State.'' Estimates by the Competitive 
Enterprise Institute suggest that regulation cost the economy some 
$1.75 trillion in 2008 alone. That's a massive drag on the U.S. 
economy. With the average of nine new rules appearing in the Federal 
Register every day, small businesses with fewer resources struggle to 
keep up with the ever-changing regulatory environment.
  Some 65 percent of the Nation's net new jobs are created by small 
businesses, according to the Small Business Administration. 
Overregulation has a direct effect on their ability to create jobs and 
compete in the marketplace.
  If a person wishes to bring a horse into an establishment, then the 
request should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, not through some 
new Federal mandate. Ironically, even the Miniature Horse Association--
and I'm sure all good Americans subscribe to the magazine put out by 
the American Miniature Horse Association--but their president, Harry 
Elder, has looked at this. He does not condone the use of these horses 
as a replacement for guide dogs. In fact, he has said:

       The American miniature horse can readily be trained to be 
     led or driven, but in most cases it would not make a suitable 
     replacement for an animal such as a guide dog.

  So there is an association that deals with these miniature horses. 
Even that association and the president is saying this is not a wise 
move.
  If the body feels that this is an imperative thing to do, I suggest a 
Member of Congress be brave enough to introduce such a piece of 
legislation, that it be properly vetted by having a hearing about this, 
and we can move through the legislative process. But since the 
administration has introduced this regulation, this is just suggesting 
that we should not spend money against this and let this be a little 
more vetted. It would help American businesses. Unfortunately, there 
are already lawsuits flying.
  I would encourage Members on both sides of the aisle to please vote 
for this amendment, 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. I had an opportunity to visit, while I was in Connecticut 
with Chairman Larson, with a brave young soldier who lost his eyesight 
in Iraq. It was a situation where his ability to function required an 
animal to help guide him so that he could go about his normal functions 
of daily life.
  What the gentleman who made this amendment neglected to share with 
the House is that it has been the law that, under the ADA guidelines, 
you could have any animal--monkey, horse, so forth and so on--that 
could be of use to someone who was disabled. What the administration 
has done with this new regulation is limit this to only two types of 
animals: one are guide dogs--as we would normally know them--and the 
other are miniature horses that meet certain requirements, including 
being housebroken and so forth and so on. The reason why people who are 
disabled in some cases find this a more useful animal to use is that 
they live three times longer than a dog does and they have perfect 
vision.
  But I see that there has been some, I guess, laughter, as if this is 
comical. The fact of the matter is, when I met

[[Page H2532]]

with this young soldier and his wife and their two kids, he talked 
about how it just made him feel whole that he could go get the 
newspaper from out in front of the house, that he could go to the 
store.
  So the idea that this is some new policy of the Obama administration 
is false, number one. Number two, it's restricting an overly broad set 
of allowances in this regard, and it restricts it to only two types of 
animals, both of which can be used by people who are disabled.
  So I would hope that the House, even those in the majority who seem 
to find, for some reason, challenges in this bill, in particular with 
the provisions that they want to go after that allow disabled people to 
use pools--and we heard yesterday how every group in the veterans 
associations around our country opposed this effort yesterday on the 
pool access, and now we're here talking about whether or not people who 
have lost their sight or are disabled can have a guide animal.
  So I oppose the amendment. I hope the House rejects it.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I do want to indicate that I believe it was in March 
that the Department of Justice title III regulations issued a new 
ruling. So, we may disagree on what to do with this.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, you are aware, I assume, that this 
ruling was a restriction from a much broader ruling that allowed any 
type of animal, including monkeys--and I can go into the different 
other animals if you'd like.
  I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I would disagree with that assessment. This is a new 
regulation, and it has led to lawsuits that have already started to 
happen. One news report is of a lawsuit in California.
  Mr. FATTAH. Let me reclaim my time just so we can clarify this one 
matter of fact here, okay, in that the regulation prior to this 
adjustment allowed for service animals of any type--including a dog, a 
horse, monkey, bird, rat--trained to assist and alert, okay, that's 
number one. So this is a move by the Obama administration to restrict 
it to two types of animals. So I just want the House to be able to 
operate off of actual information because this is an effort to both 
help those who are disabled, and also to avoid unnecessary 
circumstances in which regulations are too broad.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I would be happy to work with you on that. I do 
disagree with that assessment and that reading of it.
  Mr. FATTAH. Let me reclaim my time. This is not an assessment; this 
is a fact. So, this was the regulation. The new regulation retreats and 
constrains the regulation to two animals versus a multiplicity of 
animals.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. FATTAH. I'd be glad to yield.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. I simply disagree with that assessment. We'll have to 
agree to disagree, and I look forward to working with you.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, because we're not talking about an 
assessment, I want the House to be aware of that. This is not the 
appropriate place to deal with this matter. But if we insist on it, I 
would hope that we would err on the side of that young brave soldier 
who risked his life on behalf of our country, and that he should have 
whatever assistance that can be provided.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Holt

  Mr. HOLT. 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 by the Department of Justice in contravention of any 
     of the following:
       (1) The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution 
     of the United States.
       (2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 
     2000d et seq.) (relating to nondiscrimination in federally 
     assisted programs).
       (3) Section 809(c)(1) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3789d(c)(1)) (relating to 
     prohibition of discrimination).
       (4) Section 210401(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law 
     Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14141(a)) (relating to 
     unlawful police pattern or practice).

  Mr. HOLT (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 New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is simple: to 
prohibit any Federal funds from flowing to law enforcement 
organizations that engage in any form of racial, ethnic, or religious 
profiling.
  It's been a matter of concern for decades among minority communities 
when policing organizations engage in profiling, but recent events have 
brought the problem into sharp focus.

                              {time}  2040

  Starting last August, the Associated Press published a series of 
disturbing stories about the systematic racial, ethnic, and religious 
profiling conducted by the New York City Police Department against 
Muslim and Arab Americans in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, 
Pennsylvania, and Louisiana.
  In September of last year, I asked the Department of Justice to 
investigate what we now know was a pattern of surveillance and 
infiltration by the New York Police Department against innocent 
American Muslims in the absence of a valid investigative reason. These 
Muslim communities were mapped, infiltrated, and surveilled simply 
because they were Muslim.
  Profiling is wrong. Profiling on the basis of the race, ethnicity, 
and religion is a violation of core constitutional principles.
  Profiling is also wrong because it is not good policing. Profiling is 
an unthinking, lazy, unprofessional approach to police work and 
intelligence work, and it only raises the risk that the real plot will 
slip through the cracks. Indeed, profiling is counterproductive.
  The sloppiness of the NYPD surveillance effort was such that several 
non-Muslim establishments were labeled as being owned by Muslims and, 
contrary to the blanket assertions by some that the tactics have kept 
New York City safe, the NYPD failed to uncover two actual plots against 
New York City, those perpetrated by Faisal Shahzad and Najibullah Zazi.
  In Shahzad's case, the FBI was surveilling both the mosque he 
attended and the Muslim Student Association of his accomplice. In 
Zazi's case, the NYPD actually took actions that let Zazi be tipped off 
about the FBI's investigation.
  The NYPD's surreptitious, uncoordinated, and unprofessional approach 
to counterterrorism prevention within the American Muslim community 
shows that they have learned nothing from the lessons elucidated from 
the 
9/11 Commission's report.
  Now, let me be clear. This amendment is not aimed solely at one 
particular law enforcement organization. Over the decades, law 
enforcement agencies across the country have profiled against African 
Americans, Hispanics, and other minorities. Indeed, the Department of 
Justice has specific guidance prohibiting this practice because it has 
become widespread, and it has conducted litigation against Police 
Departments for using race or ethnicity to target citizens for arrest 
in California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and other States.
  My amendment would ensure that no Federal funds are flowing to any 
law enforcement entity that the Department has identified as engaging 
in racial, ethnic, and religious profiling.
  Racial, ethnic and religious profiling by police is not something 
taxpayer dollars should be spent for. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H2533]]

                                  People for the American Way,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2012.
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the hundreds of 
     thousands of members of People for the American Way, I urge 
     you to support Representative Holt's amendment to H.R. 5326, 
     the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2013. A vote is anticipated this 
     afternoon. This amendment would prohibit federal funds made 
     available through the act to be used for programs or 
     activities that involve racial, ethnic, or religious 
     profiling by any federal, state, or local law enforcement 
     organization.
       Such profiling undermines America's status as a nation 
     founded on Equal Justice Under Law. The story of America is 
     one of a nation founded on timeless ideals of liberty and 
     equality, and struggling generation after generation to make 
     those principles real for those not included. Society's 
     ``outsiders'' are brought in and made to know that they in 
     fact belong to the community that is America. Profiling 
     damages that process. It sends a powerful message to entire 
     communities that they are, in fact, not quite the equal 
     members of society that we said they were. It tells them that 
     their very existence raises suspicions. It harms the 
     individuals profiled, as well as those who live in constant 
     apprehension of being profiled. The practice undermines our 
     nation's principles, and our federal government should not be 
     funding it.
       Profiling does not even produce the benefits that it is 
     purported to provide: It is counterproductive. When limited 
     law enforcement resources are spent targeting innocent people 
     simply because of their real or perceived race, ethnicity, or 
     religion, that is not an efficient use of resources. Nor is 
     it efficient to alienate entire communities, making them feel 
     resentful toward or fearful of law enforcement. People living 
     in America should be able to rely on law enforcement as a 
     partner in making their lives safer. But those who feel 
     unfairly targeted by profiling will be far less likely to 
     cooperate with law enforcement when their cooperation is 
     needed, whether it is a case of local violent crime or 
     national security. That does not make our nation or our 
     communities safer.
       A practice that undermines both our principles and our 
     safety is not one that the federal government should be 
     funding. We urge you to vote for Representative Holt's 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
     Marge Baker,
       Executive Vice President for Policy and Program.
     Paul R. Gordon,
       Senior Legislative Counsel.
                                  ____



                                          Interfaith Alliance,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2012.
     Re Interfaith Alliance Recommends Voting YES on Rep. Holt 
         Amend. to H.R. 5326.

       Dear Representative: On behalf of Interfaith Alliance, I 
     urge you to vote YES on Rep. Rush Holt's (D NJ 12) amendment 
     to H.R. 5326, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act of 2013. A recorded vote on this 
     amendment is anticipated on the House floor today. The 
     amendment states:

       ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used 
     for programs or activities that involve racial, ethnic, or 
     religious profiling by any Federal, state, or local law 
     enforcement organization.''

       As the only national, interfaith organization dedicated to 
     protecting the integrity of both religion and democracy in 
     America, Interfaith Alliance supports Rep. Holt's amendment 
     because:
       Racial and religious profiling is an affront to the 
     principle of religious freedom on which our nation was 
     founded. Profiling individuals simply because they belong, or 
     appear to belong, to a particular religious community turns 
     First Amendment-protected beliefs and activities into cause 
     for suspicion.
       Racial and religious profiling undermines Americans' trust 
     in those sworn to protect them. Numerous studies have shown 
     that singling out individuals for investigation based solely 
     on their appearance is ineffective and dishonest, alienates 
     racial and religious minorities, and diminishes cooperation 
     and effective law enforcement.
       Racial and religious profiling fuels divisiveness by 
     casting suspicion over an entire religious community, 
     perpetuating discrimination against religion generally and 
     religious minorities in particular.
       Protecting religious freedom is most critical in times of 
     crisis and controversy. Most law enforcement agents discharge 
     their duties honorably, and do not engage in racial and/or 
     religious profiling. Prior to 9/11, both Congress and 
     President George W. Bush made a commitment to end the 
     practice of racial profiling. However, the September 11th 
     attacks caused a dramatic rise in the inappropriate profiling 
     of Arabs, Muslims, Sikhs, and South Asians. This profiling 
     based on religion, race, ethnicity, and national origin 
     continues to persist today.
       Again, please vote YES on Rep. Holt's amendment to H.R. 
     5326 and affirm our fundamental moral and democratic values 
     of equal protection and religious liberty while making our 
     nation safer by ending this practice now. Please call Deputy 
     Director for Public Policy Arielle Gingold with any questions 
     at 202 238 3266.
           Sincerely,
                                         Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy,
     President, Interfaith Alliance.
                                  ____

                                      National Association for the


                                Advancement of Colored People,

                                      Washington, DC, May 9, 2012.
     Re: NAACP Strong Support for the Anti-Racial Profiling 
         Amendment to be Offered by Congressman Rush Holt (NJ) to 
         H.R. 5326, A Bill Making Appropriations for the 
         Departments of Commerce, Justice and State.

     Hon. Members,
     U.S. House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the NAACP, our nation's 
     oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots-based 
     civil rights organization, I strongly urge you to support 
     Congressman Rush Holt's (NJ) amendment to HR 5316, the 
     Commerce, Justice, State, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act 2013. Congressman Holt's amendment would prohibit federal 
     funding for programs or activities that involve racial, 
     ethnic, or religious profiling by any federal, state, or 
     local law enforcement organization.
       Racial profiling betrays the fundamental American promise 
     of equal protection under the law and infringes on the Fourth 
     Amendment guarantee that all people be free from unreasonable 
     searches and seizures. Such discriminatory law enforcement 
     practices have no place in American life and certainly should 
     not be supported by federal funds. Racial profiling targets 
     individuals not because of evidence of criminal activity but 
     because of the individuals' perceived race, ethnicity, 
     nationality or religion. It diverts limited law enforcement 
     resources away from more effective strategies. Racial 
     profiling also causes resentment in targeted communities and 
     makes people in those communities less likely to cooperate in 
     crime prevention reporting or investigations. When 
     individuals and communities fear the police, they are less 
     likely to call law enforcement when they are the victims of 
     crime or in emergencies. Creating a climate of fear 
     compromises public safety and limits the ability of law 
     enforcement officials to effectively carry out their 
     responsibilities. Such counterproductive law enforcement 
     practices should never receive federal support.
       As I stated earlier, I hope that you will support the Holt 
     amendment to H.R. 5326 and help address the very serious 
     problem of racial profiling. Thank you in advance for your 
     attention to this NAACP priority. Should you have any 
     questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me 
     at my office at (202) 463 2940.
           Sincerely,

                                            Hilary O. Shelton,

                           Vice President for Advocacy / Director,
                                          NAACP Washington Bureau.

  Mr. KING of New York. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I must say that I strongly oppose 
this amendment, and I disagree with virtually every word spoken on the 
floor tonight by the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Let's understand one thing. The NYPD has the most effective 
counterterrorism unit in the country. There are 1,000 police working 
day in and day out. As a result of that, almost 13 or 14 attempts, 
terrorist attempts, Islamist terrorist attempts to attack New York have 
been stopped.
  Now, let's get something straight. The President's Homeland Security 
Advisor, John Brennan, recently visited with the NYPD. During that 
meeting, or following that meeting, Mr. Brennan, President Obama's 
Homeland Security Advisor, stated:

       I have full confidence that the NYPD is doing things 
     consistent with the law, and it's something that again has 
     been responsible for keeping this city safe over the past 
     decade.

  Mr. Brennan, the President's Homeland Security Advisor went on to 
say:

       If we are going to have the ability to identify and stop 
     terrorist operatives and terrorist attacks here on our 
     shores, the national government cannot do it alone. The NYPD 
     is a model of how a community can come together.
  He closed by saying to the NYPD:

       You have had a very difficult job. I think you've done it 
     very well. The success is in the record in terms of keeping 
     your city safe.

  In addition to that, FBI Director Mueller has stood by the NYPD, said 
that they are in full compliance with the law. CIA Director Petraeus, 
there was an IG inspection done, that the NYPD's relationship with the 
CIA was in full compliance with the law.
  These slanderous attacks by the Associated Press and The New York 
Times cannot point out one instance of a law being violated or one 
provision of the Constitution being violated.
  We should be here tonight giving the NYPD a medal. We sit here, 10\1/
2\ years

[[Page H2534]]

after September 11, and the most effective law enforcement, 
counterterrorism unit in the country is being attacked? We are 
attempting to cite the Constitution and provisions of law as somehow an 
attack on the NYPD, when no one complies with these more than the NYPD.
  And again, we go through, whether it's Director Petraeus, whether 
it's Director Mueller, or whether it's the President of the United 
States, his own Homeland Security advisers have said this.
  Now, I work closely with the NYPD, those in New York, whether it's 
Mayor Bloomberg, whether it's City Council President Christine Quinn. 
She's a Democrat; he's an independent. Both stand by the NYPD because 
of what they have done.
  And to think that the most effective organization is being attacked 
by the Associated Press, The New York Times, and those attacks are 
being joined here on the floor of the Congress of the United States, 
without one fact to back them up. There is no spying. All this is good 
police work.
  The reality is we're not going to sit back like we did on September 
11 and allow the enemy to come. If we know that an attack is coming and 
we're told, for instance, that operatives are coming from a particular 
country and there's a community in New York City where those people 
live, then obviously you go, you conduct open surveillance. No one's 
talking about any violations to the Constitution.
  I remember years ago when the Justice Department was going after the 
Mafia, they went to the Italian American communities. When they were 
going after the Westies, they went to the Irish American communities. 
When you're looking for the Russian mob, you go to the communities in 
Coney Island and Brighton Beach. That's where the enemy comes from.
  Ninety-nine percent of the people are law-abiding. But if you're 
looking for the person who is going to that community to carry out a 
crime, you look in that community. If you're looking for an Islamic 
terrorist, you don't go to Ben's Kosher Deli. When they were looking 
for the Italian mob, they didn't go to an Irish bar. They went to the 
Italian social clubs.
  This is solid law enforcement. That's not profiling. That's an abuse 
of the term ``profiling'' to even suggest that.
  So I cannot be more emphatic or stronger in my denunciation of this 
amendment, calling for its defeat and urging people to stand by the 
NYPD, which has kept New York safe for 10\1/2\ years.
  I went to too many funerals. I attended too many wakes. I lost too 
many constituents. I'm not going to allow it to happen so long as I'm 
in this Congress.
  I oppose this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. This is a well-intentioned issue in the sense that all 
this amendment says is that none of the funds in this bill should be 
used to violate the Constitution of the United States, the Fifth and 
the 14th Amendment, so I'm sure there will be those who want to adhere 
to it.
  But this is not the appropriate place to be dealing with this issue. 
This is an appropriations bill. We've had dozens of riders, one after 
another, with people trying to get at other issues.
  Now, there is no instance, no matter what the purpose, under which we 
should be condemning law enforcement when they are carrying out 
appropriate responsibilities, and they should be given the benefit of 
the doubt. In the same instance, we have a responsibility to uphold the 
Constitution. The Constitution is clear in its delineation that you 
can't discriminate.
  And we shouldn't--it's not good law enforcement practices, no matter 
who you're looking for, to act in ways in which you close your eyes to 
other possibilities. If you're looking for terrorists, they don't come 
in any particular subset or group. And I know that wise law enforcement 
is aware of this, and that they look across the board at what the 
vulnerabilities may be.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his steadfastness 
in trying to protect against religious bigotry or ethnic discrimination 
or unintentional stepping across the line, however one might want to 
look at this. But, again, this is a bill in which we're trying to deal 
with the appropriation of Federal dollars for needed law enforcement 
activity.
  Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOLT. Thank you.
  This is completely consistent with an appropriations bill for the 
Department of Justice. Just as we have spent decades getting away from 
the practice of harassing people for driving while black, we've got to 
get away from the practice of harassing people for shopping while 
Muslim.

                              {time}  2050

  Mr. FATTAH. In reclaiming my time, the point here is that, with every 
dollar that we appropriate to the Department of Justice, we operate 
under the belief that they're carrying out their constitutional 
responsibilities, so a limitation that says that they have to operate 
within the Constitution, at best, is somewhat redundant.
  Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Reference was made to the Deputy National Security Advisor 
of President Obama's, Mr. Brennan.
  What Mr. Brennan actually said was that, for the NYPD to be 
effective, they need the cooperation of the Muslim community. In fact, 
if you talk with the Muslim community, they are not only outraged by 
this behavior; they are intimidated by it. They see it as profiling. My 
colleague from New York and my colleague from Pennsylvania can say, 
well, of course everybody is operating under the law.
  Mr. FATTAH. In reclaiming my time, I didn't say that. I understand, 
from the press reports one could consider this profiling. All I am 
suggesting to you is that this is not the appropriate vehicle for us to 
deal with it. Profiling would be improper, and I believe the Justice 
Department has articulated that their position is not to profile.
  Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FATTAH. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. I would hope that the gentleman would find a place for this 
instruction to the Department of Justice in order to make sure that the 
recipients of their grants do what they are, indeed, supposed to do. 
We're talking about money spent. We should make sure that the taxpayer 
money is spent for good policing.
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman. As I indicated, I commend you for 
raising this issue. I know it's unpopular in some areas.
  I'm just suggesting that, when in an appropriations bill, a rider 
like this, dictating to the Department that it should comply with the 
Constitution is similar to some other amendments we've seen today. I 
believe that the Department has an ongoing, everyday responsibility to 
comply with the Constitution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I share the comments made by Mr. Fattah and by my friend 
from New York (Mr. King).
  At every hearing we have, we raise this issue with Director Mueller. 
Director Mueller may be the best--not one of the best--the best 
Director that we've ever had at the FBI. I think Director Mueller has 
stood with the NYPD. He had an opportunity to speak and to say 
something negative. He did not.
  My good friend--and he is my friend. I think we throw words around 
there, but I like Rush Holt, and he knows how I feel about him. Yet 
this is not a good amendment, and it almost makes the FBI or the NYPD 
look like they're doing something wrong. It's one thing to have a 
colloquy on the floor, but another to have an amendment that looks like 
it's a direct kind of attack on it after. I looked at the original 
amendment, and you had to kind of change it for it to be in order.
  Secondly, I think Ray Kelly is one of the finest police chiefs we've 
ever had in the country, and if you were an NYPD policeman, you would 
see this and think.

[[Page H2535]]

  Thirdly, to validate what Mr. King said, I will read here:

       President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser 
     praised the New York Police Department's work Friday, saying 
     the agency has struck an appropriate balance between keeping 
     people safe and protecting their rights.

  We have to remember Major Hasan was responsible for the death of 13 
people, and there were targets and signs that nobody wanted to kind of 
identify. As Mr. King said, there are about 180 people from my 
congressional district who died in the attack at the Pentagon.
  Brennan goes on to say:

       It is not a trade-off between our security and our freedoms 
     and our rights as citizens, John Brennan said Friday at an 
     appearance at NYPD headquarters.
       I believe that balance that we strike has been an 
     appropriate one. We want to make sure that we're able to 
     optimize our security at the same time we optimize those 
     freedoms we hold and cherish so deeply.

  Brennan's comments represent a White House stamp of approval of the 
NYPD's tactics. For months, the Obama administration has sized up the 
question about the NYPD surveillance program while insisting on the 
importance of building partnerships with American Muslims.
  Then it goes on to say:

       City officials said the police department has done nothing 
     illegal and argued that the NYPD would have endangered the 
     city it is charged with protecting if it did not take such 
     preventative measures. Officers cannot wait to open an 
     investigation until a crime is committed, they argue. Police 
     Commissioner Raymond Kelly has said it is a 
     mischaracterization to describe the department's tactics as 
     spying.

  I will close with this:

       In a speech to the police department's officials and 
     representatives from private security firms, Brennan then 
     went on to say, The NYPD's counterterrorism work was 
     essential to the safety of the Nation's citizens.

  So I agree with Mr. King, and I agree with Mr. Holt.
  Mr. HOLT. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Since you refer to the Deputy National Security Advisor, 
it's worth pointing out that a couple of days later the White House 
felt it necessary to back away from his comments and to say:

       John, in his remarks, wasn't referring to the NYPD 
     surveillance.

  Of course he was, but they had to say he wasn't because he had 
misspoken. Rather, he was stating that everyone in the counterterrorism 
and law enforcement community must make sure that we are doing things 
consistent with the law.
  In other words, Mr. Brennan was out of bounds, and the White House 
had to walk that back. So I wouldn't, if I were you, choose his 
endorsement of these NYPD activities as the best argument against my 
amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. In reclaiming my time, I do take Mr. Brennan at his word. I 
think Mr. Brennan is actually a constituent who lives in my 
congressional district. He has a pretty distinguished career in having 
been our station chief in Saudi Arabia and the head of the 
Counterterrorism Center, and he probably knows more about terrorism 
than any Member here in the Congress but for, perhaps, Mr. Rogers or 
Mr. Ruppersberger.
  Secondly, Director Mueller, I maintain, is one of the best Directors. 
Director Mueller is an honest, decent, ethical guy, who cares deeply 
with regard to civil rights. Mr. Serrano is not here, but God bless Mr. 
Serrano. At every hearing, Mr. Serrano always bears in to make sure 
that the FBI is doing things appropriately. I believe they are, and he 
validated what the NYPD did.
  It's just not a good idea to be attacking our law enforcement and 
saying this when they're actually doing a good job. So I stand with Mr. 
Fattah, and I stand with Mr. King.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Virginia has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Fattah, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Wolf was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  It is not inconsistent for us to want to have support for law 
enforcement and also that the Constitution be followed. We have access 
to law enforcement. If you want them to come in and brief you on these 
tactics and to talk this thing through, that's fine; but I don't 
believe that we should take a position of all the angels on one side. 
To the contrary, there is no police department that's perfect.
  The point here is that the effort is one, I believe, to comply with 
the constitutional restrictions that you do not operate without due 
process and probable cause. Let's see if we can find a way other than 
with this amendment to see if we can get to the heart of this.
  Mr. WOLF. 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. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. 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 No. 7 Offered by Mr. Cravaack

  Mr. CRAVAACK. 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 carry out the activities of the Climate Change 
     Education program of the National Science Foundation.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. I rise today to offer an amendment that would prohibit 
any more funding going to a duplicative program. I'd like to think that 
everyone in this room is well aware that we are $15.7 trillion in debt.

                              {time}  2100

  Our spending is out of control. We are simply spending money we don't 
have and massively indebting future generations of Americans.
  The GAO reports duplicative U.S. Government programs costs billions 
of dollars. Thirteen agencies fund 209 different science, technology, 
engineering, and math education programs. Of those programs, 173 
overlap with at least one other program. We have to be responsible for 
how the government spends Americans' hard-earned tax dollars. We cannot 
afford to borrow money to fund duplicative programs that are already 
under the purview of established agencies and protocols.
  The Climate Change Education program at the National Science 
Foundation duplicates education programs already in place. Currently, 
worthy research proposals are subject to rigorous peer-reviewed 
processes. The Climate Change Education program sets aside money for a 
specific purpose, which is already covered in interagency education 
programs. This is just more Big Government and a waste of taxpayer 
dollars.
  Last year, the Climate Change Education program funded partnerships 
among K 12 education, related nonprofit organizations, and relevant 
education and/or climate-related policymakers. This year, however, the 
program has morphed into the Sustainability Research Network to create 
new interdisciplinary learning experiences for graduate and 
undergraduate students, as well as literacy programs. In the military, 
we call this mission creep.
  The National Science Foundation funds basic research and serves as an 
engine of our innovation economy. However you feel about global 
warming, that is not the debate here today, though I look forward to 
engaging in that in the future.
  This amendment addresses a duplicative program that is not necessary 
and is costing the taxpayers money we simply don't have. We need to 
prioritize innovation and research and NSF, and eliminate duplicative 
education programs that do nothing to improve the economic outlook of 
our future. We need to get back to the basics.
  I ask all of my colleagues to join me in this commonsense amendment 
in ending a duplicative program that is wasting taxpayer dollars and 
further indebting future generations.

[[Page H2536]]

  Mr. Chair, 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. Chair, I oppose this amendment.
  Climate change is a big issue in the world we live in. It affects our 
economy, our ability to move goods. We've had the most severe weather 
season we've had in history over the last 12 months at a cost of a 
billion-plus dollars. Our ability to understand the weather and the 
climate and its impact on business and industry and agriculture is 
critically important. I think that the National Science Foundation--
which is an entirely merit-based system of scientific awards in which 
they fund less than one out of every five meritorious pieces of 
research proposals. There is absolutely no politics. The National 
Science Board, which is confirmed by the Senate, reviews these 
proposals, they make selections. The idea that we don't want to know 
more or learn more, I think is interesting. I would hope that the House 
would reject that, and that what we would do is seek knowledge as a way 
to retain our global leadership as the leading Nation in the world.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. CRAVAACK. Mr. Chairman, regarding duplicative programs--again, 
this is about duplicative programs. The National Science Foundation 
already funds STEM education and even climate-change education programs 
in the Directorate for Education and Human Resources with worthy peer-
reviewed proposals.
  Total U.S. spending for the U.S. Global Change Research program for 
13 agencies is more than $2.5 billion, primarily at NASA, NOAA, and 
NSF. NSF spending for the U.S. Global Change Research program is over 
$333 million. NSF spending for education is $1.2 billion a year. 
Climate change education can be addressed through NSF climate research 
activities and NSF education activities. There is no need to fund 
additional special climate-change education programs.
  This newer program under the Obama administration is currently funded 
at $10 million a year, $5.5 million from the Education Directorate and 
$4.5 million from several research directorates as identified. Again, 
this is a duplicative program and a waste of the taxpayer dollars.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Cravaack).
  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 Minnesota 
will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Ms. Brown of Florida

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. 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. __. The amount made available by this Act For 
     ``Department of Justice--Office of Justice Programs--State 
     and Local Law Enforcement Assistance'' for emergency federal 
     law enforcement assistance, as authorized by section 609M the 
     Justice Assistance Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10513; Public Law 
     98 473) is hereby increased by $20,000,000 and the amount 
     otherwise provided by this Act for PERIODIC CENSUSES AND 
     PROGRAMS AND STATISTICS is hereby reduced by $20,000,000.

  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 
reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I'm very 
excited that finally we have an amendment that I think everybody can 
support since everyone supports law enforcement.
  This amendment fully funds the Emergency Federal Law Enforcement 
Assistance Program in the amount of $20 million. This program was 
designed to help local government respond to extraordinary law 
enforcement emergencies after they have exhausted their own budgets. 
The Emergency Law Enforcement Assistance Program authorizes the 
Attorney General to provide funds, equipment, training, intelligence, 
and personnel to alleviate the financial impact of unforeseeable 
emergency law enforcement situations.
  This program was authorized in 1984 but has not been funded since 
1996. Had it been funded, this program would have helped a community in 
my district. In October of 2007, a 7-year-old girl, Somer Thompson, 
went missing on her way home from school. The Clay County sheriff's 
office followed garbage trucks and found Somer's body in a Georgia 
landfill 2 days later. Thanks to this quick thinking, her killer was 
captured and will never harm another child.
  Investigations like this one cost a lot of money. Overtime, lab 
tests, travel costs, and numerous unforeseen expenses can blow even the 
most prudent budget. Small communities simply lack the resources to 
pursue investigations on this scale. The sheriff told me he had 
exhausted his budget for the year on overtime just for this one case.
  I did what I could to help scrape together grants from other sources, 
but this program would have filled the gap. By the way, the sheriff and 
almost everyone in Clay County is a Republican, but this is not about 
party. It's about doing what is right. In an era when local government 
can barely afford the police they have, a major crime can wipe them out 
and leave the community more vulnerable. The basic purpose of 
government is to protect the citizens. This amendment will make sure 
police can do it without worrying about a crisis that will break their 
budget.
  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentlelady yield?
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. We have a little concern, but we are going to accept the 
amendment with the idea we can work as we go to conference. We will 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. If the gentlewoman will yield, I thank the chairman, and 
I thank the gentlelady from Florida.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Reed). The question is on the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2110

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, in lieu of an amendment, I would 
like to take this time to engage the subcommittee chairman in a 
colloquy about the importance of our Nation's fisheries management 
commissions.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for funding our 
Nation's fisheries management commissions and the good work they do to 
help keep more fish in our waters. NOAA's Inter-Jurisdictional 
Fisheries Act, IJFA, program supports the conservation and management 
of fish species which occur in both Federal and State waters. Funding 
for this program is used to support conservation and management tasks 
not currently being undertaken by NOAA or the Regional Fishery 
Management Councils. Similarly, fisheries commissions on the Atlantic, 
Pacific, and gulf coast represent an important bottom-up stakeholder 
approach to managing our Nation's many fisheries and often develop 
innovative programs to enhance America's fisheries resources.
  I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman from Alaska. We will work with the 
other body to ensure that these programs are adequately funded.

[[Page H2537]]

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  In these tight budgetary times, hard choices must be made, and we 
should ensure that we do our utmost to put funds back into productive 
programs that increase the sustainability of fisheries and benefit the 
States, and the IJFA and councils and commissions accounts are areas 
where current programs are producing proven results for fisheries' 
sustainability.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi

  Mr. GARAMENDI. 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. ___.  The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by--
       (1) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Department of Commerce; International Trade Administration; 
     Operations and Administration'' (and the amount provided 
     under such heading for official representation expenses 
     abroad) by $155,979;
       (2) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Department of Commerce; Bureau of Industry and Security; 
     Operations and Administration'' (and the amount provided 
     under such heading for official representation expenses 
     abroad), by $6,750;
       (3) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Department of Commerce; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; 
     Salaries and Expenses'' (and the amount provided under such 
     heading for official reception and representation expenses) 
     by $450;
       (4) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Department of Commerce; National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology; Scientific and Technical Research and Services'' 
     (and the amount provided under such heading for official 
     reception and representation expenses) by $2,500;
       (5) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Department of Commerce; Departmental Management; Salaries 
     and Expenses'' (and the amount provided under such heading 
     for official reception and representation) by $2,250;
       (6) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Department of Justice; Legal Activities; Salaries and 
     Expenses, General Legal Activities'' (and the amount made 
     available under such heading to INTERPOL Washington for 
     official reception and representation expenses) by $4,500;
       (7) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Department of Justice; Legal Activities; Salaries and 
     Expenses, United States Attorneys'' (and the amount provided 
     under such heading for official reception and representation 
     expenses) by $3,600;
       (8) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Department of Justice; United States Marshals Service; 
     Salaries and Expenses'' (and the amount provided under such 
     heading for official reception and representation expenses) 
     by $3,000;
       (9) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Department of Justice; Federal Bureau of Investigations; 
     Salaries and Expenses'' (and the amount provided under such 
     heading for official reception and representation expenses) 
     by $98,640;
       (10) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Department of Justice; Drug Enforcement Administration; 
     Salaries and Expenses'' (and the amount provided under such 
     heading for official reception and representation expenses) 
     by $45,000;
       (11) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Department of Justice; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 
     and Explosives; Salaries and Expenses'' (and the amount 
     provided under such heading for official reception and 
     representation expenses) by $18,000;
       (12) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Department of Justice; Federal Prison System; Salaries and 
     Expenses'' (and the amount provided under such heading for 
     official reception and representation expenses) by $2,700;
       (13) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Science; Office of Science and Technology Policy'' (and the 
     amount provided under such heading for official reception and 
     representation expenses) by $1,125;
       (14) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Science; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 
     Cross Agency Support'' (and the amount provided under such 
     heading for official reception and representation expenses) 
     by $31,709;
       (15) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Science; National Science Foundation; Agency Operations and 
     Award Management'' (and the amount provided under such 
     heading for official reception and representation expenses) 
     by $4,140;
       (16) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Science; Office of the National Science Board'' (and the 
     amount provided under such heading for official reception and 
     representation expenses) by $1,250;
       (17) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Related Agencies; Equal Employment Opportunity Commission'' 
     (and the amount provided under such heading for official 
     reception and representation expenses) by $1,125;
       (18) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Related Agencies; International Trade Commission; Salaries 
     and Expenses'' (and the amount provided under such heading 
     for official reception and representation expenses) by 
     $1,125;
       (19) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Related Agencies; Office of the United States Trade 
     Representative; Salaries and Expenses'' (and the amount 
     provided under such heading for official reception and 
     representation expenses) by $58,032;
       (20) reducing the amount made available under the heading 
     ``Related Agencies; State Justice Institute; Salaries and 
     Expenses'' (and the amount provided under such heading for 
     official reception and representation expenses) by $1,125; 
     and
       (21) by increasing the amount made available for 
     ``Department of Commerce; National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology; Industrial Technology Services'' (and the amount 
     provided under such heading for the Manufacturing Extension 
     Partnership) by $443,000.

  Mr. GARAMENDI (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 California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Chairman, day after day, or at least week after 
week, my colleagues and I are here on the floor talking about jobs. It 
is about jobs and jobs and jobs again. Our agenda, which we call ``Make 
It in America,'' is an agenda that would rebuild the American 
manufacturing sector, a sector that has lost about 40 percent of its 
jobs in the last 20, 25 years from just under 20 million to just over 
11 million Americans who are working in manufacturing today.
  One of the innovative ways of improving manufacturing has been 
developed. It's called the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. It's 
actually modeled after another Federal-State program that's been in 
existence for more than 100 years. Anyone that's in agriculture would 
recognize the Agricultural Extension Program. This is the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership, a program that has actually added another 
feature to the old and still very successful Agricultural Extension 
Program, and that is a public-private partnership. In this program, the 
Federal Government, through the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, runs a program in which funding is provided for local, 
private, or nonprofit organizations to become extension program 
managers.
  In California, this has been a very, very successful program. Some 
$447 million in new retained sales have occurred, $128.8 million in new 
investments, and some 3,769 jobs have been created.
  Some examples exist throughout California. In southern California, a 
manufacturer, a small company that makes high-tech parts for the 
aircraft industry, has been able to improve their manufacturing 
techniques and have been able to stay in business, and they now have 
been very successful in bringing down contracts with the aircraft 
industry.
  In the Bay Area, another program--actually run out of San Ramon, near 
my district--has been very successful. This program, called MANEX, has 
been very successful working with companies in the area. Morgan Hill 
Precision, to be precise, is a company that, again, is a machine shop. 
That company has used the MEP program, the Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership, to good success.
  Now how do we pay for this? Some $437,000. We take a little bit from 
some 20 different parts of the Department of Commerce. The result is 
it's working. We would like to keep it working at its full level, at 
last year's level. The bill before us actually reduces it by 50 
percent. So we're adding $437,000 back by taking small amounts from 
some 20 different programs.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I have no objection. I support the amendment. It's 
appropriate to reduce the Agency's representation funds in this austere 
fiscal environment. Last year, the House and Senate conference 
committee on the bill reduced every representation account in

[[Page H2538]]

the bill by 10 percent. So I think MEP is a great program, and I 
support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I have no higher priority in the Commerce section of the 
bill than MEP. I have visited with them in their meetings with local 
manufacturers. I visited with them in Orlando with over 1,000 
manufactures from around the country. I know intimately the work that 
they're doing. The National Innovative Marketplace, which the gentleman 
refers to, has been very helpful.
  This is the only program in the last year that left the House at a 
higher number than the Senate and left the conference committee at a 
higher number than the House or the Senate. So you can tell it rose to 
its highest level of funding at $128 million. This program started 
under Senator Hollings at $5 million. It's very, very important.
  But not only would we accept this amendment--and I thank the 
chairman--but I think you have to look at what we've done in this bill 
in total in terms of manufacturing because the chairman has been 
focused on this. Over $140 million in the National Science Foundation 
with the Advanced Manufacturing Initiative. We have money in this for 
the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortium.
  We, with the chairman's leadership, have an onshoring initiative 
funded at $5 million to help businesses think through their cost-
benefit analysis of coming back home. And we actually held a hearing, 
as the last hearing of the subcommittee before we marked up our bill, 
focused on manufacturing. I've said there's nothing more important to 
the country or to my caucus than this matter. It's not a partisan 
issue. Manufacturing, making things in America is of importance to our 
national security and is important to our economy.
  I want to thank you for your leadership. And I also agree with the 
amendment.
  I will yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Denham

  Mr. DENHAM. 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 implement section 10011(b) of Public Law 111 11.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, the amendment that I'm offering is intended to 
fortify the underlying appropriations bill. Under the bill, the 
National Marine Fisheries Service and this amendment seek to ensure 
that funding doesn't have a detrimental impact on my district.
  This amendment was adopted on the floor by a voice vote last year and 
added to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. Further, it was also 
supported in H.R. 1837 earlier this year, and you would have supported 
what this amendment will achieve.
  The San Joaquin River Restoration Program continues to push forward 
on an ill-advised path of wasting water out of the ocean under the 
guise of saving salmon. Every year, the San Joaquin River Restoration 
Program would require the reintroduction of salmon into the San Joaquin 
River if this ill-advised attempt to introduce the species fails.

                              {time}  2120

  The problem is that the river is not yet in a condition where the 
salmon can survive.
  There's still a number of different problems and projects along the 
river that need to be completed, from a bypass to several fish screens, 
and even in one section of the river the administration hasn't even 
designated a channel from where the river will flow--and will not for 
another 2 years.
  Premature introduction of salmon in the river will only lead to their 
death at a high cost to taxpayers and the local community. This 
amendment simply prohibits the premature reintroduction of an 
endangered salmon species into an uninhabitable river. Central Valley 
salmon runs are struggling to regain healthy numbers. This amendment 
ensures that bureaucrats don't purposely reduce the numbers of 
available salmon in other streams just to plant them into the San 
Joaquin system and further threaten and endanger current runs.
  Agencies already possess the necessary authority to make the right 
decision and delay the reintroduction of salmon into a river that 
cannot sustain the life cycle of the salmon, but they continue to bend 
to an environmental agenda. More time is needed to build the 
infrastructure required for the San Joaquin River Restoration Program 
before the river can sustain the salmon run.
  Finally, even the National Marine Fisheries Service has doubts about 
the success of reintroduction. Contained within the final draft of 
their reintroduction strategies, the Service stated the river would not 
support full-scale reintroduction of the salmon. And, further, the 
Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce jointly 
stated that the completion of phase 1 of the restoration project was 
needed before reintroduction of salmon can be successful.
  This is a very commonsense amendment. The river needs several 
different projects to be completed for the salmon to even survive. So 
why would we, year after year, take salmon off of other tributaries, 
move them to somewhere they can't survive at a huge expense to 
taxpayers?
  Mr. Chairman, it's a commonsense amendment to prevent taxpayer 
dollars from being wasted on killing an endangered species.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I have no objection to the amendment. I accept the 
amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. I'm going to be brief.
  This amendment seeks to intervene or prohibit a court-supervised 
settlement of an 18-year running litigation having to do with some very 
delicate issues that he has I think articulated around an endangered 
species of salmon. To do this at this hour of the night on this bill I 
think is not prudent. I'm opposed to it, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. For more than 20 years, there's the question of what 
to do with the San Joaquin River, a river that was essentially dried 
out and a river in which the indigenous species--salmon and other 
fish--were simply nonexistent. That fight went on and on and on. And 
after 20 years of fighting and litigation, a settlement was reached--a 
settlement that called for the restoration of stream flows in the San 
Joaquin River so that the salmon and other species in that river could 
be returned. This amendment simply overturns that. It was a Federal 
court order that approved the settlement--a settlement between the 
water users of the CVPIA and also the environmental groups.
  To do this amendment is simply going to once again reignite a major 
water war that is totally unnecessary. Certainly, it is going to be 
difficult to restore the river, but it can be done and it is going to 
take time and it is going to take money--and we should do it. This is 
one of the two largest rivers in the State of California. It's a river 
that had in the past, before the reservoirs were built and before the 
river was dried up, an extraordinary run of salmon. It will never be 
able to return to what it once was, but it can return to a viable 
river.
  To take action at this hour of the night on an amendment that is 
going

[[Page H2539]]

to only be heard between half a dozen of us here on the floor seems to 
me to be quite wrong. We ought to oppose this amendment. We ought not 
allow it to be in the bill, and we ought to allow things to go forward.
  I would remind those who are supporting this that this is going to be 
a major blowup in the U.S. Senate. I know we don't much care about 
that, but, nonetheless, Senator Feinstein has authored legislation to 
implement this particular settlement. This unravels all of that. We 
ought not be moving forward, and I therefore oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DENHAM. Thank you for yielding.
  As my friend from California completely understands, we can't 
reintroduce salmon in an area that isn't inhabitable by salmon. It's 
just not only a waste of money, but it's going to kill the endangered 
species. Why move them from one tributary where they are surviving to 
one where they can't survive?
  Don't take my word for it. Take the word of the National Marine 
Fisheries Service or the Department of the Interior or the Department 
of Commerce. Take the opinion of the Exchange Contractors Water 
Authority, the San Luis & Delta Mendota. These are the locals that live 
there. Why waste the money?
  He knows the issue. So either he wants to kill the salmon at a huge 
expense or he just wants to waste the money. This does nothing to 
overturn the settlement. All it merely says is let's follow what was 
originally intended, wait until 2014 when the projects are complete, 
give the salmon a fighting chance to survive, and let's not waste a lot 
of money in the meantime.
  Let's not confuse the issue. He understands this has passed the House 
by a voice vote. It has passed the House in a bill. And now, once 
again, after being debated several times in committee, in the light of 
day, with many amendments, with many opportunities, with the American 
public watching, we're going to pass it one more time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Denham

  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 
27.
  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 by the Executive Office for United States Attorneys 
     (including the offices of United States attorneys), the 
     United States Marshals Service, or employees of the 
     Department of Justice, to carry out activities located at a 
     newly constructed Federal courthouse located on a site 
     between Broadway, Hill, First, and Second Streets in Los 
     Angeles, California.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. This 
simply just prevents the funds from being used to divert vital 
resources to an unneeded Federal courthouse in Los Angeles.
  I have the distinct privilege of chairing the Subcommittee on 
Economic Development, Public Buildings & Emergency Management. In that 
capacity, I have oversight over the Federal courts.
  The last Congress, at the request of this subcommittee, the GAO 
completed a review of the 33 courthouses constructed between 2000 and 
2010. What the GAO found was incredible. GSA has built over 3.5 million 
square feet of courthouse space that we don't need--at a cost of $800 
million. As a result, the Judiciary abandoned existing courthouses 
across the country and severely underutilizes every single new 
courthouse.
  The GAO identified three reasons:
  First of all, when GSA is not busy taking vacations in Las Vegas, 
they continue to build bigger courthouses than Congress authorizes.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will suspend.
  Would the gentleman clarify which amendment he offered: Amendment No. 
27 printed in the Record or the amendment at the desk?

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. DENHAM. It is the new amendment that is at the desk that corrects 
the printed amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. That is the amendment that was reported by the 
Clerk.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
  As I was saying, the GAO identified three different reasons:
  GSA continues to build courthouses bigger than what Congress 
authorizes. Congress authorizes one thing, but then GSA goes out and 
builds not only something completely different, but much bigger and at 
much greater expense.
  Number two, we don't have the judges that were once proposed.
  Third, judges don't share courtrooms. These courtrooms get used about 
2 hours a day, and we don't have any courtroom sharing across the 
Nation.
  We could be utilizing these courthouses quite a bit more than what 
they are today. As a result, we demanded that the judiciary conduct a 
real courtroom-sharing study so that a third party can figure out how 
many judges are needed. And over the last 11 years, the judiciary 
projected there would be somewhere between 72 and 81 judges in L.A. by 
2011.
  The judiciary declared L.A. the number one judicial space emergency 
in the United States and proposed a massive, huge new courthouse. 
However, today we know the primary justification for an L.A. courthouse 
was wrong. There are fewer judges in L.A. today than there were in 
1997. Today we have two buildings with 61 courtrooms and 59 judges. We 
have 61 courtrooms and only 59 judges, no courtroom sharing, being 
utilized less than 2 hours a day.
  In that light, I have asked GSA to stop its plans to spend $400 
million on a courthouse in Los Angeles. GSA has told me explicitly that 
they will continue with the project at whatever cost. After building a 
$400 million courthouse, we will have 85 courthouses and 59 judges, 85 
courtrooms and 59 judges.
  All of these judges--not only do we need less courtrooms, we don't 
need to build the one that we currently are proposing to build. You 
could put all of these judges in one courthouse, sell off the other 
courthouse, and never build the one that's being proposed at $400 
million.
  We've seen this before at least seven times in other cities where new 
courthouses were built and the old ones sit vacant today, a burden to 
the taxpayer and eyesores to the community. There's a big courthouse in 
Miami, sitting vacant. One being redone in New York, vacant. And yet we 
want to spend $400 million on something we don't need in Los Angeles.
  I personally toured the L.A. courthouse facilities and found there's 
vacant space currently not being used in both the Roybal building as 
well as the Spring Street building. GAO ran a centralized sharing model 
for L.A. and found that all the judges could fit in the Roybal building 
alone.
  This country has a $15 trillion debt, and GSA continues to waste 
millions of dollars on projects that no one needs. What we do need is 
to move everybody into the Roybal building, get rid of the vacant 
space, and sell off the other courthouse. At a time like this, we 
should be utilizing the best use of taxpayer dollars.
  This is why I introduced the Civilian Property Realignment Act, to 
get this out of the hands of the legislature, to make sure that we are 
actually selling off properties we don't need.
  We've sold 82 properties over the last decade, and we have 14,000 
that are sitting on the vacant list. We can do a much better job, but 
it starts right here with the L.A. courthouse. Before we can sell off 
the things that we don't need, we ought to stop building the things 
that we don't need. Sell off the property. We can create jobs by 
letting the private sector go there and build something to get out of a 
lot of the lease space that we have in the L.A. area.
  I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.

[[Page H2540]]

  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. As best as I could determine, this prohibits the spending 
of funds; no funds would be expended under this fiscal year. So I know 
that the gentleman is quite energized about this, but I think it is 
better handled in the authorizing committees since he has legislation, 
and that hopefully will one day get passed and signed into law to deal 
with this.
  If the Congress could manage buildings and deal with the utilization, 
you know, the Capitol Visitor Center, I mean, we can go through a whole 
laundry list of our own. We spend a lot of time criticizing other 
agencies--the GSA for conferences. You should look at what we spend. I 
mean, you could go through it. We could point fingers forever.
  I would rather see, rather than curse the darkness, that we light a 
candle. We're trying to finish an appropriations bill. I'm in 
opposition of this amendment because it prohibits the use of funds 
spent on employees in a courthouse that won't have any employees this 
year.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Denham amendment. The building his amendment targets does not exist. 
That's right; the building he wants to prohibit federal agencies from 
occupying next year in fiscal year 2013 doesn't exist.
  The Central District of California courthouse which is scheduled for 
construction in the near future is sorely needed to meet serious safety 
and security deficiencies at the current courthouse built in 1940. I am 
submitting for the record a memo from the U.S. Marshals Service which 
details these concerns. It tells of criminal defendants being escorted 
through hallways and in elevators with judges, jurors and the general 
public. It talks about the physical limitations of the aging building 
to meet the security challenges of the post 911 world. These issues, 
along with a shortage of space and concerns for the seismic stability 
of the building, have prompted the Judicial Conference to list the 
project as its number one priority since 2003.
  The courthouse has been reviewed by OMB and GSA and approved in both 
Republican and Democratic administrations. For example, President 
George W. Bush requested funding for the courthouse in two of his 
annual budget requests to Congress and the House Transportation & 
Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee authorized it with bipartisan support. Furthermore it is 
important to note that this not new money. The House Appropriations 
Committee provided funding for this Central District Courthouse several 
years ago. This project has enjoyed bipartisan support from the Los 
Angeles County congressional delegation.
  For the Record, I am also submitting a letter signed by both of our 
U.S. Senators and 17 members of the California House delegation urging 
the General Services Administration to move forward on the project.
  Construction of the Central District courthouse will address long 
standing safety and security issues in the current facility in addition 
to bringing much needed jobs to the Los Angeles area.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this pointless amendment.

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                               United States Marshals Service,

                                    Los Angeles, CA, Nov. 2, 2011.
     Memorandum To: Audrey B. Collins, Chief District Judge.
     From: David M. Singer, United States Marshal.
     Subject: Security Issues at 312 N. Spring Street.

       You have asked me to describe the physical security 
     deficiencies of the 312 North Spring Street Courthouse. We 
     can provide you with photographs depicting many of these 
     deficiencies, if needed.
       The United States Courthouse located at 312 North Spring 
     Street, Los Angeles CA, was built from 1937 to 1940. The age 
     of this building and design has presented various logistical 
     problems for The United States Marshals Service (USMS) in 
     regards to Prisoner Operations, Court Operations, and General 
     Courthouse Security.


                  Law Enforcement Gun Storage Lockers

       In the Central District of California certain law 
     enforcement agencies are not authorized to remain armed after 
     passing the USMS security screening sites. Because of this 
     rule, there is a need for an area to secure the officers' and 
     agents' firearms. The only USMS space available out of public 
     view for the firearms locker, within close proximity to the 
     screening site, is also the entrance for attorneys to speak 
     with in-custody defendants. The officers and agents must 
     remove their firearms in plain view of visiting attorneys and 
     prisoners, showing where firearms are carried on their 
     person.


        Judge's Underground Parking at the Main Street Entrance

       Prisoners transported for court appearances at the 
     courthouse must be offloaded in the Judges' Main Street 
     parking garage, in plain view of judicial vehicles, license 
     plates, make-model-color of judicial vehicles, and at times 
     while Judges are walking to or from their vehicle.
       To reach the USMS cellblock, the prisoner must walk up the 
     same ramp and pass the same doors as the Judiciary. It is not 
     uncommon to encounter Judges or court staff while prisoners 
     are approaching the cellblock area.
       There is always the potential for prisoners to attempt 
     escape or be assisted by an outside threat because the Main 
     Street garage gate entrance opens directly onto the public 
     sidewalk and a heavily trafficked entry route to the 
     freeways.


                         Movement of Prisoners

       The hallway that serves the USMS cellblock, as well as the 
     only prisoner elevator, is also the only way for Judges to 
     get to their vehicles.
       The area to wait for the prisoner elevator is a highly 
     traveled common area for various agencies and contractors in 
     the building. The court's procurement office is located off 
     this hallway, and court staff, delivery personnel, and 
     contractors constitute daily traffic.
       The prisoner elevator does not connect directly to any of 
     the courtrooms in the courthouse; instead, USMS staff must 
     escort the prisoner through the public hallway, passing 
     potential victims, prisoner family members, witnesses, 
     jurors, and other prisoners in protective custody.
       While walking to courtrooms located at the other end of the 
     building, USMS staff must pass various entrance doors to 
     judicial chambers.
       Only two courtrooms have usable adjacent prisoner holding 
     cells. As a result, in-custody defendants sitting in the 
     courtroom galley across from potential victims and prisoner 
     family.
       The courtroom doors leading to judicial chambers cannot be 
     secured due to the age of the doors' hardware and design, 
     which cannot be altered due to the building's historic 
     status.
       All prisoner movement is done through public hallways, 
     creating unnecessary hazards for USMS personnel, court 
     employees and the public.
       The routes from courtrooms back to the USMS cellblock 
     require the use of the public corridors providing the 
     potential for inappropriate verbal contact with witnesses, 
     jurors, family members, etc.
       The prisoner elevator is out of service at least once a 
     week due to the age of the elevator. Prisoners must be 
     escorted using the public elevators, walking through the main 
     lobby.
       There is no secure circulation for judges. The elevator 
     utilized by judges opens to the same public lobbies used to 
     transport prisoners.
       Of the 29 courtrooms in the building, only 12 are 
     accessible using a tunnel system which originates in the USMS 
     cellblock.
       The tunnel access uses a combination of steep stairs and 
     narrow, winding hallways with restricted head room in various 
     areas. The hallways have numerous blind spots from camera 
     coverage, and an elevator that is usually not operational. 
     For this reason the tunnel system is not regularly used.
       If the tunnel access is used, prisoners must still be 
     escorted through the rear secured judicial hallway that 
     connects courtrooms and judicial chambers.


                        Physical Security Issues

       The screening stations located at the Main Street entrance, 
     the Spring Street entrance, and the Spring Street loading 
     dock were never designed to accommodate current upgraded 
     security and the large crowds who visit the courthouse on a 
     daily basis. Despite the additional concerns and potential 
     threats posed by high threat criminal court cases and 
     increased violence in society, we are not able to redesign 
     these security sites due to the historic nature of the 
     building, and the limited space available.
       The ground floor windows around the courthouse are 
     continuously a target for vandalism due to the increasing 
     population of homeless people, as well as anti-government 
     protests occurring daily at surrounding local and state 
     government buildings. The windows' general make-up is 
     inconsistent around the building, with some windows being 
     bullet resistant, some with a protective mylar film, and some 
     with just solar tinting film. The historic status of the 
     building makes it difficult, if not impossible, to install 
     bullet resistant glass in all first floor windows. Three 
     ground floor windows have been broken by vandals in the past 
     year alone.
       The courthouse lacks available handicap access on the Main 
     Street entrance, the most heavily used access. The courthouse 
     thus must have two entrances, Main Street and Spring Street, 
     which requires staffing by six court security officers (CSOs) 
     rather than just one entry where we can put less CSOs, 
     concentrating staffing more effectively at a single 
     controlled entry point.


                           High Threat Trials

       The Spring Street Courthouse is an unsafe physical facility 
     for the transport of even one prisoner. Here are examples of 
     some of the high threat, multi-defendant trials held in 
     downtown Los Angeles. They provide a vivid picture of the 
     type of defendant, defendant families, witnesses, and victims 
     involved in federal criminal proceedings held

[[Page H2541]]

     in the Spring Street and Roybal court facilities.
       1. U.S. v. Orozco et al. The indictment names 53 defendants 
     who are all members or associates of the 38th Street gang, 
     and charges them with RICO, VICAR, drug trafficking/
     possession, firearms trafficking/possession, and conspiracy 
     to tamper with witnesses.
       2. U.S. v. Santiago Rios, et al. The indictment charges 51 
     defendants who are all members and associates of the Azusa 13 
     criminal street gang or validated members and associates of 
     the Mexican Mafia. The charges are RICO conspiracy, civil 
     rights violations, weapons and narcotics offenses.
       3. U.S. v. Darbinyan. The case involved 70 defendants who 
     were members or associates of the Armenian Power Criminal 
     Enterprise. Approximately 15 of the defendants would be 
     categorized as very dangerous based on their criminal 
     histories and/or criminal conduct during the investigation.
       4. U.S. V. Ron Hirsch. This is the synagogue bomber case. 
     The defendant is charged with attempting to blow up a 
     synagogue with a large pipe bomb. This case received 
     considerable national media coverage.
       5. U.S. V. Oscar Juarez, et al. The indictment charges 5 
     defendants, two of whom are Clanton 14 gang members, with 
     Hobbs Act Robbery, 924(c), and Conspiracy to Distribute 
     Cocaine charges.
       6. U.S. V. Edwin Mauricio Palacios. A 1326 case involving 
     an MS 13 gang member whose criminal convictions included a 
     1995 conviction for second degree robbery, 2008 conviction 
     for terrorist threats, and two arrests for participating in a 
     prison riot.
       7. U.S. v. Raul Mercado Mercado. This is a 1326 case 
     involving a Sangra gang member with a prior 1996 conviction 
     for voluntary manslaughter and robbery.
       8. Operation Silent Night. There were approximately 30 
     defendants arrested. Extra manpower was needed at all times 
     for movement due to the high security risks. The defendants 
     are charged with numerous homicides, including the murder of 
     a Burbank Police Officer. They are also charged with 
     narcotics trafficking, extortion, and racketeering. This is a 
     capital offense case.
       9. Twenty defendants in another case are all gang members 
     of the East Side Wilmas, and were charged with murder, as 
     well as conspiracy. They are also charged with distribution 
     of illegal narcotics.


                             Terrorism Case

       10. U.S. v. Mihalik. The indictment returned August 30, 
     2011 charges one defendant with making a false statement in a 
     terrorism matter.


                  Multi-Defendant Courtroom in Roybal

       The availability of this courtroom assists the USMS and 
     judges in the Spring Street courthouse who need to be 
     conducting high threat, multi-defendant trials as it was 
     built out specifically for such proceedings. Use of the 
     courtroom requires the USMS to provide security 
     transportation from Spring Street, where the judge has 
     parking, to Roybal, two blocks away from chambers.
       On a regular basis, however, there are far too many 
     criminal proceedings for the 21 district judges to hold their 
     criminal calendars all in this one courtroom. In 2011, for 
     example, 1,685 defendants had proceedings in downtown Los 
     Angeles, or 48 criminal cases per judge. Virtually all judges 
     hold criminal calendar on Mondays making use of the Roybal 
     multi-defendant courtroom unavailable to more than one judge 
     at a time. Roybal judges also use the courtroom.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                 Washington, DC, October 28, 2011.
     Hon. Martha N. Johnson,
     Administrator, General Services Administration, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Administrator Johnson: We write to urge the General 
     Services Administration (GSA) to proceed immediately with 
     construction of a new federal courthouse for the United 
     States District Court, Central District of California in Los 
     Angeles. Congress first authorized site, design and 
     acquisition in 2000 and the project was declared a space 
     emergency by the Judicial Conference of the United States in 
     2003 and has been the Judiciary's top building priority since 
     that time. It has been delayed too long.
       Located in one of the busiest metropolitan areas in the 
     nation, the Los Angeles court handles a high percentage of 
     complex criminal cases related to drugs, murder, mafia, and 
     terrorism. A request to create new permanent judgeships for 
     the district, many of which will be placed in Los Angeles, is 
     currently pending before Congress to handle the court's 
     pressing caseload. Moreover, additional growth is expected in 
     the near future when several active judges in existing 
     judgeships assume senior status and their replacements come 
     on board. The two buildings that currently house the court 
     already suffer from critical security and operational 
     deficiencies that will only be exacerbated as the court 
     grows.
       Congress approved the funding for GSA to construct the new 
     courthouse in fiscal years 2004 and 2005, but escalating 
     construction costs at the time caused the project budget to 
     exceed the appropriation. With no additional funding 
     available to build the project as planned, congressional 
     committees directed the court and GSA to work together and 
     agree on a building that could be built within the funds 
     appropriated. It is our understanding that GSA and the court 
     have now reached agreement on a proposal that will do just 
     that. We hope, therefore, that GSA will proceed with the 
     process of awarding a contract to build the new courthouse.
       In closing, we want to stress again the critical need of 
     the Los Angeles community to have safe, functional and 
     efficient facilities in which to litigate cases and redress 
     grievances. The new courthouse that is currently planned will 
     allow them to do so. Building the courthouse, moreover, will 
     create thousands of construction and related jobs, which are 
     sorely needed in an area where unemployment exceeds 12% and a 
     large percentage of the unemployed are in the construction 
     industry. We commend GSA and the court for developing a new 
     courthouse plan that can accommodate the needs of the Los 
     Angeles community within the funds that have been 
     appropriated for this project and we ask you to move ahead 
     without delay.
           Sincerely,
         Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Lucille Roybal-Allard, 
           Grace F. Napolitano, Henry A. Waxman, Judy Shu, Howard 
           L. Berman, Lois Capps, John Garamendi, Doris O. Matsui, 
           Xavier Becerra, Laura Richardson, Loretta Sanchez, 
           Barbara Lee, Bob Filner, Adam B. Schiff, Janice Hahn, 
           Linda T. Sanchez, Karen Bass.

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk labeled as Flake No. 2.
  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:


              limitation on funds for selectusa initiative

       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     used to carry out the SelectUSA initiative.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funding for 
President Obama's SelectUSA Initiative. It's a program that would 
otherwise receive just over $6 million in this bill.
  Now, if you've never heard of SelectUSA, you're not alone. Virtually 
nobody has heard of it outside of the committee and those who are 
funding it.
  Last June, President Obama issued an Executive order to establish 
SelectUSA. It was called the first-ever Federal effort to attract, 
retain, and expand business investment in the United States.
  It seems to me that whenever a new Federal program is touted as the 
first of its kind, it's usually a pretty good indication that it's 
completely unnecessary. This is no exception to the rule.
  A quick read of the vague ways in which SelectUSA says it serves the 
firms and economic development organizations certainly proves that--
promoting the benefits of investing in the U.S.A., responding to 
inquiries about the U.S. business climate, helping investors confused 
by regulatory processes, offering guidance--these are hardly the 
responsibilities of the Federal Government.
  In reality, it seems that the taxpayers are buying little more than a 
Web site pitching the benefits of U.S. subsidiaries to foreign 
companies. It includes 10 pages of links to Federal subsidized programs 
like Grants.gov, AARP-E, and the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee 
Program. That was the program responsible for Solyndra. Only the 
Federal Government could find a way to waste taxpayer dollars promoting 
the waste of taxpayer dollars.
  Figuring out what SelectUSA does is one thing; deciphering its actual 
accomplishments is downright impossible. The Web site includes 
testimonials from companies like Rolls-Royce and Ikea, of plans to 
invest and develop in the U.S. These companies already do. This 
SelectUSA isn't helping them any more than it is helping anyone else. 
All the announcements are dated between 2006 and 2010, long before this 
program was even established. So these companies are touting the 
benefits of a program that wasn't even established yet; how do they 
know?
  Hours of research by our staff uncovered only one investment that's 
even tied to SelectUSA, and those claims are very dubious. There's a 
company that's called AGS, and the President has touted this in his 
program as being

[[Page H2542]]

responsible for luring AGS to the U.S. It's mentioned in conjunction 
with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and other local 
agencies, and it recently elected to invest more than $20 million in 
new U.S. manufacturing capabilities. SelectUSA, described as an Obama-
launched program, is said to have facilitated coordination between AGS 
and local officials. But if you look at AGS, AGS has been in this 
country for more than 40 years, just under a different name. It was 
called A.G. Simpson Automotive. It's been in business, as I said, with 
General Motors and Ford for more than 40 years. That company has been a 
manufacturing presence in the U.S. since it opened a Michigan plant in 
1991. Another plant was opened in Louisiana in 2003. This hardly sounds 
like a company that needed SelectUSA to help it discover the benefits 
of investing in the U.S.

                              {time}  2140

  There is simply no record of this investment outside of the 
administration press release and the Commerce Department blog post--not 
from AGS, not from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, not 
even from SelectUSA. Only an administration press release touts the 
involvement of SelectUSA.
  Most telling of all, the 2013 Commerce Department budget 
justification to Congress--which requested $12 million and 20 
additional full-time employees--doesn't even include a word about the 
AGS investment. So what does SelectUSA even do? Well, I think the 
committee isn't even sure what SelectUSA does because the report 
language in this bill asks SelectUSA to justify what it does and 
explain what it does because apparently nobody even knows. Yet we took 
the request from the administration of $12 million and simply cut it in 
half and gave them half of what they requested.
  Why in the world are we doing this? At what point are we going to say 
we can't afford to throw money away like this? Congress didn't even 
create this program. It was just the administration who thought it up 
and now is trying to justify it.
  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.
  Hopefully, this will be the last time when I have to oppose my good 
friend on the floor of the House.
  Let me just try to put this in some perspective. This is an 
administration that, in the last 26 months, 4.25 million new private 
sector jobs. In `09, $70 billion in loans to small businesses. An 
administration that's well on its way to more than doubling the number 
of exports. We have seen a very significant turnaround from the 
administration that left a couple of years ago, walking out the door 
while we were losing 700,000 jobs a month, and we lost millions of jobs 
over the last few months of the last administration.
  So now they have a Commerce Department that says we're willing to 
build on the efforts to have companies around the world select the 
United States as a place where they want to set up manufacturing plants 
stretched throughout much of our country now. The President visited the 
Rolls Royce plant in Virginia. In Alabama, you have BMWs being built. 
All throughout, you see companies that see the United States as a place 
that has a world-class workforce, the kind of transparency, the rule of 
law, the ability to do transactions and have them protected in a court 
system that functions, to attract foreign investment here.
  So what the Commerce Department has done, which is not unlike other 
administrations, they take in a group of these activities and they've 
rebranded them under SelectUSA because it's catchy, it's got a phrase 
to it. But these are activities that have been conducted by other 
administrations and will be conducted by future administrations because 
we want businesses to see the United States as the place to locate--
even in States like Arizona, to locate and put people to work and make 
products.
  So to come to the floor and say, well, this $6 million is wasted--no. 
This is a small investment that leads to billions of dollars in 
salaries, hundreds of millions in tax ratables for our country. We want 
to be open for business. This is a new day. It's a new administration. 
They have been creating jobs. I guess that some want to wish back the 
old crowd that were losing jobs, but I think we should follow in the 
right direction here.
  I disagree with the gentleman. I hope that we vote down this 
amendment, and that we support the activities of our Commerce 
Department to continue to build this economy.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I yield to my friend from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would simply submit that when the committee has to ask in report 
language, please justify and tell us what you're doing, it's a pretty 
good indication that we don't know and that the program is frivolous 
and we're wasting money with it.
  So, right here, SelectUSA, let me read from the committee report: 
``The committee recommends $6.125 million for SelectUSA initiative, 
which is $3.425 million more than the fiscal year 2012 level and $6.125 
million less than the request''--like I said, simply cut the request in 
half. ``The ITA redirected $2.7 million in FY 2012''--on and on and on. 
It says:

       No later than November 30, 2013, the Secretary shall report 
     on the location and type of assistance provided, the State to 
     which firms sought to relocate and why, as well as the number 
     of foreign firms that actually decided to locate in the 
     United States as a result of the SelectUSA process.

  I would submit that if we didn't know this by now, why in the world 
are we giving them 6.125 million more dollars? We're running a deficit 
of $1.3 trillion, and we're frittering away money like this when we 
don't even know what they're doing.
  Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. FATTAH. The gentleman from Georgia, I thank you. And we'll be 
together tomorrow morning at the prayer service--8 a.m.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I'm looking forward to that.
  Mr. FATTAH. But let me say this: Georgia has benefited from this 
effort, and Arizona has benefited, Pennsylvania has benefited. The 
report language you see is just the work of the committee to ensure 
oversight for the funds that are now being provided, for a report on 
those funds and what States benefit so that when we have some other 
gentleman on the floor wanting to cut this program years forth from 
now, that we'll have an opportunity to be able to specify, as I've 
done, the great work that this program is doing.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. FLAKE. Let me simply say that when we don't know what they're 
doing and the only justification comes from the administration that a 
company called AGS, that has already been investing in this country for 
more than 40 years, that needs no help in deciding or having a 
matchmaker pair them with U.S. firms--in fact, this is a Canadian firm 
investing in the U.S. They actually received trade adjustment 
assistance during a downturn when employees were laid off from a 
Canadian company in the U.S. I would submit that if a company knows how 
to milk the U.S. taxpayer for that, a foreign company, they know how to 
invest here. They know it pretty well. We've advertised it. In fact, 
what this Web site of this SelectUSA does is tell them the benefits 
they can receive if they're here--often subsidies like this.
  So I would just submit, Mr. Chairman, we've got to start somewhere, 
and this ought to be it. I can't stress enough how we've got to start 
cutting some spending. This is a great place to start.
  With that, I urge adoption of the amendment and thank the gentleman.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  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.

[[Page H2543]]

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, designated 
as No. 3.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Page 101, after line 10, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 542.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out the functions of the Political Science 
     Program in the Division of Social and Economic Sciences of 
     the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences 
     of the National Science Foundation.

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the National 
Science Foundation from using taxpayer dollars to fund political 
science research.
  To be clear, my amendment does not reduce funding for the NSF. 
Earlier in consideration of this bill, I offered an amendment that 
would reduce NSF funding. This amendment is simply oriented toward 
ensuring, at the least, that the NSF does not waste taxpayer dollars on 
a meritless program.

                              {time}  2150

  The Nation is closing in on a $16 trillion debt; deficit, more than 
$1.3 trillion. Nearly 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed. 
Congress can either continue funding unnecessary programs like someone 
is printing cash in the basement, or we can face facts that there 
simply isn't enough money to go around.
  Now, I stand here today and I'll defend responsible Federal spending 
on matters of Federal responsibility. Among other things, Congress 
ought to ensure funding for strong national defense, a secure border.
  There are things, however, given the economic realities, that 
Congress ought to reconsider funding on the back of future generations. 
Just remember, every dollar we're spending in discretionary spending 
this year, we are borrowing from our kids and our grandkids.
  Let me simply say I can think of few finer examples to cut than the 
National Science Foundation's Political Science Program. According to 
the NSF Web site, to date, more than $80 million has been awarded to 
the program's nearly 200 active projects. Three-quarters of these 
awards, totaling over $46 million, were directed to universities with 
endowments greater than $1 billion.
  Again, three-quarters of these awards under this program for 
political science research, totaling over $46 million, were directed to 
universities that have endowments greater than $1 billion.
  Think about it. Three out of the four of the grants awarded by the 
NSF Political Science Program go to the wealthiest universities in the 
country. Would those who would oppose this amendment have believed that 
Harvard and Yale would have to close their political science 
departments if Federal grants are not available for this program? Of 
course not. These universities and the field of political science will 
be just fine.
  However, my greatest concern is not who received these funds, but how 
they are spent. Every dollar Congress spends is money we don't have, as 
I mentioned.
  So what kind of research is NSF charging to our credit card? $700,000 
to develop a new model for international climate change analysis; 
$600,000 to try to figure out if policymakers actually do what citizens 
want them to do.
  Let me say that again: $600,000 here spent trying to figure out if 
policymakers actually do what citizens want them to do. I think we can 
answer that question in about 5 minutes when we vote on this amendment 
because I can tell you, people out there want us to quit funding 
projects like this.
  $301,000 to study gender and political ambition among high school and 
college students; $200,000 to study to determine why political 
candidates make vague statements. $200,000 to study why political 
candidates make vague statements. That's what we're paying for here.
  These studies might satisfy the curiosities of a few academics, but I 
seriously doubt society will benefit from them. How can we justify this 
outcome?
  Now, I hold a graduate degree in political science myself. I agree 
that such research has its benefits. The work of political scientists 
advances the knowledge and understanding of citizenship and government, 
politics, and this shouldn't be minimized. But they shouldn't be 
subsidized by the National Science Foundation.
  We can't continue to spend money like this. I urge adoption of the 
amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FATTAH. So hope springs eternal, but here I am again opposing my 
friend's amendment.
  Let me say, this program has been around for over 30 years, and a lot 
of political change has swept across the world from the time that this 
program started.
  I think that it may appear to be costly, $11 million out of a $7 
billion funding for the National Science Foundation, but I think that 
however expensive an education may be, ignorance will probably cost our 
country more.
  It is important that we understand the political dynamics, 
radicalization of populations around the world, how political parties 
operate in the former Soviet Union, all of the other issues that are 
being studied.
  I can see that you could probably bring a list of studies in front of 
the Congress from the National Science Foundation and get a laugh on 
any day. But these studies are important. They're merit based. They're 
decided on merit only.
  The fact that some of the best funded universities win has to do, in 
part, with the fact that they're able to have very good faculty who put 
together very good research projects, and they provide our country and 
our society a great deal of intellectual benefit.
  Now, there's some advantage, I guess, politically to appear to be 
anti-intellectual, to have some desire to know little or less about 
what's going on in the world about us. But it is not worthy of a great 
Nation.
  Now, Singapore has 4.8 million people. They put $7 billion in the 
National Science Foundation. We put $7 billion, and we spend our time 
tonight debating whether we want to cut some money, trying to 
understand how their political system got to the point of understanding 
that even in a very small country, it was critically important for them 
to become indispensable in terms of having a thirst for knowledge.
  I would hope that this House would reject this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield to my good friend from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just say, and I 
won't take all the time, but there is something to the ``laugh 
factor.'' At some point we've got to realize here that the country's 
watching us, and they're looking to see if we're funding programs like 
$600,000 to try to figure out if policymakers actually do what citizens 
want them to do? $200,000 to study why political candidates make vague 
statements?
  We're funding this with taxpayer dollars. The acid test ought to be 
for all of us, whenever we're spending money here, is this program 
worth borrowing money from our kids and our grandkids, from some 
countries, that don't like us very much who are buying our bonds?
  And this doesn't pass that test. It doesn't even come close. And if 
we simply say this is a big NSF budget and this is a very small part of 
this, this program, if we continue to say that, we'll never cut it, and 
that's the problem here. We aren't.
  The NSF funding, overall, is way up from the post-stimulus level. We 
said at the time that the stimulus was passed that that's just a one-
time deal, and these rates will come down, or these programs will come 
down. They haven't. We're continuing to fund

[[Page H2544]]

them. And programs like this, the country just looks around and says, 
this is laughable. Look at what our policymakers are doing.
  Again, I would say that we will find out the question, the $600,000 
question, as to whether or not policymakers actually do what citizens 
want them to do, by how we vote on this amendment right now.
  Mr. BROUN 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 Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FATTAH. 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 Arizona 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 by this Act may 
     be used to carry out or enforce section 5 of the Voting 
     Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973c).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply 
prohibit any funds in this underlying bill from being used to carry out 
or enforce section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Under section 5, 
seven States in the South, as well as Arizona, Texas, and a number of 
counties scattered across the country, are required to receive Federal 
pre-clearance to every change they make in election laws.
  The provision stipulates that only changes to election law in those 
covered locations which are shown to be nondiscriminatory may be pre-
cleared. Unfortunately, the burden of proving that a change is 
nondiscriminatory is on the State or locality which wishes to make the 
change.
  The standard and practice is known to be highly subjective, with no 
presumption of innocence.

                              {time}  2200

  It is also highly unfair to allow some States to make changes to 
their election laws while other States wishing to make the same changes 
are forced to jump through a bunch of hoops. I know firsthand how 
onerous this law is.
  My home State of Georgia, as an example, has long struggled with the 
U.S. Department of Justice over its voter identification laws. They're 
not alone. The State of Arizona is currently suing to be free from 
section 5, showing evidence that it made accommodations for Spanish-
speaking voters long ago. On the other side of the country, South 
Carolina is challenging the Department of Justice's decision to 
overturn its voter identification law.
  Mr. Chairman, as Americans, we pride ourselves in our electoral 
system, but the integrity of our elections is called into question when 
this outdated law bars States from ensuring those who come to the polls 
to vote are eligible to do so.
  I should note that I'm not the only one who believes that section 5 
is an antiquated provision. Earlier this very year, the U.S. Supreme 
Court reaffirmed its concern about what they stated: serious 
constitutional questions raised by section 5's intrusion into State 
sovereignty.
  Mr. Chairman, we are supposed to be treated equal under the law. This 
section of Federal statute treats some States more equal than other 
States. There are States being discriminated against. My home State of 
Georgia is one of those. It's time for us to go to what the 
Constitution says is the way we should all be treated: equal under the 
law. It's long past time to put this provision to rest. I urge the 
support of my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FARR. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
  First of all, this is an appropriations bill. We're supposed to be 
discussing how we appropriate money to the Justice Department, Commerce 
Department, and State Department. People are just kind of cavaliering, 
coming in here and offering all kinds of amendments to make no funds 
available. That isn't the way you set policy, and that isn't the way 
you have a discussion on an issue like this. This is a very important 
issue. This is about enforcing the Civil Rights Act and the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965. You don't think we had discrimination in this 
country? Don't you think we still have discrimination and are making it 
difficult for people to access the voting booth?
  I come from a county, a district, that is under this section. I'm 
from California. The gentleman spoke about Georgia. There are States, 
even like California, that have counties that qualify to be under this 
act because they had so low of a percentage of adults registered to 
vote. Obviously, these counties were making it very difficult. What 
this says is that in those counties, when you draw political districts, 
you've got to have them reviewed by the Justice Department. What's 
wrong with that?
  We have a history of discrimination. To come in to an appropriations 
bill and take a big whack out of it in the Voting Rights Act in an 
election year, what message are we sending--that these States that want 
to make it very difficult for people to vote are showing how democracy 
ought to be practiced around the world?
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR. No, I will not yield to the gentleman.
  I think these and a lot of other amendments warrant some serious 
debate in Congress, but certainly not on this bill and not at this 
time--10 o'clock at night, in an election year, on a Voting Rights Act 
bill that deals with the basic fundamental rights of individuals being 
able to have access to the ballot. No, sir. This amendment is 
inappropriate at this time, and it ought to be voted down.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. I yield to my colleague from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank my friend.
  I would like to remind my good friend from California that Georgia's 
voter identification law has been upheld by the courts. The provision 
of voter identification is simply to ensure integrity at the polls: 
that the people who are voting are the people who are supposed to be 
voting.
  We have all heard and have joked about the saying in Chicago about 
``vote early and vote often.'' The only way we can ensure the integrity 
of the vote, the only way we can ensure that people who are voting are 
those who are supposed to be voting, is by having some identification. 
That's simply what this is all about. It's not to prohibit people from 
coming to the polls. It's not to prohibit or to discriminate against 
anybody. Who is being discriminated against here are the States, those 
jurisdictions that are falling under section 5.
  We should all be treated equal under the law. I don't believe in 
discrimination for or against anybody. We have a history of 
discrimination in my State and throughout the country, and we still 
have discrimination. I find discrimination deplorable--and I reject it 
in any manner--but we should all be treated equal under the law. We 
need to make sure that we have integrity at the polls. We need to make 
sure that the people who are voting are truly the people who say they 
are.
  I know, in some jurisdictions, a person just walks to the polling 
area and says, I'm Joe Smith.
  Then they say, Fine. I see you here on the polls. Go vote.
  We can't have this in this country. It's not right, and it's not 
fair. Joe Smith needs to have absolute assurance that the person he 
voted for won it fair and square--that elections are not stolen, that 
elections are fair, that whoever comes out at the top of the ballot is 
the one who really won.

[[Page H2545]]

  So this is not about discrimination. It's not preventing anyone from 
voting. It's simply just to make sure we have integrity so that the 
people across this country can be sure that their votes count and can 
be sure that somebody else who may be an illegal in this country or who 
may not be qualified to vote for whatever reason or who may have 
already voted but who wants to vote a second time is not doing so.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. I was the only member of the Virginia delegation to vote 
for the Voting Rights Act in 1982. I attended school for 1 year in a 
State in which I saw things that were different than I had seen before. 
And there is a Simon and Garfunkel song called ``The Boxer'': ``The man 
hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.'' We really can't 
disregard what has taken place in the country.
  Now, we may be reaching a point at which this should be looked at 
again. I believe there is no discrimination now in my State. I think 
the Judiciary Committee ought to look at this carefully, but this is 
not the place to do this, and it is such a sensitive issue.
  Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act applies to jurisdictions 
determined to have had a history of discrimination against minority 
voters. Section 5 requires certain covered jurisdictions, based on the 
formula set forth in section 4, to pre-clear their congressional 
redistricting plans with either the Department of Justice or with the 
U.S. Court for the District of Columbia before implementation. In order 
to be granted pre-clearance, jurisdiction has the burden of proving 
that the proposed voting change neither has the purpose nor will have 
the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race 
or color or membership in a language minority group.
  Litigation is pending now in the Federal District Court, including 
the case of Texas v. Holder, which challenges the constitutionality of 
the coverage formula and pre-clearance requirements in sections 4 and 
5. In its 2009 decision in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District 
No. 1 v. Holder, the Supreme Court may have signaled a willingness to 
reconsider the constitutionality of the pre-clearance regime and 
coverage formula.
  But this is not an amendment that, I think, is appropriate here. 
Again, as we deal with this thing, we have to be very, very sensitive 
because, quite frankly, I remember in 1982, when I voted for this, 
there were editorials in the Richmond Times-Dispatch that were ripping 
me apart for this vote.

                              {time}  2210

  But because I do believe that everyone should have the right to vote, 
I voted for it.
  But I would also say, to end, we may be approaching a time that this 
would go because we want a Nation where no one is discriminated 
against, and we may have reached that point. But I think the Judiciary 
Committee should hold extensive hearings and we should see what the 
Supreme Court does. I don't think this is the place to do it, and I 
strongly rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I've 
enjoyed a great relationship with the gentleman during his tenure in 
the Congress.
  You mentioned several times in your remarks that there might be an 
appropriate time. How do you objectively determine when there is an 
appropriate time for not extending Section 5 to the covered 
jurisdictions?
  Mr. WOLF. I am not a legal scholar, and at 10:10, I don't think I can 
do it, but there may be a time.
  I believe now in my State there is not discrimination with regard to 
voting. I think our Governor is a good, decent guy, and I don't think 
he wants to discriminate against anybody. The members of the general 
assembly are of that same mind. Yet there had been in a case in 
previous times in the State of Virginia, so I'm not going to be the--I 
went to Georgetown Law School. It's an accredited law school, but I'm 
not going to sit here tonight and lay it out.
  I don't think this is what we ought to do tonight. I initially wasn't 
going to speak, but I just feel strongly. Again, I go back. I remember 
in 1982 voting for this, and people felt it and I just felt in my heart 
this was the right thing to do. As of now in my heart, it tells me we 
ought not adopt this amendment, and we can have the Judiciary Committee 
hold hearings both in the House and the Senate. We can see what the 
Supreme Court will do. I just don't think this is the place for this 
amendment, and I strongly oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. It is hard and difficult and almost 
unbelievable that any Member, especially a Member from the State of 
Georgia, would come and offer such an amendment.
  There is a long history in our country, especially in the 11 States 
that are old Confederacy--from Virginia to Texas--of discrimination 
based on race, on color. Maybe some of us need to study a little 
contemporary history dealing with the question of voting rights.
  Before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, it was almost impossible for 
many people in the State of Georgia, in Alabama, in Virginia, and in 
Texas to register to vote, to participate in the democratic process. 
The State of Mississippi, for example, had a black voting age 
population of more than 450,000 and only about 16,000 were registered 
to vote. In one county in Alabama, the county was more than 80 percent 
and there was not a single registered African American voter. People 
had to pass a so-called ``literacy test''; interpreting sections of the 
Constitution. One man was asked to count the number of bubbles on a bar 
of soup and another man was asked to count the number of jelly beans in 
a jar.
  It's shameful that you would come here tonight and say to the 
Department of Justice that you must not use one penny, one cent, one 
dime, one dollar to carry out the mandate of Section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act. We should open up the political process and let all of our 
citizens come in and participate. People died for the right to vote--
friends of mine, colleagues of mine--to speak out against this 
amendment. It doesn't have a place.
  I agree with the chairman.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. No, I will not yield.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, let me first associate myself 
with the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Lewis), who paid the price for this Voting Right Acts of 1965 on the 
Edmund Pettus Bridge. He paid beyond measure. He sacrificed beyond 
measure to make this a reality for every American.
  This near midnight attack is an unprecedented attack on the 
implementation legislation of the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, 
the 1965 Voting Rights Act. It took this Congress 95 years from the 
moment that the 15th Amendment was added to the Constitution of the 
United States for this Congress to wake up after Selma to Montgomery to 
pass legislation to implement the Voting Rights Act.
  For me to stand here and listen to my distinguished colleague, the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, for him to argue that there may be a time and we may be 
approaching a time when the Voting Rights Act preclearance provision of 
Section 5 is no longer necessary couldn't be further from the truth.
  Here's how the State legislative process works within most of the 
State legislatures. First, whoever is in the political majority, 
Democrat or Republican, usually draws legislative lines consistent with 
their political advantage, whether it's the Democratic Party or whether 
it is the Republican Party.

[[Page H2546]]

Such is the case in Illinois. Such is the case of every State in the 
Union.
  Almost never before the 1965 Voting Rights Act had racial minorities 
or language minorities ever been considered as a factor in the ongoing 
partisan debate for the last 150 years between Democrats and 
Republicans. Only the Voting Rights Act of 1965 says that if a language 
minority or a racial minority in a protected jurisdiction can draw a 
congressional district or can draw a State Representative district or 
can draw a State Senatorial district to give a racial minority an 
opportunity to represent their own people in a legislative body, the 
State legislative body must take that into account.
  For us to be standing here on the floor of the Congress arguing about 
the right to vote, we're not discussing at that level the right to 
vote. We're discussing whether or not legislators will be effective in 
representing their constituents by protecting Section 5, the 
preclearance provision, because most of us can't go to our Governors or 
our State legislatures to protect the franchise from minorities.
  I know that the First Congressional District, the Second 
Congressional District, the Seventh Congressional District, the Fourth 
Congressional District of Illinois are all Section 2 of the Voting 
Rights Act congressional districts, from Virginia around to Texas, 
because we still cannot trust Democrats, because we still cannot trust 
Republicans in Virginia, all the way around to Texas, to consider 
racial minorities in the drawing of congressional districts. Sure, 
those States must implement their plans by submitting their plans to 
the Federal Government for preclearance.
  Look at the language minorities. Look at what's taking place in 
Texas. Look at what's taking place in New Mexico. New Mexico, a State 
that is 25 percent Latino, and the State legislature played games with 
what constitutes an effective congressional district that might give a 
Latino an opportunity to represent a congressional district in 
Congress. It plays both sides against the middle.
  Both Democrats and Republicans, through history, Mr. Chairman, have 
used race as a partisan advantage in trying to draw congressional 
districts and legislative districts.
  I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, to reject this amendment at midnight; 
reject this unconstitutional, unprecedented attack on the civil rights 
of every American; reject efforts to undermine the implementation 
legislation of the 15th Amendment earned through an American Civil War, 
along with No. 13, 14, and 15; reject this effort to roll back the 
civil rights gains of 1965 by undermining the funding in the Federal 
Government's capacity to ensure that minorities have a chance to 
represent themselves in the Congress of the United States; reject this 
effort on this evening. Both Democrats and Republicans should reject it 
in a bipartisan manner.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2220

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, one of the 
proudest moments of my experience here in the House is having worked on 
a bipartisan basis on the extension of the Voting Rights Act in the 
1980s. I had been involved in the extension of the Voting Rights Act 
several Congresses ago. But also, as attorney general of the State of 
California, I was involved in the preclearance procedures by the 
Justice Department with several of the jurisdictions in my home State.
  The Voting Rights Act has stood as one of the great efforts of 
progress in this country; but as the U.S. Supreme Court said, as it 
reviewed the preclearance requirements some years ago, There will come 
a time when this unprecedented power of the Federal Government versus 
the sovereignty of the States will end.
  The preclearance requirement contained in the Voting Rights Act is an 
anomaly, a necessary anomaly over history, but it is an anomaly. And we 
should understand that the Court viewed it as such.
  The problem I have with the current status of the Voting Rights Act 
is that it gives no opportunity for an escape clause by those 
jurisdictions that have proven, over the decades, that they have, in 
fact, changed their practices. There is no means by which a 
jurisdiction can come forward and show that over a decade, they have 
not, in fact, discriminated but have acted appropriately and, 
therefore, this tremendous Justice Department authority will be no more 
there.
  But this is not the place to deal with it, I would say. A funding 
resolution is not the place to deal with it. This is an important issue 
that ought to be addressed; and I would hope that my friends on the 
other side of the aisle would recognize that when you have a 
jurisdiction that has for 10, 20, 30, 40 years followed the law, 
perhaps we ought to reward them and provide incentives for other 
jurisdictions to do the same. Also, historically, there is a reason--
almost a historical accident by which some of the jurisdictions in 
California are covered. It had to do with a low turnout election in 
which a large percentage of the people who were considered citizens 
happened to be military folks who didn't vote in that area in that 
particular election. And there's been a static analysis which has 
resulted in those jurisdictions continuing to be covered under that 
section of the law which allows this unprecedented authority of the 
Justice Department to preclear.
  And I would hope that we would have the courage to stand up and look 
at the changes that have taken place and give credit to the consensus 
of conscience of civil rights that I think has prevailed in this 
country and has aided us greatly.
  But I would just say, this is not the time nor the place for us to, 
within a short period of time on the floor of the House, try to make a 
significant change in that. And, therefore, with all due respect to my 
friend from Georgia who points out some of the problems here, I would 
have to oppose this amendment. But I would hope that we would have the 
courage to come to the floor and recognize that changes may be 
necessary.
  This is an unprecedented authority that is granted to the Justice 
Department. No other jurisdictions are required to come before the 
Justice Department and ask for their permission as to whether they 
could make a change as simple as changing a date or making any change 
with respect to any election process in that jurisdiction.
  So I would hope my friends on the other side who have, I think, 
appropriately opposed the gentleman's amendment would also recognize 
that there is a large area in which we should discuss the current 
status, vis-a-vis the current fact situations that exist with all 
jurisdictions.
  Let us hope that as bad as the conduct has been in the past, that we 
believe in redemption and that we believe that there can be changed 
hearts, and we believe that we can change practices and that we believe 
that, in fact, maybe the good will of our fellow citizens will prevail. 
And when it has done so, let us recognize that, give them credit for 
it, and in the law provide incentives for other jurisdictions to also 
change their ways.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I ask that we not support this amendment, 
but at the same time recognize the legitimacy of the shortcomings of 
the law, as applied currently, and the failure of the Congress to make 
the changes to give credit to those jurisdictions that have, in fact, 
acted in good faith.
  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 just make a couple of comments. I think that we've 
seen why this is not the process for these types of riders on a bill. 
In States that are not covered by section 5, there have been outrageous 
circumstances as it relates particularly to African Americans and 
access to the franchise. In Philadelphia, Octavius Catto was beaten to 
death just a few blocks from my childhood home when he tried to 
exercise his right to vote.
  But our country has come a long way. We've made a lot of progress. 
But section 5 is there for a reason. In these States in the South, Nazi 
prisoners of war were treated better than African Americans who had 
served in the war.

[[Page H2547]]

For the party of Lincoln to be on the floor of the House today on this 
issue, when there were really Republicans that had joined in in the 
passage of the Voting Rights Act, where Members of my party refused to 
be willing to grant these rights to African Americans and to others, I 
think, is unfortunate. But I think we may be at a point where we can 
move forward.
  To my friend from Georgia, who we are going to be in worship together 
tomorrow morning at 8 a.m., I yield to you.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  I apologize to my dear friend from Georgia if he's gotten angry with 
this amendment. It was never my intent to do so. And I am going to ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  I deplore discrimination of any kind. As far as I am concerned, I 
believe in the Bible. I think it's the only standard of truth that we 
have. As far as I am concerned, there is only one race of people: it's 
the human race because we all came from Adam and Eve. And no one--no 
one should be discriminated against for any reason.
  I have the same dream that Martin Luther King had, where people are 
accepted for their character and are not discriminated against for 
their skin or their forefathers or anything else. And any insinuation 
that I would ever believe in any kind of discrimination or that I would 
try to suppress anyone from having their constitutionally given rights, 
I detest that accusation, frankly.
  Mr. FATTAH. The hour is late. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank you 
for withdrawing your amendment. And I thank the chairman for his 
previous statements in this regard.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I apologize for any hurt feelings that anyone 
has because I certainly wasn't meaning to try to hurt anybody's 
feelings.
  Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, I thank you very much.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


               Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Huelskamp

  Mr. HUELSKAMP. 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 under this Act, 
     may be used in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act 
     (Public Law 104 199).

  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kansas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HUELSKAMP. Mr. Chairman, I know the hour is late; but as I think 
many of us believe, our Nation is not a Nation of men; it's a Nation of 
laws. When a Congress passes and a President of any party signs a bill 
into law, Mr. Chairman, it is the law of the land. And if a new 
President or a new Attorney General does not like an existing law when 
they come into office, it's not his or her prerogative to decide 
whether or not to enforce that particular law.

                              {time}  2230

  It is his or her constitutional obligation to defend it. But somehow, 
Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to say this fact is lost on the current 
administration. In a very clear and flagrant violation of its 
responsibilities, the U.S. Department of Justice, under the direction 
of Attorney General Eric Holder, and with the blessing of the 
President, have decided not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, 
which has been the law of the land since Joe Biden voted for it in 1996 
and it was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
  Tonight, I'm offering an amendment to prevent the Department of 
Justice from spending taxpayer money to undermine the Defense of 
Marriage Act and stop the Department of Justice from ultimately 
undermining the rule of law.
  As many of us know, just last night the 30th State actually passed an 
amendment to amend its Constitution to protect traditional marriage. 
That would be the State of North Carolina. In my opinion, it likely 
becomes an easy target for the administration. My amendment would also 
prevent the Department of Justice from interfering in North Carolina, 
or any other State, over its marriage amendments and marriage laws.
  We have 30 States that have marriage amendments: Alaska, Nevada, 
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oregon Colorado, Tennessee, Arizona, 
California, Nebraska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, North 
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Texas, my favorite State, Kansas, 
Alabama, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Florida, North 
Carolina, Michigan, and Virginia.
  The population of each of these States passed the marriage amendment 
to define marriage as they saw fit, and this amendment would protect 
those definitions from any contribution by this Department.
  The Department of Justice and the President of the United States do 
not have to agree with the law, Mr. Chairman, but they certainly have 
to enforce it and respect it.
  Even though I believe it would be in their political best interest to 
do so, 30 States have constitutional amendments, again, defining 
marriage between one man and one woman. We have current officials of 
this administration that have expressed their political preferences 
against traditional marriage, against the Defense of Marriage Act, and 
against various marriage amendments. But whatever the platform 
contains, whatever their personal preferences are, unless those laws 
are changed, unless those amendments are repealed by the people of 
these States, they stand to remain the law of their States and they 
remain the law of the land.
  It's clear, in my opinion, the administration is turning the Justice 
Department into a legal mouthpiece for its campaign rather than its 
purpose: to enforce the law. Most concerning is the fact that in 
turning the Justice Department into an instrument for legislating 
political favors rather than enforcing the rule of law, this becomes 
the Department of Politics, in my opinion--not the Department of 
Justice.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, 
support the folks of 30 States, the citizens who have made decisions, 
and also the citizens of 50 States that have passed their marriage 
laws. These are protected under the Defense of Marriage Act under 
contravention by those of us in Washington.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, to begin, I have read this 
amendment. And if it were to be law in an hour, it does not appear that 
it would affect anything that's now happening in the Federal 
Government.
  The gentleman said that they were trying to undermine the act and 
that they should enforce it. In fact, the administration has been very 
clear: while they disagreed with the act, they would like it repealed, 
they in fact believe it's unconstitutional, it is now on the books, and 
nothing is being done in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act. 
That is, there are no things now going on where the Federal Government 
recognizes the rights of same-sex marriage.
  So I guess my main opposition to this is that the bill is already big 
enough, but it doesn't add anything in substance. It adds a few words. 
I would yield if anyone can tell me what the reference is to not 
enforcing the act.
  Now it is true the administration declined to defend the act in 
court, but not defending an act in court in no way means that you are 
contravening any enforcement. Going to court is a different story. As a 
matter of fact, the House Republican leadership has voted to go to 
court to defend it.
  So I, again, would be glad if someone would tell me. The Defense of 
Marriage Act says the Federal Government will grant no rights to same-
sex married couples that come from marriage. It's not doing that. I 
agree the administration doesn't like that, but the suggestion that 
they are undermining the law is simply wrong.

  Now I understand--and this may be the confusion--that the gentleman

[[Page H2548]]

originally planned to offer a different amendment, and that amendment, 
he was told, was not in order. Maybe he changed the amendment and 
somebody forgot to change the speech, because the speech he gave may 
apply to the earlier amendment, but it doesn't apply to this one. So it 
seems to me kind of a waste. It's late in the evening. But the evening 
is shot anyway.
  It does not say the administration shouldn't go to court. That is not 
contravening the Defense of Marriage Act. Contravening the Defense of 
Marriage Act would be extending benefits. And I want to reassure the 
gentleman, when I get married in July to Jim, I will not be looking for 
any Federal benefits. He wouldn't be eligible for my pension, even if I 
got one--I won't get one. But he wouldn't be eligible if I got one. I 
am very familiar with this.
  In fact, nothing being done now by the Federal Government or 
contemplated by this administration contravenes the Defense of Marriage 
Act. What the administration says is: We think it's unconstitutional, 
and we are going to oppose it.
  Now I know there are some who say--the gentleman from Kansas, I 
agree, didn't say that--some have said, How dare you to ask the court 
to throw out a law passed by Congress. You've heard that rhetoric. 
After all, Congress passed this. How does the court dare to overthrow 
it? Well, that's an argument I used to hear from my conservative 
friends a lot more before the health care bill came up.
  So let's be clear, there are now two major pieces of legislation 
passed by this Congress--not this particular one--that are being 
contested and people are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to throw them 
out. One is the Defense of Marriage Act, one is the health care bill. 
You can be against, in principle, the court's throwing out an act of 
Congress as unconstitutional. You can be for it in principle and differ 
as to the application. But there isn't any way that you can say it is 
perfectly legitimate to cancel the health care bill through judicial 
intervention but not to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act.
  So I assume they're going to want a roll call because they went 
through all this effort, they'd like to be able to talk about it in 
campaigns. It literally means nothing because there is no contravention 
going on now. So I'll be glad to vote against it. If other people vote 
for it, they can do so.
  Again, the Defense of Marriage Act says you don't grant benefits to 
same-sex couples as if they were married. Nobody is doing that. That 
isn't happening. It isn't planned. It won't happen until and unless the 
Supreme Court finds unconstitutionality. And refusing to defend an act 
in court, in the English language, is not contravention. As a matter of 
fact, it says none of the funds made available may be used in 
contravention. Well, not going to court is not using funds. Maybe he 
meant to say none of the funds under this act may be not used in 
contravention, because we certainly aren't spending by not spending any 
money. So maybe he meant to say we should spend the money, I don't 
know.
  But I understand his original intention was ruled out of order. He 
had a place in the agenda, so he offered an amendment. But it doesn't 
mean very much.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I had anticipated and we had been told that 
the gentleman was going to offer an amendment that said none of the 
funds in this Act may be used by the Justice Department to argue for 
the Defense of Marriage Act in court. And I was going to object on the 
same grounds that I have in some other such amendments earlier day--
that we should not be politicizing the Justice Department. We should 
not be telling them: Do defend this in court; don't defend that in 
court.

                              {time}  2240

  But as the gentleman from Massachusetts says, this amendment seems to 
do nothing at all. None of the funds made available under this act may 
be used in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act. Well, none of 
the funds are being use in contravention of the Defense of Marriage 
Act. The only circumstance I can envision under which funds might be 
used in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act would be after the 
Supreme Court declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. If 
the Court declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, then 
the Constitution frankly would demand under the equal protection clause 
that funds be spent against the will of what had been the Defense of 
Marriage Act.
  If the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, then someone who 
is married under the laws of some State that permits same-sex marriage 
will demand to have joint filing of income taxes or demand the tax 
benefits that a spouse gets, and it would be unconstitutional not to 
grant that.
  So this amendment is frankly silly and shouldn't clutter the statute 
books because until and unless the Defense of Marriage Act is declared 
unconstitutional, it means nothing. And once the Defense of Marriage 
Act is declared unconstitutional, if it is, then this itself would be 
unconstitutional as against the equal protection clause.
  So I urge people to vote against it because, one, we shouldn't pass 
meaningless statutes, which this is or would be, unless DOMA is 
declared unconstitutional. And we shouldn't pass clearly 
unconstitutional statutes which this would be if DOMA is declared 
unconstitutional. So it is either meaningless and unnecessary in the 
one case or unconstitutional in the other and, frankly, ought to be 
withdrawn, but certainly should not be voted for; and so I urge my 
colleagues not to vote for this, whatever you think of DOMA, frankly. 
Because if DOMA is declared unconstitutional, this would be 
unconstitutional; and if it's not, it's unnecessary and has no effect 
in any event. So I don't know what the point of wasting our time with 
it is, but we should oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, this is a very strange amendment, as my 
colleagues have pointed out. We are obviously a very diverse country. 
Some States allow same-sex marriages; others do not. Some have civil 
unions. My home State of Colorado is currently discussing this issue in 
the State legislature. It is certainly very contentious, and I wish 
them well in coming to a speedy resolution.
  What this amendment does is simply contravene something that doesn't 
occur. It talks about funds being used in contravention to the Defense 
of Marriage Act. There are no such funds. This administration, as the 
last administration, has followed the Defense of Marriage Act.
  Certainly out of political convenience, I would say would that it 
were, if only this administration had been granting immigration rights 
or inheritance and survivorship rights to committed same-sex couples 
that were married in the States that have them; but it is simply not 
the case.
  Now, I understand that there might be fears that perhaps some day a 
future administration might seek to violate the law in this area, but I 
think it shows a fixation to try to single out this area. I mean, a 
future administration or any administration might try to violate the 
law in any one of any number of areas. But to have a fixation on and 
support for a government takeover of the institution of marriage is a 
very dangerous precedent. And I wish my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle would help preserve the integrity of marriage in this country 
and its importance to all families, including mine, and my colleague 
from Massachusetts and many others.
  We do not currently use any funds in contravention of the Defense of 
Marriage Act. There are a number of us in this body who seek to repeal 
this act. This House as a whole has not repealed this act. It very much 
has the rule of law. But just like other laws, the administration and 
the executive branch are charged with implementing that law.
  I think it is a bizarre step to single out one particular area of law 
with many, many, many laws that the executive branch operates under and 
say we

[[Page H2549]]

don't want them to violate this law when there is of course no 
evidence, no sign, no indication that any administration, Democratic or 
Republican, has any desire to violate this law.
  The decision not to defend this law is unaffected by this amendment. 
To be clear, if this amendment passes, it has no bearing on the 
administration's decision not to defend the undefensible, namely, the 
government takeover of marriage that my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle seem to support.
  Marriage is a very personal relationship between two people who are 
in love. And, of course, it's precise definition is up to each State in 
terms of who they allow and under what conditions they allow to marry. 
And to have the Federal Government enter this debate is very contrary 
to the definition of marriage itself and frankly debases the thousands 
of same-sex marriages that have occurred in this country.
  So again, while this amendment would do nothing and certainly 
wouldn't jeopardize the administration's decision not to defend the 
undefensible, namely, the government takeover of marriage, I still urge 
opposition to this measure because I think it is bizarre to single out 
one particular area or one particular type of marriage that some 
Members of this body may not personally approve of.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I rise in support of the Huelskamp amendment. I 
listened to the gentleman from Colorado say at least three times, a 
government takeover of marriage. Yes, the faith and the church and the 
churches have been the ones who have established marriage over the 
centuries and over the millennia. But when it comes to civil marriage, 
the government writes the rules. If the government is writing the 
rules, it's not a takeover of marriage. The definition of marriage from 
the beginning of time has been a man and woman joined together, 
hopefully in holy matrimony, for the purposes of encouraging a family 
unit and raising children and pouring our values down through that 
crucible of marriage into the next generation because that's the most 
successful and effective way that we can advance civilization.
  Government has an interest in promoting marriage for the purposes of 
holding together the continuity of our culture and our civilization. It 
is not a nefarious thing. It's not the government taking over marriage. 
It is the voice of the American culture and the American people seeking 
to advance into the following generations the best values that we have.
  And those that say it is discrimination to determine what marriage 
is, I would argue instead, Mr. Chairman, that government provides a 
license. The States provide licenses for marriage. A license is a 
definition to do that which is otherwise illegal. A license to hunt, a 
license to carry a gun, a license to fish, for example.
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I want to finish my statement, but if I have time, 
I will yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  States issue marriage licenses because they want to promote and 
encourage an activity and a behavior, not because they want to punish 
another behavior. It is because there is something that they have 
determined has value, and so they give a permit to do that which is 
otherwise illegal, and that's what a definition of a license is.
  With regard to the President and the executive branch, the 
Constitution and the oath that's implied in the Constitution, the oath 
that the President takes that is implied that he adheres to in the 
Constitution says he shall take care that the laws are faithfully 
executed.
  And so the law of the United States is DOMA, the Defense of Marriage 
Act. The President's obligation, and his appointees and all of those in 
the executive branch of government, is to take care that the laws are 
faithfully executed. The appointments of the President and the 
executive branch are bound by his oath, and they take their own oath to 
uphold this Constitution. And when the President of the United States 
decides he is going to flip on his position, or maybe let it evolve 
into a condition, and then direct, and I believe it is direct, the 
Department of Justice to first refuse to support and have the Solicitor 
General no longer support Federal law passed by a majority of this 
Congress, the House and Senate and signed by President Clinton and then 
turn around, and now we're concerned that they are going to use 
taxpayer resources to defy a legitimate law that is the will of the 
people and on the books in the Federal Register.
  That's what the amendment does that Mr. Huelskamp has offered. It 
says it's bad enough that you don't keep your oath to take care that 
the laws of the United States are faithfully executed, and we want to 
say to you, Don't at least turn a 180 on us and go against the will of 
the American people and use taxpayer dollars to work against the will 
of the American people, against your oath of office and against the 
statute.
  So out of courtesy, I would yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Iowa.
  Just for a brief question, the gentleman's home State of Iowa does 
allow same-sex couples to marry, and I would just like to ask in 
reference to the first part of your remarks whether your home State of 
Iowa in any way, shape, or form, whether civilization is in jeopardy or 
if any of the things that you mentioned in the early part of your 
remarks have, in fact, hurt your home State of Iowa?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, civilization is in jeopardy. 
It's in jeopardy when you have seven supreme court justices in the 
State of Iowa who declare that they have found rights in the 
Constitution that were up to this point ``unimagined.'' If you have 
justices that find unimagined rights in the Constitution, they are 
completely unqualified to legislate from the bench or determine what's 
constitutional and what's unconstitutional; and three of the seven were 
up for a retention ballot a year ago last November, and they were all 
three voted off the bench, the first time in the history of the State, 
partly because people disagreed with the policy they sought to impose 
by legislating from the bench, mostly because the people in the State 
understood that you cannot have judges that will find rights in the 
Constitution that were up to this point unimagined.
  Judges that can imagine rights in the Constitution will take your 
rights away. A President that will change his position, that will not 
uphold his oath of office to take care that the laws are faithfully 
executed, that will direct the Department of Justice to work against 
and the Solicitor General to work against Federal law will turn this 
thing 180 and use the Federal resources against the will of the people 
of the United States, and that's the Huelskamp amendment, and I support 
it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I didn't plan to speak on this 
amendment; but I have to tell you, I find it to be an unfortunate 
amendment. I find it to be an unfortunate amendment not for what some 
people might suspect. I was here for the Defense of Marriage Act. I 
supported the Defense of Marriage Act. I believe the Defense of 
Marriage Act is constitutional.
  But this amendment is symptomatic of what I think the problem of this 
Congress has been since it convened last January, and that is first the 
CR and then some other bills, and now the appropriations bills. Some 
folks have decided that they should just be a pinata, filled with all 
kinds of extraneous issues that have nothing to do with the core 
mission.
  This issue that is the subject of this amendment, I would tell the 
author who was not here when DOMA was passed, is being resolved. The 
Justice Department, I think wrongly, made a decision not to defend the 
lawsuit. But as Mr. Nadler said in a previous amendment, and I commend 
him for saying it, that's the executive's prerogative. But once they 
make that decision, the Congress is not powerless, and the Congress has 
taken action. And so the committee that exists here in the House voted 
to employ outside counsel. Outside counsel is vigorously defending the 
House's position in the Defense of Marriage Act, and I think there are 
30 lawsuits across the country.

[[Page H2550]]

                              {time}  2250

  This matter will be resolved, and the courts will either say that 
it's constitutional or unconstitutional, and then we will all abide by 
that decision.
  Now, where I find fault with my Democratic friends is that we've had 
a couple of markups in the legislative branch, and they're all 
exercised about the money that it's costing us for outside counsel. 
Well, you can't have it both ways. Either the administration is going 
to defend it through the Justice Department, or we're going to avail 
ourselves of our constitutional responsibilities, hire outside counsel. 
So you can't criticize the speaker for paying a lawyer to defend their 
position.
  Likewise, I would suggest to my side of the aisle that this doesn't 
belong on Mr. Wolf's bill. There is not a problem. This matter will be 
resolved; it is being resolved. I think that this entire string of 
limitation amendments is disturbing because they continue a pattern now 
that's gone on for 18 months, and I don't think that's what an open 
rule is all about.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio who just spoke on the floor of the House. He's an appropriator, 
and he sees this litany of limitations as being challenging. I know 
that Members are probably drafting some more limitations as we speak, 
and I certainly respect their prerogative.
  I would just add this point: as I listened to my good friend from 
Iowa--who I know is certainly a civil libertarian and believes in 
individual rights, and I would imagine the proponent of this amendment 
does as well--I would ask the proponent of the amendment, as he has 
listened to the debate, to simply withdraw the amendment.
  There are several factors that would contribute to that: one, the 
query that was made by the gentleman from Massachusetts as to whether 
the amendment even does anything. But as well, if we look at the 10th 
Amendment--which my friends on the other side of the aisle have always 
paraded before us--that even though there is a Federal law, the DOMA 
law, that there are matters that should be left to the States.
  As recounted by the gentleman from Colorado, there are many different 
positions on this issue throughout the different States. Some have 
positions, some do not. Now we have an amendment that simply seems to 
deal with actions stated by the executive on this very day.
  My friend from Iowa wanted to speak about what the President has said 
and what he has not said. What are we discussing here, the views of the 
President or the actions of the executive? The actions of the 
executive, as has been stated, are their prerogative. And clearly, 
there have been no actions by the government that should be 
contravened.
  More importantly, I believe in the civil liberties of all people and 
the rights of all people. I believe that this amendment undermines the 
rights of all people and would graciously ask this Member to look at it 
from both the perspective of individual rights, of civil liberties, of 
the 10th Amendment, and whether or not the executive has done anything 
that relates to his amendment.
  I, lastly, will say that the President of the United States, who 
commented today, has every right to speak either his conscience, his 
heart, or his mind. An amendment on the floor attempting to question 
that has no relationship to speech today versus actions which need to 
be contravened. There are no actions to be contravened, so I ask the 
gentleman to respectfully withdraw his amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the requisite number of words.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I wasn't going to 
speak, but I have heard this argument made time and time again that 
it's the prerogative of the executive branch to decide whether it's 
going to defend a law legally passed by the Congress and signed by the 
President. That is hyperbole. That is incorrect.
  There is an obligation, by tradition and by the law, that the 
Attorney General is duty bound to defend duly constituted laws of the 
United States so long as he or she can find a constitutional basis for 
it. It is not the purpose, nor has it been in the past, in Democratic 
and Republican administrations, for a Justice Department to arrogate to 
themselves the responsibility of deciding which laws they like and 
which laws they did not like. You are supposed to be the attorney for 
the United States and recognized as such.
  I recall as Attorney General of California I was required at times to 
defend laws that I had voted against, but I could find a constitutional 
basis for it. My real problem with this administration is they strained 
to find any constitutional basis to not defend. That is turning it on 
its side.
  The point of fact is when the executive branch does not do what they 
should do, it requires us to make a decision as to whether we should 
now pay for outside counsel. That has not been the tradition of the 
United States.
  This Justice Department, in my judgment, based on the experience I've 
had here in this Congress, 18 years, my years as the chief legal 
officer of the State of California, and 35 or 40 years as a practicing 
attorney, tells me that this administration has fundamentally failed in 
its obligation to attempt to faithfully carry out the laws of the 
United States, not to wake up every morning and decide: I think I can 
find an unconstitutional basis for a law passed by the Congress.
  Think of what that would mean. It would mean that you have an 
administration in every instance deciding what laws they want and what 
laws they don't want that are on the books, instead of coming here to 
the Congress and attempting to change what the law is. If we believe 
that we have an obligation when we hold up our hands to uphold the 
Constitution, that means we don't just turn over things to the courts 
and say you decide whether it's constitutional.
  We are duty bound to pass what we think are constitutional laws. And 
the administration--of whatever stripe--is obligated to attempt to 
defend those laws unless they can't find a constitutional basis for it, 
not to seek every possible unconstitutional basis so they don't have to 
defend. That's what the problem is here.
  And so while I understand many of the arguments made here and I 
understand what my friend from Ohio said--and I agree with much of what 
he said--let's not just say, well, it's the prerogative of the 
executive branch to decide if they want to defend laws passed by the 
United States. That has not been the tradition of this country. It has 
not been the experience. It has not been the legacy of Democratic and 
Republican administrations going back to the founding of this Republic.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I yield to the gentlelady.

                              {time}  2300

  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California. I'm not sure if he misinterpreted comments that have been 
made on the floor of the House, but I will just speak to this point.
  That is too broad a statement to say about the present Department of 
Justice when every single day lawyers in the Department of Justice, 
including the Attorney General, go out and defend the laws of this 
land. And so I'd ask the gentleman to reflect on that broad statement 
because that is not accurate.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I take back my time.
  I will not accept the gentlelady's argument that I was condemning the 
actions of those people in the Justice Department who are excellent 
civil servants.
  I am specifically talking about the Attorney General of the United 
States who, evidently, made the decision or, if he didn't make the 
decision, failed to make the proper decision to uphold the laws of the 
United States duly enacted by this Congress.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

[[Page H2551]]

  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 Kansas will 
be postponed.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
esteemed subcommittee chair.
  First of all, I wanted to support the inclusion of $47 million in the 
National Science Foundation Educational and Human Resources Account. 
This is going to really further the effort to help educate Americans in 
the area of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It will 
help inspire many of our young people to study math and science and 
then go into these engineering and technology fields as careers.
  Some of the most engaging ways to inspire young people to study math 
and science involve informal education settings, such as our science 
centers throughout this country, most notably, the Detroit Science 
Center, which engages in programs that inspire many inner-city youth 
and metro-Detroit youth to get involved in education in science and 
mathematics.
  So I wanted to thank the chair and the ranking member for including 
the resources in the National Science Foundation's budget to help 
provide competitive grants to many organizations such as the Detroit 
Science Center to help further inspire and engage our young people to 
study math and science.
  And we have a lot of jobs available, even in metro Detroit in 
manufacturing and technology. We just need the people trained in those 
areas. This effort, this funding will help encourage many of our young 
people to enjoy the intellectual stimulation of math and science, and 
then encourage them to go into careers that are not only fruitful for 
them, but will help our country's economy become more competitive in 
the global marketplace.
  Mr. WOLF. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman for his interest in and advocacy for 
STEM education. I share his belief that STEM education must be a 
national priority, and I think the more we invest in it, it is very 
important for this country so the 21st century is the American century 
and not the Chinese century. And I look forward to working with him on 
this issue as we move forward.
  Mr. CLARKE of Michigan. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Westmoreland) having assumed the chair, Mr. Price of Georgia, 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. 5326) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and 
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution 
thereon.

                          ____________________